This Mariological reflection came about as a result of stimulating discussion on the CHNI board, with a woman who is very active there (former Baptist, now Catholic). I'd love to hear some responses to it, especially from our Protestant friends, who deny the traditional doctrine (held by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and many other prominent Protestants).
* * * * *
Much grace fell on my Protestant heart when I learned of the Catholic view of Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant. Recently I have done some reflecting on Mary's role as new Ark of the Covenant and on the scripture verse so familiar to Baptists:
That's an excellent analogy. I don''t think I ever thought of that, and don't recall seeing it in treatments of the topic. Very good! My first reaction is to note a difference, though: one scenario deals with the non-material Holy Spirit in many, while the other has to do with the incarnate God in just one.
The common ground is that Mary and all Christians have to be holy, since God is inside of us. That is the root idea of the Immaculate Conception: it is fitting for us to be all the more holy, the closer we are to God. Here are my papers on the topic, if anyone is interested:
When we receive the Lord in the Eucharist, isn't the analogy extended further to include even the material God within us?
Another great insight. I didn't think of that in exactly that way, either. The passage you initially brought out has to do with the indwelling, so it is somewhat of a different subject matter. On the other hand, the Bible teaches that all three Persons of the Trinity are in us, so that may possibly have eucharistic implications as well.
I think the points you bring up are rich for further exploration. Some of the saints and doctors must have written about it. Might be hard to find, though. I'd be interested in seeing anything along these lines.
In one of my earliest sessions with my catechist, I was questioning the teaching about Mary's perpetual virginity. Wasn't the Church supportive of physical intimacy between husband and wife? Didn't the Church encourage couples to bring children into the world? Why would Mary and Joseph be denied the joy given to married couples? The poor priest was struggling mightily to help me understand what perhaps is best understood after grace has produced a Catholic heart.
Finally, he scrunched up his face, waved his arms about in frustration, and loudly sputtered, "If God Himself has been in Mary's womb, how could Joseph even consider entering such holy ground as a mere man?" I was silenced and had plenty to think about when I left that session. Now, of course, it is as clear to me as it was to my priest. The burning bush. Take off your shoes. Holy ground. Perpetual Virginity. Yes.
This is a wonderfully edifying thread. I'm learning so many new insights that I never knew or heard or thought about before. This is why I love Mariology and our Blessed Mother so much. The depths of the study and what can be learned are endless. The depth of Catholic theology over against Protestant is like the deepest part of the Pacific Ocean (seven miles deep) compared with Lake Erie (about 300 feet).
The main new insight I am gaining from the thread is the connection with perpetual virginity. I have pursued the analogy in the past (including the notion of "holy ground": explored at length in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism: pp. 180-181) in association with the Immaculate Conception only, not also Mary's perpetual virginity. That is the new fascinating element in the analysis that I hadn't pondered before now. I love it!
Thus, we have Uzziah, who died when he touched the ark of the covenant (only trying to prevent it from falling): 2 Samuel 6:2-7. Others died by merely looking inside the ark (1 Sam 6:19; cf. Ex 33:20). When God was present in a special way on Mt. Sinai, at the time Moses received the Ten Commandments (Exodus, chapters 19 and 20), the people were warned not to even touch the mountain or its border, lest they die (Ex 19:12-13). This included even animals. We see how this has implications for the propriety (though not literal necessity) of Mary being immaculate, in order to carry God in her womb for nine months.
It follows analogically, I think, that Joseph approaching and touching Mary in a sexual context, is likewise improper by the nature of the relationship of God and man, for Joseph is now in the realm of, in effect, the Holy of Holies, where God specially resides. But in the case of Mary, God is more present than He ever was in the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle and Temple, because now He is there physically, as a man, as well.
Just as sexuality is entirely inappropriate in a religious service, let alone in the sublime spiritual circumstance of the Holy of Holies, where the high priest could only enter once a year, so is it in the case of Mary, being the ark of the new covenant and Mother of God (the Son).
