Is Mary the Ark of the New Covenant?

IS MARY THE ARK OF THE NEW COVENANT?

If you have interacted with Romanists about Marian veneration it is likely that you have encountered the argument that Mary is the ark of the new covenant. For a presentation of this doctrine see this article from Catholic Answers HERE.

Let us consider this argument and test it like good disciples are told to do. Firstly, if Mary is the ark then so be it. Let us accept it and be happy to conclude it. Even if she is the ark this in no way establishes the Marian dogmas that Rome has defined. But as I will seek to demonstrate, this notion that Mary is the ark is seriously problematic, has dangerous implications when pressing the typology, and is simply untenable.

The argument essentially states that because Christ is the Word made flesh (Word on tablets of stone), and he is the manna that came down from heaven (golden jar containing manna), and that he is the true priesthood (Aaron’s budded rod) and that being all these things while he was in the womb of Mary then this means that Mary is the ark of the new covenant. Again, Christ, being all these things, was inside the womb of Mary thus she is the ark of the new covenant. On the surface this might seem plausible and with the comparative text of 1 Sam. 6 as a prooftext along with an appeal to Revelation 12 it is understandable why a person committed to Marian veneration would seek to find such ‘typological’ arguments in Scripture. However, as stated above, even if we were to conclude Mary is a type of the ark of the new covenant the Marian dogmas held by Rome do not follow as a necessity. Upon honest examination of this claim I will demonstrate it is simply not the case that she is the ark.

THE HEAVENLY ARK

“For if he were on earth, he would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law: who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle.”

Hebrews 8:4

It is important that if you are to do typology you must be consistent with the imagery and related typology. We learn typology from the examples in Scripture and we should seek to apply the same kind of interpretation that the New Testament writers gave us as examples. Our goal in typology should be to use the same type of hermeneutics we find given throughout Scripture and that our typology must not contradict other revealed typologies nor can it contradict doctrines that are found in Scripture. One example of seeking to implement this discipline that I am fond of sharing, which I think is easy enough to see as being consistent with the typology given in the New Testament, is that if we apply the hermeneutics of Peter and Paul concerning baptismal types we can say with relative confidence that Moses was baptized at 3 months when he was placed in an ark and into water where others were to be sent to die while he was saved. Moses, after all, means 'drawn from water’. But what about Mary as the ark? Can we say with confidence she is the new covenant ark? I would argue that we cannot be consistent with the typology and it is in no way comparable to other revealed typologies in the New Testament.

In order for us to consider if Mary is or isn’t the ark we need to ask, what is the ark? Remember, for this argument to work we need to establish the typological parallel that as the ark was in the old covenant Mary is in the new covenant. The argument presented by Catholic Answers is correct to notice those things which pertain to Christ but it fails on Mary. It is important for the sake of consistency that if Mary is the ark she must be seen as the ark as much as or be compatible with how Christ is, for instance, the manna from heaven. The book of Hebrews tells us that the tabernacle was to be constructed exactly as God had instructed Moses because it was a copy of the heavenly reality. This heavenly reality is essentially explained as our new covenant reality. We know where the real manna was during the Israelite wandering for Christ told us he is the manna that came down from heaven. The manna in the wilderness pointed to a sustenance that is eternal. It is important to note that Christ is the living bread from heaven. He is the manna in the ark of the most holy place in heaven and from there he came down. His physical flesh was not in heaven as manna prior to his incarnation. We can say he was manna before coming to the earth in the person of Christ. As a comparison he is the Word and always has been but in the incarnation he uniquely became the Word that put on flesh. To restate, he is the Word, relating to the 10 words, that put on flesh. This also is important to note as it relates to the heavenly ark as he was the Word before His incarnation. We know as it pertains to Aaron’s budded staff that Christ is the true high priest because he is the eternal priest established in heaven after the order of Melchizedek. Yet, we can also say he became a priest during his incarnation. Notice how Christ was all these things prior to his incarnation but the uniqueness of his incarnation displays these truths. Beyond these specific items related to the inside of the ark we can say Christ is the true king because he rules from heaven over all things. This ruling of his we can associate with the seat on top of the ark which is called the mercy seat. These all work nicely with Christ. He is the Manna, the Rod, and the Word. Since Christ is and was these things before his incarnation we must ask where was the ark before Mary was born? Since the old covenant ark was a shadow of the true ark that was in heaven we must ask where was Mary when he was all these things prior to his incarnation? If she is the ark the same proofs we use for Jesus as rod, manna, and word would demand that Mary was in heaven before she became a person also. Remember, God is said to have been judging from his mercy seat during the old covenant age. While it is true he did this in the Holy of Holies in the earthly tabernacle we must remember the tabernacle, or later temples, was a shadow of what was actually going on in heaven. Think of Isaiah being taken into heaven and how the angel took a coal from the altar to cleanse his mouth. There was a real altar in heaven. So too a real ark was present in heaven during that time. Are we to conclude that Mary was present in heaven during the old covenant?

