The previous discussion led to several points that I’d like to take up in like to take up in more detail. For the sake of discussion, I’ll number them for ease of consideration.
1. Typological “evidences” for Mary as perpetual virgin, queen of heaven, etc. 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.
When I was in grammar school in the 1950s, I attended a Roman Catholic school. The sisters taught the Catholic kids that Jesus’ brothers were really cousins. One sister told us that they were Jesus’ half-brothers, because Joseph had had an earlier marriage. She, at least, seemed to know that if they had been cousins, the word for cousin would have been used. So, they had to be real brothers and sisters of Jesus, but not children of Mary. That, of course, was impossible. All this was taught with full and total assurance.
When one reads discussions of Marian doctrine, one never sees any discussion of the Biblical evidence, except to try and discount it by twisting the grammar. No, the doctrines are assumed, and then the Bible is plundered to find allegorical evidence for it. I have read enough Eastern and Roman theology to feel quite confident about this. The actual Biblical data is pretty clear. Nowhere is Mary venerated. She does not appear in the Bible after Pentecost, which means her entire historical role is located in the Old Covenant as the last Eve who bore the last Abel, as the last ‘Adamah who bore the last Adam.
She surely was dead by the time the latest epistles were written, but nothing in them indicates any veneration of her or anything about her dormition or assumption. Forcing Mary into Revelation 12 or into the book of Esther, or whatever, is just that: forcing. The assumption is made, based on tradition and upbringing, that X, Y, and Z are true about Mary. Only then do parts of the Bible “reveal” those truths. And these “revelations” obscure the actual meaning of the text. The woman in Revelation 12 is the Old Covenant church. Esther is a type of Christ.
Of course, if one accepts the Roman doctrine of Tradition (capital tee), as a separate course of revelation next to the Bible, then things change. It still is an issue how to understand Esther and Revelation 12, of course, but the Marian notions can be preserved. But, here at BT, we are not among those who accept that notion of Tradition.
2. This leads me to my second consideration, which is the influence of timeless and gnostic thinking on theology. Heaven knows, there is plenty of that influence in Lutheran and Calvinistic thought. (I have spent most of my career attacking such things in Calvinistic thinking.) Here, however, we are considered with the Marian notions.
What the Bible shows is the importance of Mary as mother of the Chief Heir of the Old Covenant. Her firstborn son was born under the Law. Her greatness is in her willing acceptance of this role, even though it meant virtually everyone she knew would regard her as a loose woman. And indeed, a sword would pierce her heart. But in all of this she is NOT a symbol of being a mother of the New Covenant church. Actually, the Mary who met Jesus in the garden immediately after His glorification was Mary Magdalene, so if there is a NEW Eve, it is she. Much more importantly, the Spirit who paracletically came from Jesus’ side is the new Eve, and Mother of the Church.
Mary had a role in covenant history, and her role ended when Jesus gave her into the house of His disciple John. It was a great role, but that was the end of it.
3. I’d like to suggest how some of these doctrines come about. This is somewhat speculative, of course, and at age 60 (Korean years) I’m not about to write a dissertation and spend five years looking into all this. But just consider.
3a. Theotokos. A friendly interlocutor referred to Mary as theotokos in the present, but then when challenged realized that this is not quite accorate. Theo-tokos means “God-bearer.” It means that the baby on Mary’s womb was God incarnate, the second person of the Trinity. (Note: It does not mean “mother of God,” and that phrase is much more problematic because of its slippery ambiguity.) But of course, Mary stopped being theotokos the moment Jesus was born. He was no longer in her womb, and she was no longer carrying Him. She WAS theotokos, but she IS no longer theotokos.
If, however, theologians and uneducated monks (especially the latter in late antiquity) go around calling Mary “theotokos,” then it gets into the air that she still IS theotokos. Icons are made with the baby Jesus blessing the world from Mary’s lap. She is his environment, always.
Now, a better construction on such ikons can be that the woman is the Church, which carries Jesus with her into the world. Yes, that’s true, but it’s also true that Jesus is in heaven and not living “inside” the Church. It’s much more important that the Church is inside of Him!
3b. More important is the phrase, “the virgin Mary.” The ecclesiastical Creed nicely says, “came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, and was made man.” Here it is clear that Jesus’ conception and birth were of the virgin Mary. The so-called Apostles’ Creed, often used but unofficial in the early church, simply says, “born of the virgin Mary.” This might suggest (in context it does not) that “the virgin Mary” was some kind of name, like “Pontius Pilate.” One might begin to think that “the virgin Mary” was always a virgin.