In the same way, we are told that there is no sexuality in heaven (since there is no marriage, as Jesus said: Matt 22:30; Mk 12:25; Lk 20:34-35). Sexuality between a man and his wife is a type of the relationship of God and man, and our eventual union (Ephesians 5:21-33). The closeness that we will have with each other and with God in heaven is far more profound than mere sexual union. It is infinitely beyond physical pleasure or even the sublime closeness that married sexuality achieves and fosters.
Having always believed that Mary and Joseph had several biological children together after the Lord's birth and having enjoyed the blessings of marital union, I really had a difficult time accepting perpetual virginity until that conversation with my priest. I could see that some truths one grasps by faith and some truths one grasps by having developed a Catholic "feel" or sensibility. As my priest said, it would have been unthinkable to Joseph to pursue and take for himself what had been God's.
The Lord has been laying some of these things (being a temple of the Holy Spirit and following Mary's example) on my heart, but I felt led to seek help from others here in exploring what God wanted to show me, what He wanted me to absorb more fully. The beauty and wonder of it all is staggering.
I think we are confuting the word touch (sexual contact) with touch (meaning touch). I'm not sure I'm convinced that the argument that Joseph could not touch (sexually) her as hallowed ground is truly valid, certainly he "touched" -- laid hands on her which one could not do with the Ark. It is clear he did not have sex with Mary before or during her pregnancy with Jesus. Protestants hold that after Jesus's birth Mary and Joseph had a "normal" marriage. I think the textual arguments against that put the idea to rest but, again, it may be fitting that he did not have sex with her as hallowed ground but I don't find it a "slam dunk" argument.
One counter argument would be that after Jesus was born she is no longer "hallowed ground". . . . .
After Jesus was born why would Mary continue to be a holy vessel and not revert back to being just a woman. (She could be IC [immaculately conceived] but still fulfill her marriage duties to Joseph. The one does not completely rule out the other.)
Why would you think that Mary would want to cease being a Virgin? Would you say that the traditional birth spot of Jesus in Bethlehem (where they have the star in the floor) is no longer of any particular significance because Jesus was born in the past there?
Would you put up a barn and have animals live on that spot? I doubt it. Same thing for the place of the crucifixion.
I think you have an inadequate understanding of holy places. Persons and places are "set aside" for God's holy purposes. They are consecrated.
Mary was perpetually a virgin not because sexuality is "bad" but because consecrated virginity is higher, and being the Mother of God is higher still.
The Protestant and liberal assumes that sexuality is such a high goal and "right" that it is unimaginable that one could not desire it, or desire anything higher than it. I think that lies at the root of much of the objection. Luther and Calvin wouldn't even consider thinking like this. It comes from liberalism and secularism.
St. Paul says that the single state allows a higher, undistracted devotion to the Lord.
So why should we think that the Mother of God would do any other than be a perpetual virgin, devoted to God the Father, and her Son, God the Son?
We even consecrate secular spots that have nothing to do with religion: like the site of the twin towers or the building in Oklahoma City that was bombed.
Would anyone think for a second that one should build an outhouse over those spots or even a regular old house that had no particular significance?
No; it would be unthinkable. Yet when it comes to Mary being the ark of the new covenant, and carrying God the Son in her body for nine months, folks think little of her becoming a "regular old wife" like anyone else, as if it isn't a fundamentally different situation.
She has consecrated herself. It's as simple as that. Sexuality is not God's intention for every person. There are people called to be "married to the Lord". There are things higher than sexuality.
It's precisely because we are so tied to the earth and our desire for sensual pleasures that we so often can't grasp plain heavenly realities, and things that are clearly stated in Scripture (by both Jesus and Paul, in talking about singleness and voluntary eunuchs).
I think most saints and scholars have established that while it was fitting that Mary was IC it was not necessary.
I agree. That has been the position I have defended for years now. But some things can be so extremely appropriate that they almost approach necessity: not strictly "logically" but "spiritually."