“Then indeed, even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service and the earthly sanctuary. For a tabernacle was prepared: the first part, in which was the lampstand, the table, and the showbread, which is called the sanctuary; and behind the second veil, the part of the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of All, which had the golden censer and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which were the golden pot that had the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant; and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat.”

Hebrews 9:2-5

Until this text and its derived truths are honestly dealt with, the idea of Mary as the ark will likely continue to make its rounds. The old covenant ark was a copy of the one in heaven. When was Mary this heavenly ark? It’s a simple question. She can't have become the heavenly ark during the incarnation for Christ himself was manna before his incarnation. If one wants to say, “No, she isn’t the heavenly ark but she was the ark on earth” then she is at best another shadow ark like the Mosaic ark and not the real heavenly ark. If this is the case that she was a new temporary earthly ark it helps nothing as Jeremiah 3:16-17 makes it clear that God intended for the ark to be no more sought after or remembered. As it pertains to the items of the heavenly ark we can understand Christ saying he is the manna that came from heaven. We can understand he is the true priest coming down from heaven. We can understand he is the heavenly word (10 commandments/10 words) coming down from heaven. But how, do tell, did the heavenly ark come down from heaven if Mary is the ark? We know Christ is the true tabernacle and this we also can say was not like the one that was made with human hands but it came down from heaven (Hebrews 9:11; John 1:14). 

Let us continue considering the items of the tabernacle to further the point. I would argue as an example that Christ is the bronze laver from which we are cleansed to gain access as priests into the holy place and the water we may say to be the Holy Spirit (Jn. 7:38, 39). In the holy place the candle stand is said to represent the churches on earth (Rev. 1:20). We also learn that the 12 loaves of showbread represented the 12 tribes. These two represented the life and light of God’s people. We see that the bowls of incense represent the prayers of the saints (Rev. 5:8). In this sense we can say that the earthly bodies are represented in heaven by these images. These items are in the holy place. Notice though, as I made a point to take note, that when we see those things in the most holy place there is no such earthly representation in the new covenant other than the person of Christ. Even the veil that separated the holy place from the most holy place is said to be Christ’s flesh (Heb. 10:20). If we are to say Mary represents the ark in heaven this is an anomaly and we could rightly ask where is the earthly representation of the cherubim or where is the earthly representation of the propitiatory/mercy seat? And what does this mean for Mary's relationship with God? Because the throne/mercy seat is on top of the ark would this mean that Mary upholds the throne of God's judgments in heaven?  As a necessity of maintaining typological hermeneutics used for the items that pertain to Christ in the most holy place we would have to conclude Mary always has upheld the mercy seat in the same way Christ has been the true manna and true priest and true word. We have to know if Mary has always been the ark being consistent here demands some grave theological conclusions. We should respect Mary better than this. We should do better to remain in the bounds of typology given to us with what has been revealed by the Apostles. Again, unless we are prepared to say that Mary has always been the true ark of heaven we cannot say she is the new covenant ark. Yet, because of this silly argument I’m sure the Mary-is-God-Catholic-Movement would gladly affirm she most certainly is and always has been the ark the same way Christ has always been the true priest or eternal Word. Is that movement still even a thing? 