Now, the Apostle’s Creed does not SAY that Mary was always a virgin, but again, consider ignorant and illiterate monks whose theology is little more than the list of things in the creeds, and who are given to all kinds of superstitions anyway (and for that matter are happy to form gangs and murder people like Hypatia). Is it hard to understand that “the virgin Mary” becomes an idea, a slogan, something timeless? — especially in the gnostic and philosophized context of the ancient world, where all truths are timeless.
Again, does your Protestant hymnal say “virgin Mary” or “Virgin Mary”? If the latter, why the capital vee? (If so, get rid of it. And for that matter, let the Latin guide you and say, “born of a virgin, Mary”.)
To return, once “the virgin Mary” becomes an idea divorced from history, then it becomes an important theological datum. It fits in nicely with several factors in the early Church:
a. the context of timeless philosophical thinking, regarded by too many theologians and apologists as important.
b. the influence of ignorant monks and Buddhist-like “holy men” like Anthony.
c. the increasing celibacy of much of the clergy, cut off from real life. Along these lines consider the crackpot opinions of Jerome, which you can read about in the wikipedia article on him. It is no surprise that Jerome condemned Helvidius, Tertullian, and Victorinus for believing that Mary had a real marriage with Joseph. We admire Jerome for some things, but we cannot admire his vicious asceticism any more than the people of his own day did.
d. and, perhaps most importantly, the growing fear of music (too emotional), food (too tempting), and sex (way too tempting) in the later early church. The rejection of music, wine, and woman is characteristic of Islam, and Islam just brings to perfection these three trends emerging from late antiquity. Augustine hold that sex within marriage is always sinful, partakes of “concupiscence,” and is justified only to make children. Basil says that sex is a result of the fall, and that if Adam had not sinned, we would reproduce by division.
Given this context, it is hardly a surprise that after a couple of centuries “the virgin Mary” became an important theological matter.
4. Once these completely unBiblical notions gain currency, they begin to play havoc with orthodox teachings. For instance, in order for Mary to be a virgin always, her hymen must not have been broken when Jesus was born. He just passed through it, as He passed through doors after His resurrection. Now, notice two things:
4a. This confuses the pre-resurrection Adamic body of Jesus and the post-resurrection body of Jesus. Here again we see an example of timeless gnostic thinking.
4b. And no matter how many times this may be denied, this foolish notion means that Jesus did not experience a birth. It is a denial of the virgin birth, because it was not a natural birth at all. Please note, that the Bible never says that Mary was a virgin while Jesus was being born. The doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus only means that no man had slept with her before Jesus was born. The “hymen intacta” notion is a docetic move that implies Jesus did not have a real human body. He was NOT like us in all ways, though without sin. He, unlike us, could pass through the birth canal and cause no ripping of any sort.
Interestingly, the miracle-teleportation-without-rupture myth is present in Buddhism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28mother_of_Buddha%29#The_birth_of_the_Buddha-to-be
Queen Māyā and King Suddhodhana did not have children for twenty years into their marriage. One day however, according to legend, Queen Māyā dreamt of a divine Bodhisattva on white elephant touching her side, and became pregnant. According to Buddhist tradition, the Buddha-to-be was residing as a Bodhisattva, in the Tuṣita heaven, and decided to take the shape of a white elephant to be reborn, for the last time, on Earth. Māyā gave birth to Siddharta c. 563 BCE. The pregnancy lasted ten lunar months. Following custom, the Queen returned to her own home for the birth. On the way, she stepped down from her palanquin to have a walk under the ashoka trees in the beautiful flower garden of Lumbini Park, Lumbini Zone, Nepal. She was delighted by the park and she reached for an ashoka branch to take a rest. Again according to legend, at this time Prince Siddhārtha emerged from her right side and was born.
Jim,
I fully support your position — I think BMEV is foolishness with no support in the text of Scripture, and very pernicious in its application in the life of many deceived Roman Catholics — but I think you should amend one of your arguments above.
“Theotokos” comes from “tikto”. It thus does not mean “God-bearer” in the sense of “carrying around”, but in the sense of “giving birth to a child,” so that that child is “born.” That is, it refers to parturition, not gestation. (It is not “phero”, the verb “to bear [a load]”.)
Mary may thus properly said to be theotokos even now because she once gave birth to the Son.
Of course, you are correct about the perniciousness of making Mary “Jesus’ environment, always.”
Thanks, and carry on.
Thanks, Matt. So, “God-birther” might be better?