Even the crucifixion (and perhaps the incarnation itself) were not strictly necessary, but they are awful appropriate and important in the overall scheme of things. They were how God chose to save mankind.
The Virgin Birth and Perpetual Virginity were how God chose to create the appropriate context in which the Incarnation occurred.
1 Corinthians 6:19 (KJV) What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
That's an excellent analogy. I don''t think I ever thought of that, and don't recall seeing it in treatments of the topic. Very good! My first reaction is to note a difference, though: one scenario deals with the non-material Holy Spirit in many, while the other has to do with the incarnate God in just one.
The common ground is that Mary and all Christians have to be holy, since God is inside of us. That is the root idea of the Immaculate Conception: it is fitting for us to be all the more holy, the closer we are to God. Here are my papers on the topic, if anyone is interested:
Biblical Evidence for the Patristic Analogy of Mary as the Ark of the (New) Covenant
Mary as Ark of the Covenant, in the Church Fathers and the Bible (Steve Ray, Pat Madrid, and Others) [Links Page]
When we receive the Lord in the Eucharist, isn't the analogy extended further to include even the material God within us?
Another great insight. I didn't think of that in exactly that way, either. The passage you initially brought out has to do with the indwelling, so it is somewhat of a different subject matter. On the other hand, the Bible teaches that all three Persons of the Trinity are in us, so that may possibly have eucharistic implications as well.
I think the points you bring up are rich for further exploration. Some of the saints and doctors must have written about it. Might be hard to find, though. I'd be interested in seeing anything along these lines.
In one of my earliest sessions with my catechist, I was questioning the teaching about Mary's perpetual virginity. Wasn't the Church supportive of physical intimacy between husband and wife? Didn't the Church encourage couples to bring children into the world? Why would Mary and Joseph be denied the joy given to married couples? The poor priest was struggling mightily to help me understand what perhaps is best understood after grace has produced a Catholic heart.
Finally, he scrunched up his face, waved his arms about in frustration, and loudly sputtered, "If God Himself has been in Mary's womb, how could Joseph even consider entering such holy ground as a mere man?" I was silenced and had plenty to think about when I left that session. Now, of course, it is as clear to me as it was to my priest. The burning bush. Take off your shoes. Holy ground. Perpetual Virginity. Yes.
This is a wonderfully edifying thread. I'm learning so many new insights that I never knew or heard or thought about before. This is why I love Mariology and our Blessed Mother so much. The depths of the study and what can be learned are endless. The depth of Catholic theology over against Protestant is like the deepest part of the Pacific Ocean (seven miles deep) compared with Lake Erie (about 300 feet).
The main new insight I am gaining from the thread is the connection with perpetual virginity. I have pursued the analogy in the past (including the notion of "holy ground": explored at length in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism: pp. 180-181) in association with the Immaculate Conception only, not also Mary's perpetual virginity. That is the new fascinating element in the analysis that I hadn't pondered before now. I love it!
Thus, we have Uzziah, who died when he touched the ark of the covenant (only trying to prevent it from falling): 2 Samuel 6:2-7. Others died by merely looking inside the ark (1 Sam 6:19; cf. Ex 33:20). When God was present in a special way on Mt. Sinai, at the time Moses received the Ten Commandments (Exodus, chapters 19 and 20), the people were warned not to even touch the mountain or its border, lest they die (Ex 19:12-13). This included even animals. We see how this has implications for the propriety (though not literal necessity) of Mary being immaculate, in order to carry God in her womb for nine months.
It follows analogically, I think, that Joseph approaching and touching Mary in a sexual context, is likewise improper by the nature of the relationship of God and man, for Joseph is now in the realm of, in effect, the Holy of Holies, where God specially resides. But in the case of Mary, God is more present than He ever was in the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle and Temple, because now He is there physically, as a man, as well.