THE MERCY SEAT

Let’s continue considering the ramifications of the relationship between the ark and the mercy seat if Mary is the ark. The mercy seat is where God judged over Israel. Again, there was a sense in which God was uniquely present over the ark in the tabernacle but this was to show how God was in heaven judging from his heavenly mercy seat. Remember, the mercy seat was on top of the ark as its lid. Are we so sure that Mary is the ark that we can say God makes all his judgements on Mary or in relation to Mary as upholding his judgments? Or can we say that God was sitting on Mary making his judgments? How does this work? Consider also that the mercy seat atop the ark was to have blood sprinkled on and before it on the day of atonement. What are the ramifications of this? Marian ark typology only works where one wants it to work while having to reject the majority of places where it leads us out of orthodoxy. This is not how we do typology with Christ. Typology is best done when simply comparing Scripture with Scripture since Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture.

MARY IS AN EMPTY ARK?

The comparative text of 1 Sam has its argument that would be better to see Mary acting as a priest if anything. Like the priests she carried the ark. I would wonder if we could press this and ask about other stories of the ark. What about when the Philistines captured the ark? Or when Uzzah died for touching the ark? How do these relate to Mary? But for sake of bearing this out let's assume she is the ark. Remember, if you want to say Mary is the ark because Christ is the manna then we need to be consistent with the image. Was she an empty ark before the incarnation? Is her mother then the Holy of Holies? Where does this stop? After the incarnation we would have to conclude Mary become an empty ark again. But when was it a purpose of the old covenant to empty the ark of its contents? We can't simply make a claim because "tradition" and when asked serious questions that make the whole idea completely fall apart to then return with "tradition" as a retort.

The earthly ark was placed in the most holy place and once a year blood was sprinkled on top of the mercy seat. Hebrews tells us this was done to testify that the blood of bulls and goats didn’t rid men from sin but only cleansed them outwardly. Christ comes and cleanses the inner man, the most inaccessible place of man, the conscience and heart of man. Rome is at least somewhat consistent here within their teaching of Mary as the ark as they do demand you believe their Marian dogmas or else you are anathema. Rome does make believing their Marian dogmas an issue of conscience. 

Jeremiah 3:16, 17 tells us the ark will not be remembered for Jerusalem will be God’s throne. This text is important to see the relationship of the ark and God's ruling. In the New Testament we know the heavenly Jerusalem is the new throne. The heavenly Jerusalem is the new temple, which is the bride, the bride is the body of Christ, the body of Christ is the new temple, in this new temple is the throne. You will notice that in Revelation 21 and 22 the heavenly Jerusalem is a perfect cube. This is not an accident. The holy of holies was also a perfect cube. Notice that there is no temple because the Lamb and God are its temple. The heavenly Jerusalem is the new most holy place and God and the Lamb are its temple. Because of this, Christ’s throne can be said to be the New Jerusalem. All this makes sense considering the passage in Jeremiah above. To assume Mary is this place of ruling is more than a lot to assume.

While we are speaking of thrones there is also an argument that because Solomon set up a seat for his mother it follows that Christ set up a seat for his mother in heaven. I have to think that where Christ said to allow anyone sitting at his right or left hand was not his to establish has left the mind of these people who put forth this argument (Matt. 20:23). On the other hand, no pun intended, if Mary is next to Jesus in heaven and is judging with other saints (see Rev. 20:4) none of us should have a problem with that but it simply doesn’t establish a title of ‘Queen of Heaven’ as we would simply be taking guesses at this point. Also, though we may want to make some similarities of the Solomonic kingdom to Christ’s since Christ is the true Prince of Peace we must remember Christ is Lord to David and sits on his throne.