Right. It would avoid the ambiguity in the English word “bear”.
Mr. Jordan,
I was going to say, “bearer” need not be restricted the past. My wife was and is the “birther” of my children.
Jordan, I think you’re Judaizing on this point. The arguments that you can make against typology (e.g. Mary’s relation to Esther or Psalm 45) could be made about any of the Apostolic interpretations concerning Christ, the Apostles, or the Church. In Romans 10, Paul refers to the stars in Psalms as a type of the Apostles proclaiming throughout the earth.
You’re new hermeneutic against Mary is inconsistent with everything that you’ve ever written about typology. If you don’t allow types to be drawn for her, then you can do it with Christ, the Church, or the Apostles…
Godspeed,
Taylor
PS: The 5th Ecumenical Council declared Mary as “Even-Virgin.” If you deny that council, then you’re under the ban…
Taylor,
We’ve already had this argument about typology here:
And in the previous posts on that blog.
Bryan Cross did his best. But there is no biblical typology that supports the legend of Mary’s perpetual virginity, the myth of her sinless conception, the lie about her sinless life, or the Book-of-Mormon-style story of her bodily assumption. There are no biblical texts that even suggest these Roman fabrications. And every attempt at finding typological support is pathetic.
Jeff,
I can imagine a contemporary Jewish Rabbi making the same claims that you make:
“There are no types whatsoever in the Hebrew Scriptures saying that the Messiah would be divine, would die, would rise on the third day, would ascend into Heaven, would establish baptism as a ‘sacrament’ or be homoousian with the Father. You’re making all this up and imposing your ‘theology’ on our Scriptures.”
That’s the exact argument that you’re making – except your saying it with regard to the Theotokos.
It’s a form of Judaizing and it is anti-Incarnational. BH only allows typology where they feel comfortable with it. When the Fathers are unanimous on Marian beliefs, you pull out your dusty Antiochian hermeneutic and chop it all off.
You’re being a tad inconsistent here and anyone who knows BH can see it.
in Christ,
Taylor
Give me a break, Taylor. We are being quite consistent. BH only allows typology that has biblical support, where we can connect the dots in the text of Scripture.
We know about all these types of Jesus that you mentioned because we have explicit textual support for all of it.
There is NOTHING in the text of Scripture about Mary’s sinless conception, sinless life, perpetual virginity, bodily assumption in to heaven, etc. Nothing. Unless you care to enlighten me about something I’m missing.
You mentioned Mary as Theotokos. We all affirm that. New Eve? Fine. There are all sorts of connections to Mary in the OT. No problem.
But what there are absolutely no biblical connections to are Rome’s gratuitous claims about her immaculate conception, her life of sinless perfection, her never having normal marital relations with her legal husband, and her ascending into heaven bodily like some goddess.
I’m all ears, Taylor. Where is the biblical support for these assertions about Mary, typological or otherwise? Let’s talk Bible here, Taylor. Lay it out for us.
You’ve made some pretty big claims here. Now support them. YOU are the one that is claiming biblical typology to support these notions. I say the text is silent. The burden of proof is on you. Connect the dots for me. I’m waiting.
Jesus says in Luke 24 that all the Scriptures are about HIM. For instance, Esther is a type of Jesus, not Mary. The Ark that journeyed in 1 Samuel is Jesus, not Mary. Mary, like Levites, bore the Ark, but Jesus is Ark. Etc.
Psalm 45 is about the king’s bride, in larger compass Daughter Zion/Jerusalem. It’s not about the king’s mother, unless you have some really perverted theology going.
Mary is not the New Eve, but the Last Old Eve — and we might say the greatest. The New Eve is Mary Magdalene in John 20.
Mr. Meyers,
Rev 11:19-12:5 is as clear as it gets – The mother of the Messiah is the Ark of of the New Covenant.
She contains not the tablets of stone, but the Word made Flesh.
Saint Athanasius (d. 373) described Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. This is the undisputed Tradition of the Holy Church of Christ. Athanasius contra Meyers.
Mr. Jordan,
You write:
“Jesus says in Luke 24 that all the Scriptures are about HIM.”
Then you ought to correct Saint Paul for writing in Romans 10 that the stars represent the Apostles. Here we have an OT type referring to those associated with Christ and not to Christ per se. According to your hermeneutic, Paul should have instead written that the stars were Christ. Again, your scope of typology is way too limited…unbiblical.
in Christ,
Taylor
Taylor,
Rev. 11:19-12:5 is “as clear as it gets”? Are you sure you want to say this?