Just as sexuality is entirely inappropriate in a religious service, let alone in the sublime spiritual circumstance of the Holy of Holies, where the high priest could only enter once a year, so is it in the case of Mary, being the ark of the new covenant and Mother of God (the Son).
In the same way, we are told that there is no sexuality in heaven (since there is no marriage, as Jesus said: Matt 22:30; Mk 12:25; Lk 20:34-35). Sexuality between a man and his wife is a type of the relationship of God and man, and our eventual union (Ephesians 5:21-33). The closeness that we will have with each other and with God in heaven is far more profound than mere sexual union. It is infinitely beyond physical pleasure or even the sublime closeness that married sexuality achieves and fosters.
Having always believed that Mary and Joseph had several biological children together after the Lord's birth and having enjoyed the blessings of marital union, I really had a difficult time accepting perpetual virginity until that conversation with my priest. I could see that some truths one grasps by faith and some truths one grasps by having developed a Catholic "feel" or sensibility. As my priest said, it would have been unthinkable to Joseph to pursue and take for himself what had been God's.
The Lord has been laying some of these things (being a temple of the Holy Spirit and following Mary's example) on my heart, but I felt led to seek help from others here in exploring what God wanted to show me, what He wanted me to absorb more fully. The beauty and wonder of it all is staggering.
* * *
Further exchange with Martin in the combox:
Further exchange with Martin in the combox:
I think we are confuting the word touch (sexual contact) with touch (meaning touch). I'm not sure I'm convinced that the argument that Joseph could not touch (sexually) her as hallowed ground is truly valid, certainly he "touched" -- laid hands on her which one could not do with the Ark. It is clear he did not have sex with Mary before or during her pregnancy with Jesus. Protestants hold that after Jesus's birth Mary and Joseph had a "normal" marriage. I think the textual arguments against that put the idea to rest but, again, it may be fitting that he did not have sex with her as hallowed ground but I don't find it a "slam dunk" argument.
One counter argument would be that after Jesus was born she is no longer "hallowed ground". . . . .
After Jesus was born why would Mary continue to be a holy vessel and not revert back to being just a woman. (She could be IC [immaculately conceived] but still fulfill her marriage duties to Joseph. The one does not completely rule out the other.)
Why would you think that Mary would want to cease being a Virgin? Would you say that the traditional birth spot of Jesus in Bethlehem (where they have the star in the floor) is no longer of any particular significance because Jesus was born in the past there?
Would you put up a barn and have animals live on that spot? I doubt it. Same thing for the place of the crucifixion.
I think you have an inadequate understanding of holy places. Persons and places are "set aside" for God's holy purposes. They are consecrated.
Mary was perpetually a virgin not because sexuality is "bad" but because consecrated virginity is higher, and being the Mother of God is higher still.
The Protestant and liberal assumes that sexuality is such a high goal and "right" that it is unimaginable that one could not desire it, or desire anything higher than it. I think that lies at the root of much of the objection. Luther and Calvin wouldn't even consider thinking like this. It comes from liberalism and secularism.
St. Paul says that the single state allows a higher, undistracted devotion to the Lord.
So why should we think that the Mother of God would do any other than be a perpetual virgin, devoted to God the Father, and her Son, God the Son?
We even consecrate secular spots that have nothing to do with religion: like the site of the twin towers or the building in Oklahoma City that was bombed.
Would anyone think for a second that one should build an outhouse over those spots or even a regular old house that had no particular significance?
No; it would be unthinkable. Yet when it comes to Mary being the ark of the new covenant, and carrying God the Son in her body for nine months, folks think little of her becoming a "regular old wife" like anyone else, as if it isn't a fundamentally different situation.
She has consecrated herself. It's as simple as that. Sexuality is not God's intention for every person. There are people called to be "married to the Lord". There are things higher than sexuality.
It's precisely because we are so tied to the earth and our desire for sensual pleasures that we so often can't grasp plain heavenly realities, and things that are clearly stated in Scripture (by both Jesus and Paul, in talking about singleness and voluntary eunuchs).
