IS MARY THE ARK OF THE NEW COVENANT?

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“Mary, in whom the Lord himself has just made his dwelling, is the daughter of Zion in person, the ark of the covenant, the place where the glory of the Lord dwells. She is "the dwelling of God . . . with men." (CCC #2676)

One can find much information online, in articles, books and other literature from Catholics calling Mary (the mother of Jesus Christ) the “Ark of the New Covenant.”  They call her this because she has “housed” the Savior in her womb, just as the Old Testament ark of the covenant was “housing” the presence of God.

But what exactly was the Old Testament ark of the covenant?  It was basically a gold-plated wooden box, and it was one of several pieces of furniture placed in the Old Testament tabernacle (and later, in the temple).  The tabernacle consisted of an “outer court” and two separate rooms.  The furniture of the tabernacle included the brazen (brass) altar and the brazen laver sitting outside in the “outer court.”  The first room, called the “holy place,” contained the table of showbread, the golden lampstand, and the altar of incense.  And the last room, the “Most Holy Place” (also called the “Holy of Holies”) was the most sacred area in the whole tabernacle and it was separated from the holy place by a thick veil.  The Most Holy place contained only one piece of furniture, and that was the ark of the covenant (on which sat the mercy seat), where the very presence of God dwelt on earth.  No one could ever enter this place without dying, except for the high priest; and he could only enter it one day a year, on the Day of Atonement, to atone for his own sins and then to atone for the sins of all Israel.  See this link for a good discussion on the tabernacle:

http://the-tabernacle-place.com/articles/what_is_the_tabernacle

Catholics seem to see Mary as some kind of fulfillment of the Old Testament ark, since Jesus was in her womb.  That’s why Catholics call her the “Ark of the New Covenant.”  But should Mary be given this title?  Is this proper?  Is it biblical?

The Catholic Church claims that it is indeed biblical.  They will point to passages in the Old Testament about the ark that seem to parallel certain aspects of Mary’s life.  They try to demonstrate similarities between Mary’s discussion with the angel Gabriel, and with the glory of God “overshadowing” the tabernacle.  Or they will see a parallel in Mary’s stay at Elizabeth’s house for three months and David’s moving of the ark to the house of Obed-edom for three months.  Also, they will say that David’s dancing before the ark resembles Elizabeth’s child “leaping” in the womb.  Or they will compare some of the language that David used with that of Elizabeth (John the baptist’s mom).  Catholics will claim that the typology strongly suggests that Mary is now the ark.  We do not deny that there seem to be some parallels in these accounts, but their typology is not as strong as Catholics claim.  There are other things that happened with the ark that would also detract from the claim of Mary as the new ark:

 

For example, if Mary is truly and fully a type of the ark, then who did Uzzah represent?  He was the one who touched the ark and died (2 Samuel 6:6-7).  Had anyone touched Mary and died because of it?  If Mary is the “new ark,” then can Catholics demonstrate that Mary was also captured and stolen by the Philistines, like the ark was in 1 Samuel 4:10-11?  And who held up Mary (as the ark was) while the Jordan River parted (Joshua 3:14-17)?

Of course, Catholics may object and say, “Not every single thing that happened to the ark has happened to Mary.  Typology has its limits, you know.  All types have a breaking point, and you can’t just pick and choose what you want in typology.  It can be subject to abuse.”

That’s exactly the reason we need to be careful with Catholic typology!  Types simply help us to see the big picture, but some will try to force something into being a “type,” when it was never intended to be.  And this Catholic insistence that Mary is the New Covenant Ark is one of those abuses.

But the Bible never says that Mary was the “Ark of the New Covenant.”  If we’re going to follow this Catholic pattern, then who is now the “New Brazen Altar” or the “New Brazen Laver”?  Or why is no one recognized as the “New Veil”?  Who is the “New Table of Showbread”?  These types are ALL fulfilled in Jesus, and not anyone else.  They point to Him as their final fulfillment (Hebrews 9:1-11).  Why would we think that one of those items (the most important one, no less) should be attributed to Mary?  Was God saving the most important piece of furniture, the holiest one, to represent and honor HER above even her Son?  Does anyone really think that this was God’s intent?  If anyone is the “Ark of the New Covenant,” it is Jesus, Himself.

It is one thing to say that Mary was simply a type of the ark of the covenant for a short time, but it is another thing to give her the permanent status and glory of that holy item, especially when it points to Jesus as the true Ark and the true Temple, containing God’s presence (John 2:18-21).  Remember, Jesus is not in her womb anymore! 

 

The ark of the covenant is only mentioned twice in the entire New Testament (Hebrews 9:4; Revelation 11:19) and there is nothing at all about Mary becoming the “new ark” in either of these passages.  The authors of Hebrews and Revelation had ample opportunity to mention this “important” Catholic concept at this point, but nothing of Mary is mentioned here.

We think that Mary, herself, would heartily disagree with Catholics concerning many of the things they believe about her.  We believe that the biblical Mary, the humble handmaid of the Lord (Luke 1:38, 48), would admit to being a type of the ark at one point in her life (during her pregnancy), but she would never claim such an exalted title that Catholics try to give her.  We believe that she, like every true Christian, would agree with John the baptist when he said, “He (Jesus) must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30).  But Mary is in no way “decreasing” in the Catholic Church today!  For example, in the Catholic rosary, there are many more prayers to Mary than there are to Jesus, or God the Father.  As long as the Catholic version of Mary is around, Jesus just can’t seem to be “increasing” as He should.  But once again, Mary is not the “New Ark.”  Jesus Christ should be recognized as the fulfillment of every part of the tabernacle / temple.  He is the center of all prophecy (Luke 24:27; Revelation 19:10), and He and His plan of redemption can be found on every page of Scripture.

