Roman Catholics like to make much of connections between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant. I am certainly open to this typology (with qualifications) but does it hold up under scrutiny?
Consider the positive case:
The Ark was associated with the glory of God. Jesus is the glory of God, even in Mary’s womb.
The Ark contained the Ten Words; Jesus is the Word/Law of God incarnate.
The Ark contained manna; Jesus is the true the manna, the Bread of Life that has come down from heaven.
The Ark contained Aaron’s Rod, a symbol of the priesthood; Jesus will be a High Priest for his people (albeit, after the order of Melchizedek, rather than a Levitical priest).
Roman Catholics also point to intertextual connections.
Just as the glory of the Lord overshadowed and filled in the tabernacle (Exodus 40), so the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and the One who is the glory of the Lord filled her womb.
2 Samuel 6 is usually treated as the key. David “arose and went” to retrieve the Ark; it was later kept at the house of Obed-Edom for three months. Likewise, Mary “arose and went” to visit Elizabeth and stayed there three months. Elizabeth’s awe at meeting “the mother of her Lord” is similar to David’s awe at standing before the Ark.
David danced/leapt before the Ark with joy; when Mary came to Elizabeth, the baby in her womb (John the Baptist) danced/leapt with joy.
John McHugh summarizes the evidence:
“The two stories open with the statement that David and Mary “arose and made a journey” (2 Sam 6:2; Lk 1:39) up into the hill country, into the land of Judah. On arrival, both the Ark and Mary are greeted with “shouts” of joy (2 Sam 6:12, 15; Lk 1:42, 44). The verb used for Elizabeth’s greeting in Lk 1:42, is, in the Septuagint, used only in connection with liturgical ceremonies centred round the Ark; it is best translated as “intoned”. The Ark, on its way to Jerusalem, was taken into the house of Obed-edom, and became a source of blessing for his house (2 Sam 6: 10-12); Mary’s entry into the house of Elizabeth is also seen as a source of blessing for the house (Lk 1:41, 43-4). David, in terror at the untouchable holiness of the Ark, cried out: “How shall the Ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Sam 6:9); Elizabeth, in awe before the mother of her Lord, says, “Why should this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Lk 1:43). Finally, we read that “the Ark of the Lord remained in the house of Obed-edom three months” (2 Sam 6:I1), and that Mary stayed with Elizabeth “about three months” (Lk 1:56).”
There are further connections, but these give the gist of the case. Are they convincing? Did Luke intend for us understand Mary as a new covenant counterpart to the Ark?
Interestingly, the Roman Catholic scholar Raymond Brown is dubious, while the Lutheran commentator Art Just accepts the typology. Here is Brown:
“This resemblance [between Luke 1:43 and 2 Sam 6:9] has been seized upon to defend the (dubious) thesis that Luke thinks of Mary as the Ark of the Covenant…One should be cautious in drawing an identification from such echoes of an OT scene. It is the Ark’s power to kill that causes David to ask his question–a motivation quite different from that of Elizabeth’s question. The Ark’s eventual journey to Jerusalem after the three-month stay is quite different from Mary’s return home. The connecting link in the Lukan reminiscences may be David rather than the Ark. When David goes to Araunah the Jebusite to purchase the threshing floor that will ultimately become the site of the Temple in Jerusalem, Araunah asks, “What is this, that my lord the king has come to his servant?” (II Sam 24:21). This question also resembles Elizabeth’s question, and it does not concern the Ark.”
By contrast, Just says, “As a temporary and portable vessel housing the immanent presence of the true God, Mary appears to fulfill the purpose of the ark of the covenant.”
While some of the connections are a bit tenuous when closely examined, many times biblical typology, admittedly, has a kind of looseness or fuzziness to it. Recognizing types is more of an art than a science. But this is the key point that Protestants should insist on: Even if Mary is a kind of new Ark, she is only so as long as she carries Jesus in her womb. After his birth, she no longer carries God’s incarnate Son inside her body. If there is an Ark/Mary typology, it is only temporary (as Just says) and expires when she gives birth.
Further, while the connections between Mary and the Ark are interesting, it is equally worth noting how much Mary recedes to the background in Luke’s gospel after giving birth. In Luke 8:19-21, Jesus privileges the ecclesial family composed of those who follow him above his own natural family relations. In Luke 11:27-28, Jesus says that as blessed as his mother was to bear him and nurse him, even greater blessing is found in hearing and keeping his word.
TPC Pastor's Page 