REVELATION 12 THE WOMAN AND THE DRAGON

This passage is often cited as another proof of Mary being the ark because Revelation 11:19 mentions that the temple was opened in heaven and the ark of his covenant was seen in his temple. Then we see a great sign of the woman, child and the dragon. Because we know the child is Christ the argument seeks to say that because Mary gave birth to Christ she is therefore the woman in Revelation 12 and because the ark was seen before speaking of the woman then Mary is also the ark. Seems reasonable enough if you don’t actually read the passage. How is the woman described? She has 12 stars as garland on her head, the moon under her feet and she is clothed with the sun. Let us remember what Genesis 1 taught us about the sun, moon, and stars: they were given for signs and seasons. Where have we seen stars and sun and moon before? Yes, Joseph’s dream. The 11 stars represented the 11 brothers (Joseph would be the twelfth), the sun his father, the moon his mother. The twelve tribes of Israel are easy enough to understand as the twelve stars. It would be quite natural to understand the moon as Rachel and the sun as Jacob who is called Israel. These are representatives of the imagery as it relates to the people of Israel. We could consider that Matthew tells us the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy of Rachel weeping was when Herod ordered the killing of the male children of Israel 2 years old and under and this fits well here as the dragon is seeking to kill the male child. In total we can say the woman and her image represents the old covenant church, or body, of Israel from which came the Messiah. The child is indeed Christ for he is said to rule all nations with a rod of iron. If we allow the text to speak without filtering it through the lens of tradition it is easy to see this cannot be Mary explicitly though certainly she can be seen as a member of that old covenant church. After the woman gives birth it says her child was caught up to God and to his throne. This is synonymous with Daniel’s vision of the Son of Man who goes up to the ancient of days where he rules from his throne. This happened at Christ’s ascension when he went up to heaven to sit at the right hand of the father (Acts 2:33). This is another area where we have a problem if this is Mary. After Christ ascends it is said the woman goes into the wilderness for 1260 days which is a time, times and half a time (42 months total). I will not go into detail explaining all the imagery of the dragon as it isn’t necessary for this discussion but we see the dragon sending water from his mouth to devour the woman but he fails. Then we are told the dragon is furious with the woman’s offspring who are said to be those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. Are we really to believe that these believers are Mary’s offspring? Read that how you want. Would it not make more sense to say in agreement with the Apostle (see Gal. 4:26) that the Jerusalem above, the old covenant church, is the mother of us all? 

Another question is asked here: If the woman here is indeed Mary then when did Mary experience this 1260 day wilderness protection after Christ’s ascension? Remember, the persecution of the woman occurs after the Son is born and caught up to God and his throne. Israel itself did experience persecution from Rome for 42 months beginning in the spring of 67 AD until the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD which is after the ascension of Christ. Remember that all these are said to be signs in heaven. Consider how the woman was given two wings. When did Mary fly away into the wilderness after Christ’s ascension? We simply can’t be consistent to say that Mary is the woman of Revelation 12 as there is too much we cannot reconcile. The imagery better fits Israel as a whole from which Christ came. Those who posit that this is Mary do so in a pick and choose fashion that is intended to defend their views of Mary rather than an exposition of the text in comparison with other Scripture passages. The more we consider if Mary is the ark of the new covenant the more it becomes apparent this is an impossibility and Roman apologists need to retire this argument.