I think you are wrong about the details of this passage. But let’s just assume for a moment that you are right. As you say, “the mother of the Messiah is the Ark of the New Covenant. She contains not the tablets of stone but the Word made Flesh.” Okay. Fine. Let’s just go with that.
This is your “as clear as it gets” passage. And how does this prove or even support the perpetual virginity of Mary? Her sinless conception and life? Her bodily assumption into heaven?
Just where is that symbolized or implied?
Even if we grant that Mary was the Ark, the presence of Yahweh was NOT INSIDE the Ark. He dwelt above, enthroned on the Cherubim.
But let’s just grant for a moment that your characterization is correct. Mary is the New Covenant Ark. Connect the dots, Taylor. How does this imply the perpetual virginity of Mary AFTER the Word made flesh was born of her? Is she the Ark all her life even when the incarnate Son has left her womb?
Even granting your typology here, Mary did not remain the Ark of the New Covenant. Jesus came out of her. Jesus didn’t dwell in her all her life.
So where do you get perpetual virginity from the details of Rev. 11-12? Let the readers of this blog take out their Bibles and read Rev. 11:19-12:5 themselves.
So this is what you offer? This is “as clear as it gets”? This is the biblical support for the claim that Mary was conceived without sin, lived her life without ever sinning, never had normal sexual relations with her husband Joseph, and bodily ascended into heaven? Some vague connection with the old Ark of the Covenant?
That’s pathetic.
I’ll tag Jim to show how identifying Mary with the Ark from this passage is untenable.
That is utterly moronic. Sorry, but anyone who thinks that about Rev.11-12 needs to go back to junior high and start over. The opening of the Temple associates with the tearing of the veil. The Ark in heaven is Jesus. The woman is Daughter Jerusalem. Mary did not flee Jerusalem after Acts 8, but the Jewish church did.
You guys just run through the Bible and any time you see anything you can force onto Mary, you do so. It’s pathetic. Do you really think Mary appreciates this?
Romans 10 the stars represent apostles? Verse 18? That’s speaking of long before any apostles were around.
If Athanasius said this, and he probably did, he was dead wrong. But then, the Church Babies were wrong about a lot of things.
We’ve grown up a lot since then.
If Mary had been the Ark, she’d’ve had to be completely covered up so no one could look at her, lest they die. Also, anybody who touched her would die.
But of course, she was not. Just as the Levites, who were not consecrated holy, carried the holy Ark, so did Mary. It was a high calling.
Don’t pervert it.
Mr. Meyers,
Types are simply types. They are not exhaustive in their meaning and they don’t fully account for every detail. You can stretch them until they break – I grant that.
To revisit Paul’s use of typology in Romans 10, it is clear that the Apostles are not still going out into all the world and they that are no longer preaching. Moreover, the stars existed from creation and the Apostles did not. I could go on and on. These petty objections do not destroy the type that Paul employs in Romans, nor do they destroy the biblical type of Mary as Ark of the New Covenant.
I could also take the “two mountains” allegory of Paul and do what you’ve done. I could question it to death until it looks ridiculous – but it still doesn’t make the problem go away for you. There are types for people relative to Christ who are not Christ (Mary, Apostles, John the Baptist, yes even Mary Magdalene). I’m really surprised that you’re holding a strong line on this, because it makes you speak in a way contrary to Scripture.
I’m not the smartest guy on earth, and I’ll grant that JBJ is brilliant. However, if St Athanasius, the Doctors of the Church, the historic liturgies and prayers of the Eastern AND Western Church, Ambrose, Peter Chrysologus, John Damascene, Bernard, Thomas Aquinas, Ecumenical Councils, and the Popes say that Mary IS the Ark of the Covenant, then why should I trust your personal interpretation of Scripture instead of theirs?
in Christ,
Taylor
PS: Mary was assumed into Heaven by her Son. She did not ascend into Heaven like a goddess. See Psalm 132:8 – “Arise, O LORD, and go to thy resting place,
thou and the ark of thy might.”
In this Psalm, the Holy Spirit describes the Lord Christ as different from the “ark” – thus refuting JBJ’s argument that Christ is the Ark of the New Covenant. The meaning of this passage is that both Christ and Mary are already enthroned in Heaven as a sign that David’s Kingdom has been eschatologically inaugurated.
Far from being established by typology, Mary’s alleged perpetual virginity must be rejected ESPECIALLY on typological grounds! For Christ’s marriage to the Church is as sexy as the Song of Solomon, and bears no similarity whatsoever to this Romish idea of Joseph not touching Mary’s spotless virginity with a ten-foot pole. What sort of marriage would that be? Not Christ’s with the church, that’s for sure.