I think most saints and scholars have established that while it was fitting that Mary was IC it was not necessary.
I agree. That has been the position I have defended for years now. But some things can be so extremely appropriate that they almost approach necessity: not strictly "logically" but "spiritually."
Even the crucifixion (and perhaps the incarnation itself) were not strictly necessary, but they are awful appropriate and important in the overall scheme of things. They were how God chose to save mankind.
The Virgin Birth and Perpetual Virginity were how God chose to create the appropriate context in which the Incarnation occurred.
.jpg)
.gif)
.jpg)
17 comments:
As I spoke recently to a Protestant friend on the subject of Mary as the Ark of the Covenant he dismissed it with one word, "eisigesis". I can only take this as a general rejection of Typology in the bible
Great Post I use the same analogy with her womb . Most if not all are stunned and never thought of it either. Also if you think about the Old Covenant, it did not stop until well into the New Covenant Gospels when the curtain was torn after Christ Said" Its Finish " . The 613 Mosaic laws were finish too. Beside his propitiation for our sin. Mary was still in the Old Testament law when she had Christ which means she had to be Immaculate. And Dave thanks again for this site.
Sorry John, you lost me..."Mary was still in the Old Testament law when she had Christ which means she had to be Immaculate."
I'm not following you here. Can you explain?
We are now have the Temple of God in us thru the Holy Spirit which the Epistles states which is after the Act of the Cross and the Day of Pentecost. So we are christians because after the fact of the Cross when the temple curtain was torn by the Angel [ meaning the Old Covenant mosaic law was finished]. Out with the Old Covenant in with the NEW Covenant as promised in the Old. Mary did not have recourse to this because she was still in the Old Covenant Law until Christ died thus tearing of curtain which is representing the change. No more animal sacrifice or 613 mosaic law. So the article states the Holy Ground is sacred and a Sinner dies Touching the Sacred Old Ark [The presence of God} MARY would have died too, if she was not Immaculately Concieved to bear Christ the God man in the womb for nine monthes just like the sinner who touched the Old Ark of the Covenant. Thus she had to be sinless- IMMACLATE CONCEPTION because of his Holy Presence. She is the human bearer of Christ' Holy Presence thus the New Covenant Ark. I hope that helps- also think of the timeline as I stated in the first comment- God Bless
So the article states the Holy Ground is sacred and a Sinner dies Touching the Sacred Old Ark [The presence of God} MARY would have died too, if she was not Immaculately Concieved to bear Christ the God man in the womb for nine monthes just like the sinner who touched the Old Ark of the Covenant. Thus she had to be sinless- IMMACLATE CONCEPTION because of his Holy Presence.
Hmmm, here I think we are confuting the word touch (sexual contact) with touch (meaning touch). I'm not sure I'm convinced that the argument that Joseph could not touch (sexually) her as hallowed ground is truly valid, certainly he "touched" laid hands on her which one could not do with the Ark. It is clear he did not have sex with Mary before or during her pregnancy with Jesus. Protestants hold that after Jesus's birth Mary and Joseph had a "normal" marriage. I think the textual arguments against that put the idea to rest but, again, it may be fitting that he did not have sex with her as hallowed ground but I don't find it a "slam dunk" argument.
One counter argument would be that after Jesus was born she is no longer "hallowed ground". (Just trying to do my best St. Thomas Aquinas imitation, even though he's Greek.)
More to your point, I think most saints and scholars have established that while it was fitting that Mary was IC it was not necessary. Also people were not killed for touching the Ark of the Covenant because they were sinners but because they were priests. Overall, I think your argument is over enthusiastic and "proves too much".
God Bless
Also people were not killed for touching the Ark of the Covenant because they were sinners but because they were priests.
No; because no one was to touch it, period. That's why they had poles that ran through rings on its side.
