In 1950, the Catholic church declared the “Assumption of Mary” to be official doctrine. This is the doctrine that Mary, at the end of her life was taken into heaven. The Catholic Church believed it was confirming the faith of the Fathers.
The doctrine was, in part, based off a certain interpretation of Revelation 12. (I should add that this is certainly not the only passage behind this doctrine and there is also a complicated typology of Mary that has developed over the last 200o years) At the end of Revelation 11, John tells us that the ark of the covenant appeared in heaven. In chapter 12, a sign appears. We see a woman who bears a child and a dragon who chases her. It is not surprising that many identify this woman with Mary, the mother of Jesus. Many will also identify Mary with the ark, which is found in heaven at the end of chapter 11.
We need to discern between three different issues here: whether Mary can be referred to as an ark, whether the ark in revelation 12 is meant to refer to Mary, and finally whether the argument that the ark does picture Mary is proof of the doctrine of assumption.
Is the ark of the covenant a picture of Mary?
A number of church fathers said just that in various sermons. They saw that just as the ark carried the law, some manna and the staff of Aaron. They saw that Christ was the fulfillment of all these things and therefore they saw Mary as an ark, which carried Christ into the world.
I argue that we can picture Mary in terms of the ark. I’m not sure if this is necessarily the point of any particular scripture passage, but it is a wonderful word picture pointing to the significance of Mary. Mary is, after all, Theotokos or the God-bearer. She is a picture of the church, which also carries Christ, by virtue of the Spirit. When I say these things I do not intend to make her any less a sinner. David, an adulterer and a murderer, was permitted to be a picture of Christ. Abraham, an idolater, was given the gift of being the pre-eminent man of faith. So also Mary a woman, by nature under damnation, was, by grace, given the honor of carrying the Christ in her womb. We know from Leviticus 16 that the ark itself needed to be atoned for. So did Mary.
Is the ark Mary in Revelation 11: 19?
I’ve already tipped my hat toward my answer to this question. I would argue that the ark is not in reference to Mary. Let me begin by demonstrating the problem with seeing the ark as a reference to Mary internally. I will continue by demonstrating who I think the ark does refer to. Finally, I want to show that even though I disagree with this particular interpretation, it does get some things right.
The ark of the covenant appears in heaven at the moment the 24 elders are calling upon God to reveal his wrath against the nations and his vindication of those who fear him. When the ark appears, there is thunder and lightning suggesting that the appearance of the ark of the covenant has something to do with the coming of the wrath of God.
Then we have a scene change. We see a woman, who is struggling with the birth of a child. She bears the child and the child is caught up into heaven in v. 5. The dragon tries to destroy the women, even after the child is taken up, but God protects the women. He gives her wings to fly away from it in 12:13. Even the earth protects the woman.
There are a couple reasons why we shouldn’t see the ark as the woman in this passage. First of all, there is a clear break between the scene of chapter 11 and chapter 12. The two passages follow one another but they don’t necessarily have the same subject. This means that just because the woman is close in proximity, doesn’t mean that she should be identified with the ark. The 2nd thing to note is that the women never ascends into heaven. Rather it is the male child who ascends into heaven. The last thing we should wonder about is what the assumption of Mary has to do with the coming of the judgment of God? It seems strange that the entrance of Mary into heaven would be a catalyst for God’s judgment.
(I also wonder if Mary was still the ark after she had left the womb of Christ).
It is much better to see the coming of the ark of the covenant as a picture of Christ’s ascension. The male child (Christ) is the one that ascends into heaven in Chapter 12:5 and not the women. But if this were the only reason for understanding the ark as Christ, it would be very weak reasoning. This is because of (as I have already noted) the obvious change of pace between chapter 11 and chapter 12. They are telling different stories. These are stories that do follow one another, but they are visions that have a distinct message.
However, we can strengthen our reasoning through our understanding of how Jesus Christ functions as the ark of God throughout the New Testament.
When we think about the context of the appearance of the ark, we notice both a promise of wrath and of deliverance for the saints. Our minds are drawn to Romans 1:17, “For the righteousness of God is revealed.” The very next verse tells us that God reveals his wrath as well. We learn later in Romans that all this is revealed in Jesus Christ. Theologically, then, we should expect Jesus Christ to enter the room at a call for judgment and vindication. He is the one who absorbs the wrath of God for the sake of his saints and who brings judgment and the wicked.
Of course, we need to defend this with more than theology. We need to see that the ark functions in a similar way to Jesus Christ. On the day of the atonement, the priest sprinkled the covering of the ark with blood. God looked upon that cleansing blood and so was able to live dwell with his people. It is likely that John draws on that imagery in 1 John 2, when he calls Jesus a propitiation. This is the same word that the Septuagint (the Greek OT) uses for the mercy seat upon the ark. Just as Israel found mercy in the temple, so we find mercy in the Christ.
The book of Hebrews doesn’t use ark imagery, but it does use temple imagery for Christ. Hebrews tell us in Chapter 10:20, that Christ’s flesh is the veil. The veil had a similar function to the mercy seat. It was a covering for the people of God.
We could add to this the parallels between David bringing the ark into Jerusalem and the pregnant Mary visiting her cousin. They can be found at the end of this article. These are used in the article I referenced to defend Mary being the ark. However, they can be used just as easily for defending Christ as the ark.
All in all, I’m not sure how the appearance of the ark after an appeal to the justice of God, can be primarily about Mary. In the overall context of Revelation, the appearance of the ark is about the coming judgment on the harlot, the beast, and the dragon.
It should be noted, however, that there is a sense in which we can speak of the ark as Mary. We need to remember that symbols in scripture are often multivalent. It is not just the mercy seat that appears, but the ark of the covenant. Various authors have argued that the ark is a mini-picture of the cosmos, with the mercy seat as the throne room of God and the cosmos as the box that is underneath it. Since it is the ark of the covenant it can be understood as the new creation of God or the church of God. Colossians 3 tells us that our lives are hidden in the risen Messiah. The fact that the ark of the covenant is in heaven is a confirmation to us that we too are raised with him.
In this sense then, Mary as a type of the church of Christ, is also, with all the other saints assumed into heaven with Christ.
What about the doctrine?
Let us grant for a moment that the ark might refer to Mary in Revelation 11. Would this provide proof for the doctrine of the assumption of Mary? I don’t think so. Symbols don’t work that way, particularly in the book of revelation. The ark may symbolize Mary, but does that mean her flesh came to heaven? Perhaps we have a merely symbolic use of Mary. The women, who we assume is Mary, never enters heaven in the following chapter. What happened? This would suggest a symbolic use.
These stretchings of exegesis suggest that tradition has invented Mary, rather than honoring her as she is revealed in scripture. As the Belgic confession says, they (The Roman church, but we could add the Greek church as well) dishonor the saints by giving them these strange honors. Traditions that support such exegesis are worse than the autonomous protestant interpreter (at least you can argue with him). They are worse because they demand that all Christians submit themselves to this irrational exegesis.