CHRIST AS THE ARK

Yes, you want consistent typology that works. Let us see how well it fits when we consider Christ as the ark. As it is written, “the Lord is in his holy temple, the Lord's throne is in heaven.” First, we must accept that Christ is seen as one and multiple related things when it comes to the heavenly reality of these old covenant images. This is easy enough for us to agree on and to accept. Christ is the Lamb, he is the Lion of the tribe of Judah, he is the vine, the root of David, he is Manna and the Rock from which water poured out, he is the ark of Noah, his flesh is the veil, and he is the door. We could go on but surely, we can see that Christ is spoken of as many things and especially when we talk of the sacrificial system he is many related things. Christ has told us that his body is the temple and we know that the body of Christ, the Church, is the temple. We also know that a believer’s body is itself a temple. This fractal pattern is no contradiction but offers that same imagery on different levels. Christ is the head in all these images of the body. But what does this have to do with Mary as the ark? Christ is the manna to be sure but he is also the temple. Since Christ is the temple does this mean that Mary is the heavenly Jerusalem wherein the temple resides? Since the true temple was in heaven we must conclude Mary has always been the heavenly Jerusalem where God resides. I think that brings the title of God-bearer to another level. Obviously, we cannot deal out these absurdities based upon such reasoning. Mary then would be the dwelling place of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as heaven itself. By this reasoning we would further have to conclude Mary is the new heavens and new earth prophesied in the old covenant. Because this would be heretical beyond any creedal dogmas to date it is easy to say this doesn’t work and nobody would reasonably argue this. We know Christ’s body is the tabernacle but where do we ever see that the tabernacle was tucked away inside the ark? After all, if Mary is the ark and Christ is the tabernacle then we should reasonably expect to see this in shadow form in the old covenant. But even if we do relegate what Christ represents in relation with Mary only as the ark and its contents then we still lead to heresy as we would be forced to conclude Mary had Christ residing in her in heaven before the incarnation. I say this because if we treat the ark like its contents which are all said to be from heaven then we must also say the ark is sent from heaven. To apply the same typology as it relates to Christ the Mary as the ark would have to be sent from heaven and not in some fantastical mysterious explaining away fashion but inasmuch as Christ was the Word, Priest, and Manna that was in heaven and came down from heaven. If Mary is the heavenly ark she too would have had to come down from heaven like the manna, rod, and word and had her own incarnation.

Since I brought up the questions about the ark as Mary in other passages such as the Philistine capture and the death of Uzzah I'll entertain the exercise for my defense. Not all stories of the tabernacle and its contents needs to have a 1 to 1 account of relating to Christ's life. The foundation of the imagery is in heaven after all. The earthly ark and tabernacle system were a shadow and any weakness they have is due to their design as a feature to point upward to the heavenly reality. Please note I am happy to concede the following to better interpretations as this is simply an off the cuff attempt but notice that the foundation as Christ as the ark is quite firm. Very simply, I could make a case that for the case of Uzzah we could look at the woman with the issue of blood who was healed. Christ is a better ark because he brings healing. Both arks had power coming from them but as the letter kills the Spirit gives life so Christ is a better ark. As for the Philistine capture perhaps we could say Christ was able cause all demons who encountered him to fall down before him. More importantly than such far reaching attempts a firm foundation is a better focus.

Continuing with the basics let's remember that atop the ark was the mercy seat and cherubim above it. It is much more consistent to understand that the heavenly mercy seat is the true place where God judges. Revelation 3-5 shows us the living creatures surrounding the throne and God makes his judgments from his seat. The Lamb comes to the right hand and assumes his rule in judging. In relation to this the Gospel tells us “For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son” (Jn. 5:22). So, while we see Christ in the holy place among the lampstand we also know he is the temple. So too, while he is the manna, it is more reasonable to say he is the ark than to say Mary is the ark. In concluding Christ is the ark this remains in the same style of interpretation concerning those other items which are said to be from heaven. It is no stretch to say the contents of the ark are present in the person of Christ who is himself the ark. This is true of how Christ is the temple but also the items in the temple. So too we don’t end up with empty ark as in the case of Mary since he is the ark and its contents. Afterall, the earthly ark housed as one testimony the contents therein. It was a unit where all things relate to each other. To remove one is to remove their interdependence or relationship. From this we can safely conclude Christ is the Word that put on flesh, he is the manna that put on flesh, he is the heavenly priest that put on flesh, he is the heavenly tabernacle that put on flesh, and he is the ark that put on flesh. 

MARY IS MARY

May we all have no hesitancy to call Mary blessed. We can all affirm she is Theotokos (God-Bearer) as it pertains to the person of Christ Jesus whom she bore. May we all be glad to sing the Magnificat during Advent season. However, calling her the ark of the new covenant is just impossible to defend. With such unwarranted exaltations let us not forget the response of Jesus when a woman came making exclamations about Mary. She said to Jesus, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts which nursed you!” But He said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it” (Lk. 11:27, 28). What a statement to elevate over the womb and breasts of Mary those who hear and obey the word of God. Let us do the same.