Animals were killed for touching God's holy mountain. Certainly they were not priests. :-)
The argument is not a slam dunk for Protestants because they generally have a poor understanding of analogical argument and scriptural types and shadows. But I think it is fairly straightforward analogy, as far as they go.
I thought the priests in the temple on the day of Atonement could handle the Ark.
But in any case the animals climb on the mountain now. After Jesus was born why would Mary continue to be a holy vessel and not revert back to being just a woman. (She could be IC but still fulfill her marriage duties to Joseph. The one does not completely rule out the other.)
I think (without looking it up) on the Day of Atonement an exception was made, yes. But exceptions don't disprove the rule.
Why would you think that Mary would want to cease being a Virgin? Would you say that the traditional birth spot of Jesus in Bethlehem (where they have the star in the floor) is no longer of any particular significance because Jesus was born in the past there?
Would you put up a barn and have animals live on that spot? I doubt it. Same thing for the place of the crucifixion.
I think you have an inadequate understanding of holy places. Persons and places are "set aside" for God's holy purposes. They are consecrated.
Mary was perpetually a virgin not because sexuality is "bad" but because consecrated virginity is higher, and being the Mother of God is higher still.
The Protestant and liberal assumes that sexuality is such a high goal and "right" that it is unimaginable that one could not desire it, or desire anything higher than it. I think that lies at the root of much of the objection. Luther and Calvin wouldn't even consider thinking like this. It comes from liberalism and secularism.
St. Paul says that the single state allows a higher, undistracted devotion to the Lord.
So why should we think that the Mother of God would do any other than be a perpetual virgin, devoted to God the Father, and her Son, God the Son?
We even consecrate secular spots that have nothing to do with religion: like the site of the twin towers or the building in Oklahoma City that was bombed.
Would anyone think for a second that one should build an outhouse over those spots or even a regular old house that had no particular significance?
No; it would be unthinkable. Yet when it comes to Mary being the ark of the new covenant, and carrying God the Son in her body for nine months, folks think little of her becoming a "regular old wife" like anyone else, as if it isn't a fundamentally different situation.
She has consecrated herself. It's as simple as that. Sexuality is not God's intention for every person. There are people called to be "married to the Lord". There are things higher than sexuality.
It's precisely because we are so tied to the earth and our desire for sensual pleasures that we so often can't grasp plain heavenly realities, and things that are clearly stated in Scripture (by both Jesus and Paul, in talking about singleness and voluntary eunuchs).
Why would you think that Mary would want to cease being a Virgin?
I have no idea. Nor am I sure why her opinion matters :)
I am only exploring whether the typology of Mary/Ark necessitates a view that Joseph could not have "touched" her.
Would you say that the traditional birth spot of Jesus in Bethlehem (where they have the star in the floor) is no longer of any particular significance because Jesus was born in the past there?
If I touch it do I die? Of course it is significant but I can touch it.
I think you have an inadequate understanding of holy places. Persons and places are "set aside" for God's holy purposes. They are consecrated.
Fair enough, I re-read your post and realise that the main hole in my head is forgetting the "consecrated" section. Yet, my priest's hands are consecrated and I do not sin by shaking hands with him. That Mary was a consecrated virgin for life I believe from other passages and sources. What I am struggling with is the idea that the Ark was holy and you could not touch it thus Mary was holy thus Joseph could not touch her as a necessary argument: appropriate -yes, helpful typology - yes, necessary -not yet.
I think most saints and scholars have established that while it was fitting that Mary was IC it was not necessary.
I agree. That has been the position I have defended for years now. But some things can be so extremely appropriate that they almost approach necessity: not strictly "logically" but "spiritually."
Even the crucifixion (and perhaps the incarnation itself) were not strictly necessary, but they are awful appropriate and important in the overall scheme of things. They were how God chose to save mankind.
The Virgin Birth and Perpetual Virginity were how God chose to create the appropriate context in which the Incarnation occurred.
Thanks Ben. Beautiful quotes as usual. And a Hail Mary the other day for your MRI. I'm glad the experience wasn't too tough.