I think I’ve seen Mark Horne make this point before. It would have been ungodly for Mary to refuse Joseph, or for Joseph to avoid sex with Mary. That’s not a marriage. It’s marital docetism. (I speak about sexually capable married couples, with no aspersions cast on the incapable.)
Mary and Joseph were married, right? Well, Paul says that marriage is always a reflection of Christ and the Church. What would a celibate Mary and Joseph be teaching us about Christ and the Church? Nothing Biblical, that’s for sure. The church is fruitful, and Christ gives her His body, just as she surrenders her members to Him. And what is this ecstatic, fruitful, joyful mutual self-giving of Christ and the church reflected in? Sex. Not celibacy.
We only get the full Marian typology if we understand her as first virgin and then wife. After all, that’s what the church is. Otherwise there is no consummation, and the marriage feast is a sham.
Go home and make love to your wives, gentlemen. And when you’re done, say a little prayer thanking God for the gift of sex, and be reminded of what a good thing it is that Christ’s relation to the Church is NOT imaged by a celibate Joseph and a perpetually virgin Mary.
My goodness but you people are obsessed with sex. As has been stated again and again, the Catholic Church is totally comfortable with sex, blood, dirt and all the other things we’re constantly being accused of being afraid of.
Furthermore, JPII’s Theology of the Body is perhaps the deepest exploration of Christian sexuality that’s every been done and it would be unimaginable outside of the context of the rest of Catholic teaching.
That said, Mary’s marriage to Joseph is most certainly an anomaly in the history of marriages. Nobody is arguing that we ought to emulate their celibacy in our marriages. But why is it so unthinkable for you gentlemen that there could be a marriage in the course of history that falls outside of the norm?
One part of Catholic teaching that hasn’t entered into this discussion yet is the idea that Mary was betrothed to the Holy Spirit. Her union with the Holy Spirit is a significant part of the reason why it would not have been right for her and Joseph to have sex. She belonged to God, Joseph’s role was that of protector and provider for her and her Son.
I can already hear the indignation revving up, so I’ll close with this: Paul and Jesus both speak VERY highly of the celibate life, from the earliest times Bishops who were married before they became Bishops dedicated themselves to living with their wives as brother and sister from then on, the Church has always and everywhere held celibate dedication to God in the highest esteem. Until the Reformation and even after that the vast majority of Christians in the world retain the Church’s unbroken teaching on celibacy’s value. So, as Taylor asked above, on what grounds do we take your opinion instead of the testimony of the whole Church over the course of millennia?
Ps. 132:8? Where does this nonsense get dreamed up. There is NOTHING in the Bible that even HINTS that the virgin Mary was a form of the Ark of the covenant. Dream on. This is Jehovah’s Witness style exegesis. You think David was thinking about some woman when he wrote Psalm 132:8? Don’t you understand typology? There has to be a real homological connection.
“You and the Ark” means “You, indeed the Ark” or any number of other ways to translate it. Or to paraphase: You and your Chariot. NOBODY thought the Chariot was Mary. If anything, the Shekinah Chariot is the Spirit.
As we’ve said before: If Mary were an Ark, she’d be holy. Unseeable. Untouchable. If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand holiness. I’m not surprised that many Church Babies did not understand graded positional holiness, and came up with snap associations that they would have seen are impossible had they thought about it. The few things they wrote on Leviticus show an almost total ignorance of the matter. Big deal. Their job was to deal with the doctrine of God, from the NT, and they did it.
And please, we are not stupid and nobody reading this blog is stupid enough to think that the Church has ALWAYS taught the special value of celibacy, “from the earliest times,” etc. It’s not going to fly here. We know that Peter was married. We know that the early bishops and patriarchs were married. We know this nonsense came in later on. From wikipedia on celibacy:
It is undisputed that the earliest Christian leaders were very largely married men. The mention in Mark 1:30 of Saint Peter’s mother-in-law indicates that he had married. In 1 Corinthians 7:8 Paul the Apostle indicates that he was unmarried: either single or a widower.[5] In 1 Corinthians 9:5 he contrasts his situation with that of the other apostles who were accompanied by believing wives. Martin Luther held that the “loyal yokefellow” of Philippians 4:3 was Paul’s wife,[6] an idea already found in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History Book III, Chapter 30, which says Paul did not take his wife about with him “that he might not be inconvenienced in his ministry”.