IS MARY THE “WOMAN CLOTHED WITH THE SUN”?

The Catholic Church has a number of unbiblical teachings on Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ.  Some of these include the concept of her bodily Assumption into Heaven, Mary as the “Queen of Heaven,” Mary as the “Mother of the Church” (i.e., of all Christians), and Mary as the “Ark of the New Covenant.”  It seems that a misinterpretation of Revelation chapter 12 is the springboard, at least in part, for these particular Catholic teachings.  But is Mary the woman portrayed in Revelation 12?  What does the Catholic Church say?

Note these official Catholic sources:

On February 2, 1904, Pope Pius X, in his papal encyclical (an official letter to the church), titled Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum, said: 

“A woman clothed with the sun, and with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars upon her head.” Everyone knows that this woman signified the Virgin Mary… (Paragraph 24)

On May 13, 1967, Pope Paul VI, in his papal encyclical, The Great Sign, said: 

The great sign which the Apostle John saw in heaven, “a woman clothed with the sun,”…as referring to the most blessed Mary, the mother of all men by the grace of Christ the Redeemer.

And Pope John Paul II, March 25, 1987, wrote in his papal encyclical (Redemptoris Mater):

For Mary… by her ecclesial identification as the “woman clothed with the sun” (Rev. 12:1)… (Paragraph 47)

So, according to these popes, the Catholic Church officially sees Mary as the woman who is clothed with the sun in chapter 12 of the book of Revelation, where she is (supposedly) revealed in all of her splendor.  But it doesn’t stop here.  This interpretation also leads to other doctrines which cause Mary to be overly honored in other aspects, as well.  The influence of this interpretation develops a mindset that can eventually lead to the worship of Mary, though most Catholics will not admit it.

But to be fair, there are some Catholic apologists who see several different interpretations of the “woman” in Revelation 12.  In spite of the official Catholic documents quoted above, some will say that the woman clothed with the sun could possibly represent 1) the church, 2) Eve, 3) Mary, or 4) Israel.

But let’s take a look at the passage in context so that we can determine if it does indeed point to Mary or not.  Here it is: 

(Revelation 12:1-6)

  1) And there appeared a great wonder in Heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

  2) And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

  3) And there appeared another wonder in Heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

  4) And his tail drew the third part of the stars of Heaven, and did cast them to the earth:  and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

  5) And she brought forth a manchild, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron:  and her child was caught up unto God, and to His throne.

  6) And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days. 

Ok, it seems obvious that the manchild who will rule with a rod of iron (v. 5) is Jesus Christ, I think most everyone would agree; although there are some who believe that the manchild will be the 144,000 Jews who are sealed by God (Revelation 7:1-8; 14:1-5).  But anyway, let’s find out who this “woman” is in context.  

  1) It is not the church.  

How do we know?  Because the church did not give birth to Jesus (v. 5).  One could argue that Jesus “gave birth” to the church, but not the other way around.  

  2) It is not Eve.

One could say that Eve, in a sense, gave birth to Jesus, but she also indirectly gave birth to everyone else on the planet (except Adam).  So, this is not helpful.  Also, there is nothing in Scripture about Eve fleeing into the wilderness for special protection for 1260 days (v. 6).

  3) It is not Mary.

Yes, Mary directly gave birth to Jesus Christ, but she did not flee into the wilderness for protection.  Someone might object and say that this happened when she and her husband Joseph fled to Egypt, but according to Revelation 12, the woman’s flight was not when her Son was a child, but it was after the ascension of Jesus to the throne of God (v. 5-6).  And again, their flight into Egypt had nothing to do with her being fed for 1260 days.  So, this “woman” in Revelation does not describe Mary.

  4) It is the nation of Israel.

If the “woman” is seen as Israel, everything lines up.  Israel is “clothed with the sun” (a symbol of her glory given to her by God).  She has the “moon under her feet” (symbolic of the dominion God gave her).  She has a crown of twelve stars (representing the twelve tribes - Genesis 37:9-10).  She produced / gave birth to the Messiah (John 4:22), Who will rule with a rod of iron (Psalm 2:7-9; Revelation 19:15).  She will flee into the wilderness to escape the wrath of the antichrist and will be under God’s special protection for 1260 days (Revelation 12:6) - (or 42 months - Revelation 11:2; 13:5), (or three and a half years - Revelation 12:14; Daniel 7:25; 12:7) – these are all referring to the same thing.  This extremely heavy persecution of Israel will begin in the second half (middle) of the seven-year Tribulation period (Daniel 9:27; Matthew 24:15-21).  These 1260 days have nothing to do with Mary, but everything to do with Israel.

By the way, the mention of the angel Michael in the same context (Revelation 12:7) is another clue that the author is speaking about Israel, since Michael is identified as the “great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people [Israel].” (Daniel 12:1)

Since the evidence points to Israel as the identity of the “woman clothed with the sun,” shouldn’t the Catholic Church make some serious changes in their doctrines and dogmas concerning Mary?  Yes they should, but we seriously doubt that will happen.