It is important to remember that Mary was virgin not only before Jesus' birth (common ground with Protestants) and after Jesus' birth, but also DURING Jesus' birth, meaning that Jesus' birth was miraculous and virginal just as his conception was.
Notably, I found support for this third aspect when evaluating, for an article on another topic, whether it was reasonable that the Holy Family spent one or two years in Bethlehem between the Nativity and the visit of the Magi. Here it goes:
We know that, once in Bethlehem, Joseph had found shelter in a cave with a manger as "there was no room for them in the inn" (Lk 2:7). But why had he looked for lodging only in the inn and not in the house of one of his relatives? Because he knew that his relatives knew the dates of betrothal and marriage, and that by a simple month count they would have seen that the boy had been conceived before marriage. (And we are assuming here the best case, namely the actuality of the account in Matthew 1:24 that Joseph "took his wife into his home" before Jesus's birth, as opposed to the account in Luke 2:5 that when Joseph travelled to Bethlehem Mary was still "his betrothed". We think that Luke may have said that to make the point that they had not had marital relations before Jesus' birth, a point that Matthew 1:25 makes explicitely.) So Joseph could have thought that there was a chance that birth time would not come until they were back in Nazareth, and tried to avoid his relatives.
But as things went, "while they were in Bethlehem, the time came for Mary to have her child" (Lk 2:6). Since Joseph could not reasonably have expected, or even imagined, that Jesus' birth was going to be miraculous and virginal just as his conception, he did what was reasonable for him to do: went to town and looked for midwives to assist Mary with her birth work. And the most reasonable place to look for midwives was within his own family, i.e. people whom he could trust. So there was Joseph walking from Bethlehem to the cave with maybe two of his cousins or even sisters, who were thinking "Look at good old Joseph. And we thought he was so God-fearing and observant of the Torah." while Joseph was thinking "If I tell them the truth, they will not question my standing as observant but my state of mind."
Meanwhile, Jesus' miraculous and virginal birth took place in the cave. Luke 2:7 strongly hints at this when saying that "she wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger". "She" alone, without Joseph's help. So when Joseph came back with the midwives, Mary was fresh and nursing Jesus as if she had not been through the slightest birth work, which in fact was the case. While the midwives may have found that somewhat strange, it did not provide solid enough grounds on which to break out the news to them.
And shortly afterwards, the shepherds arrived "and found Mary and Joseph, and the infant lying in the manger. When they saw this, they made known the message that had been told them about this child. All who heard it were amazed by what had been told them by the shepherds." (Lk 2:16-18) Who were those "all who heard it"? The expression does not fit if they were just Mary and Joseph. And they could not be the Magi because "they saw the child with Mary his mother" "on entering the house" (Mt 2:11), not in a cave with a manger. The most logical explanation is the above: female relatives of Joseph whom he had fetched to assist Mary with her birth work, and who now knew from the shepherds that the child was "a savior who is Messiah and Lord" (Lk 2:11). Therefore Joseph's relatives in Bethlehem would have been delighted to have him, Mary and Jesus stay with them for one or two years.
Just to clarify a question that was raised above, regarding the inviolability of the Ark of the Covenant: As Dave said, no one, not even a priest, was allowed to touch the Ark. Furthermore, even among the priests, only the Kohathites (the clan to which Moses, Aaron, and Miriam belonged) were allowed to the carry the Ark by the poles (Ex. 25:14-15; Num. 3:27-31; Num. 7:9; Deut. 10:8; cf. I Chron. 15).
Not even on the Day of Atonement could a priest touch the Ark. What Martin is trying to remember is the law that said no one except the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies, and that only on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). The Yom Kippur ceremonies, however, did not include any handling or touching of the Ark by the High Priest. He stood before the Ark in the Holy of Holies, but did not touch the Ark.
Thanks for that additional fascinating info., as always, my friend!
Post a Comment