The Didascalia Apostolorum, written in Greek in the first half of the third century,[16] mentions the requirements of chastity on the part of both the bishop and his wife, and of the children being already brought up, when it quotes 1 Timothy 3:2–4 as requiring that, before someone is ordained a bishop, enquiry be made “whether he be chaste, and whether his wife also be a believer and chaste; and whether he has brought up his children in the fear of God”.[17]
There is record of a number of third-century married bishops in good standing, even in the West. They included: Passivus, bishop of Fermo; Cassius, bishop of Narni; Aetherius, bishop of Vienne; Aquilinus, bishop of Évreux; Faron, bishop of Meaux; Magnus, bishop of Avignon. Filibaud, bishop of Aire-sur-l’Adour, was the father of St. Philibert de Jumièges, and Sigilaicus, bishop of Tours, was the father of St. Cyran of Brenne.[18]
EOQ
So please, starting up about the same time as other anti-sexual prejudices, from Jerome and Ambrose, yes. But not before.
Uh, Mary was not betrothed to the Holy Spirit. Chapter and verse, please. I’ll let you in on a secret: Mary was betrothed to Joseph. The Holy Spirit says that they entered into normal marriage after her purification (from positional sin and death), and had children. So, your dreamed up theology is impossible and offensive to God.
The fact that modern RC thinkers are not grossed out by sex says nothing about the origins of these superstitions. The origins are clear from the way the early Church Babies wrote about them. The origins are also clear in the practice of “consecrated virgins” in the pagan religions in their milieux, a notion totally foreign to the Bible, to Jesus, and to Paul, as has been shown enough times on the Auburn Avenue discussion.
We ain’t the ones obsessed about sex, buddy. We say Joseph and Mary had a normal life and lots of kids, and Jesus had brothers and sisters to grow up with. It’s your tradition that’s got some kind of hangup with Mary having sex with Joseph. You should drop all this and return to the Word of God and the early Church.
James,
I find it quite amusing that you keep refering to the Fathers as Church babies and yet some of the men who publish on this site have had works published by Athanasius press!!! A publishing house named for a Church Baby.
It might help to read 2nd Samuel 6 and Luke 1 side by side. If Luke did not want to make allusions to the Ark and Mary he sure made it appear as he did. And what of Elizabeth exclaiming “who am I that the Mother (the emphasis is on the Mother) of my Lord should come to me” and at the sound of Mary’s voice the baby leapt in the womb of Elizabeth. How beautiful is that! The herald of the Messiah, John, receives the herald from the voice of Mary. The one who was to proclaim the way of the Lord and introduce Israel to her Messiah is first introduced to the Messiah from the voice of the Mother. Where exegetically is this off base?
What are you talking about? Are you not following these debates? Where did you get the idea that any of us would have any problem with what you have said in your last three sentences. But what does any of that have to do with the Ark?
And more germane to this entire debate is: how in the world does any of that give legitimacy to the fabricated legend of Mary’s sinless birth, her disobedience to her marital vows in refusing to give her body to Joseph after the birth of Jesus, the crackpot claim that she lived a sinless life, or the fantasy that she was bodily transported into heaven at the end of her life?
You are amused that we can honor the early church pastors and theologians without venerating them as infallible guides? Yeah, that’s really funny. So stupid of us, isn’t it? We are complete jackasses for having such an attitude.
Feels hot in here.
Wasn’t Jephthah’s daughter a perpetual virgin so that there might be some possible link there? But no, really, the fact that Mary had to atone for her days of impurity means something: she was unclean. Forget all about the sex (@%^&*, I’m thinking about sex, now. Such a male!), isn’t this the clincher? What de-explanation can be given for this?
Still thinking about the “s” word…let us pray.
Mr. Jordan,
You write:
“NOBODY thought the Chariot was Mary.”
Actually, the liturgical tradition (of the East and West) identifies Mary as the chariot of God, calling her “Ark of the New Covenant” and “Seat of Wisdom.” This goes identification back to Saint Athanasius, and even further back to Saint Luke and Saint John. Shoot even Gregory of Nyssa (d. 394, likely a married bishop!) identified the burning bush as a type of the Virgin Mary – the unconsumed nature of the bush is like Mary’s unconsumed virginity in bearing the voice of God – the Incarnate Christ.
You refer us to the “Auburn Ave. discussions,” yet you defy the words of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II in 553), which twice refer to Mary as “Ever-Virgin.”
Again, why should I trust BH scholars and Auburn Ave discussions and not the Ecumenical Councils of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of our Lord Jesus Christ?
An ecumenical council of the world’s bishops in A.D. 553 said Mary was Ever-Virgin and that settles it.
Can you give us a good reason why we should submit to the opinions of “teaching elders” who were ordained in the Association of Reformed Clergy or in a Protestant denomination that is younger than I am?
Taylor,
We been over this already. Even if we grant your biblical types of Mary, how do these lead to the claim that she was forever a virgin? Connect the dots. It’s not enough to assert that “the unconsumed bush is like Mary’s unconsumed virginity.” Setting aside the validity of this identification, even if we grant the connection, the question remains: just how does this prove or imply the perpetual virginity of Mary? That she was an “unconsumed virgin” when she bore Jesus is affirmed by us. What are the reasons for thinking that this “unconsumed bush” typology extends to all of her life? And how does such a conception arise from the type? Those are the questions that you guys cannot seem to answer.
And if it doesn’t arise from a consideration of the type itself, then where does it come from? Where in the Word of God does such a notion come from? That’s the question we are not getting an answer to.
Instead, we get a 6th-century council’s words. But everyone should know that the second council of Constantinople did not actually deliberate the topic of Mary’s ever virgin status. At issue was the disputed “Three Chapters” and the question of the Person and natures of Christ. The two anathemas that mention Mary do so in order to affirm that she was Theotokos and not just the mother of the human Messiah. So in sections 2 and 6 what is anathematized is those who deny that Mary gave birth to God the Son incarnate. The designation “always a virgin” is part of the text, but it is not the issue addressed. The council doesn’t damn people that don’t believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, but people who deny that she gave birth to the Son of God in the flesh.
Of course, you will say that this is still proof that the perpetual virginity of Mary was accepted at this time. Yes, it was. This is the middle of the 6th century. Lots of people held erroneous views about side issues at this time. This is an example of that. Subsequent reflection on this topic has led large parts of the church to believe that there is no biblical grounding for these gratuitous, extra-biblical claims.
Just where does the claim that she was perpetually a virgin come from? If not from the text of Scripture, from what source? Why must this extra-biblical claim be such an important article of faith for Rome?
Oh, I forgot. Taylor: we’re not asking you to submit to us. The Word of God is authoritative. Submit to the Word. That’s what Jesus asked the leaders of Israel to do. That’s what all the Apostles demanded of the churches. Don’t go beyond what is written.
Hello everyone!
As I was browsing this discussion, I was surprised to find that this “place” – Biblical Horizons – that has done so much in the field of typology cannot recognize the obvious biblical typologic association between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant. I am not Catholic myself but I cannot resist what Scripture is teaching in the opening chapter of Luke. I wrote elsewhere:
There are 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 it is being said 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.
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.
Please note that I’m not discussing the validity of things such as perpetual virginity and all that; these sit outside the scope of my comment. What I mean is that it seems that the members of this ministry seemingly fail to detect the extremely strong and relatively simple typological testimony of the very Word of God that correlates Mary and the Ark despite their developed ability of discerning complex typological patterns elsewhere in Scripture.
I pray that we can be open to the beautiful testimony of Scripture in Luke 1 and delight in this amazing teaching straight from God’s Word.
In Christ the Word,
Victor
Cruciformcatholic:
Maybe you have not read all the discussions. Nobody has a problem with Mary’s journey paralleling that of the Ark. But Mary is NOT the Ark, she is the “levite” carrying the Ark.
Look, tradition or no, the Ark and what it houses represents the creation. It is made of wood, and what is inside is True Israel. God is enthroned atop the cherubim lid, which is a completely separate item of furniture made of pure gold. True, by metonymy, both items are referred to as the Ark of the Covenant, but there are still two items.
If Jesus is what is inside the Ark-box, and Mary is the Ark, then MARY WAS ONLY CARRYING THE HUMANITY OF JESUS. Where I grew up, this was called Nestorianism and is a heresy.
We affirm that Mary carried the God-man, both pieces of the Ark. She was not the Ark. She carried the Ark.
John leapt at perceiving the Ark, which is clearly identified as the baby in Mary’s womb, not Mary herself. Read it for yourself. Elizabeth says that Jesus is the Ark.
This ain’t hard.
Kapeesh?
Taylor Marshall,
It’s fascinating how you bring up one completely goofy and idiotic “type” after another here. Gregory of Nyssa? Give me a break.
But I want to thank you. Numerous people reading these discussions have been able to see just how utterly devoid of Biblical foundation and of common sense these positions are.
I dare say, few educated Roman theologians would be actively defending this rubbish today.
James,
You wrote:
I don’t see that. Where are you getting that?
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
To the burning bush type.
Is that bush still burning somewhere in the Middle East?
Or was it that whenever Yahweh’s glory presence left the bush, it ceased to burn?
Tim,
You horrid unbelieving man! Didn’t you know it was removed to the Vatican for storage after residing at the shrine of St. Sparangus for 700 years in 1569.
James,
David: “How can the Ark of the Lord come to me?”
Elizabeth: “Who am I that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?”
Jeff,
I stand by what I said: calling the Church Fathers “Church Babies” is being used, it seems to me, as a put-down, not a compliment. If you’re fine with that, then there is nothing I can say.
You say even if Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant how does that prove the perpetual virginity or her sinlessness. I answer this way: as you know types work from the lesser to the greater. If under the Old Covenant, the type was pure and holy, without any stain, then it is reasonable to say that the reality, the true Ark, Mary, is pure and holy. The same is true of those who argue for infant baptism. We have no explicit verse to point to that says parents are to baptize their babies. Again, the Catholic case does not rest on the exegesis of such and such a verse. The simple fact is we trust Christ who promised that His Church would be guided into all truth by the power of the Holy Spirit. As Taylor has pointed out an ecumenical council of the Church has already defined this teaching for us and we have confidence in Christ that He is with His Church and we can trust her.
Bryan, it’s in the Epithamalion of St. Peter. ;-)
In the Bible, John leaped when he heard the voice of the mother of the Messiah — who was God and man, hence not just the stuff in the Ark box, but the whole Ark.
Cruciformcatholic (whoever you are; why don’t you guys identify yourselves?),
So this is your argument? The Ark is a type of Mary. And the type was pure and holy? So from the lesser to the greater, since Mary was the fulfillment of the Ark, the true Ark, she must also be pure and holy. Are you missing a link here? Surely you are.
I myself maintain that Mary was pure and holy, too. That’s because I’m not thinking of “pure and holy” using pagan categories. Herein lies the huge problem. You defenders of Rome define “pure and holy” in unbiblical ways. So you believe Mary would have been impure and defiled had she been intimate with her husband after the birth of Jesus. But we maintain that she would have been unholy and sinful had she refused her body to the rightful owner of it—Joseph. We maintain that she was so very pure, holy, undefiled, spotless, and faithful, that once she gave birth to the Messiah she immediately fulfilled her vows before the Lord and gave herself to her loving husband.
And enough with the infant baptism argument. Infants were explicitly included in the covenant community in the old age. They are in the new age, too. We don’t invent some fanciful argument from some obscure type to say that infants are to be baptized in the new age. Infants were always included in the covenant community before Christ. Not merely in a type, but in reality. You defenders of Rome’s fanciful idolatries have to go searching for strange typologies because there is not a shred of straight-forward biblical evidence for the perpetual virginity of Mary. Nothing. And nothing also for your Mormonesque mythology about her sinless birth, sinless life, and bodily ascension into heaven.
And I already pointed out that the second council of Constantinople did not explicitly deal with the perpetual virginity of Mary. Read the thing. No one is damned in that council’s anathemas for not believing that Mary remained a virgin all her life. That wasn’t on the table. By that time much of the church had already accepted the legend, so Mary is designated as such in the course of 2 paragraphs. Which is why the church needed a Reformation, indeed reformations.
I affirm that Jesus is always with his church. So much so that Jesus often rebukes her and corrects her for errors (Rev. 2-7). This is what Rome cannot abide. That she might ever be wrong about anything. She demands implicit faith in her assertions on pain of damnation as if she has the authority of Jesus himself. Just like the Pharisees. Just like the chief priests and scribes and lawyers in Israel at the time of Jesus. So confident that you are right about all your oral law legends and myths. You don’t need support from the Bible. You have the secret tradition of the Apostles.
Jesus says, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to hold to the tradition of men” (Mark 7).
Oh, I apologize. I am Tom
Jeff,
I think it is probably best for me to excuse myself from the dialogue. We can go round and round and get nowhere, which, from where I sit, is what is happening. I have confidence in the truth to win and if I believe the Church proposes the truth, and I do, then if anyone is open to the truth, they will find the fullness of the truth in the one Church established by Christ.
In Christ,
Tom
[…] don’t always commend J. Jordan, but here goes. This is actually pretty good. He outlines why I look with suspicion on “typology […]