Ave Maria

Miraculously, in the span of a couple months, outspoken Christian conservative pundit Charlie Kirk seemingly had a change of heart when discussing the topic of “Mariology.”

On a recent segment of his show, Charlie implores his fellow Protestants to show more reverence towards Mary because that’s what the “the early Christians did.”

Once you go down that rabbit hole, there’s no coming back—to Protestantism—Charlie…

Not only that, he explains that the only common sense antidote to modern day feminism is for women to emulate the Mother of God herself.

A few months prior, when discussing Catholicism with his good bud (and faithful Catholic) Michael Knowles, he conversely stressed the idea that a true Christian does not necessarily have to believe in every last “Marian dogma.”

This sentiment is commonly echoed in Protestant circles, with the usual idea being that all of the attention that Catholics devote towards Mary and the saints is “attention being diverted away from Christ.”

While seemingly intuitive on the surface, it unsurprisingly doesn’t work that way.

In fact, it’s the opposite: the better we know and understand Mary’s significance in salvation history, the closer we come to Christ.

For after all, who knows a child better than their mother?

A good place to start is at the Wedding at Cana, notoriously known for being the first Jesus performed.

Most Christians are aware of the story: Jesus and Mary are at a wedding, the hosts run out of wine, and Jesus miraculously turns water into wine to keep the party alive.

The most notable part of this is when Mary informs Christ that there is no more wine, and he interestingly responds with, “Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come.”

Using our modern day social framework, Jesus’s response almost seems to be a bit disrespectful towards the Holy Mother. But basic intuition leads us to the conclusion that Jesus—who was without sin—did not violate the fourth commandment by blatantly disrespecting his mother.

If that’s the case, then why address her like that?

Because it is a direct reference to Mary being the New Eve.

It is common to think of the first woman as “Eve,” because after all, that was the name bestowed upon her by God.

However, before she is officially given that name in Genesis 3:20, she is regularly referred to as simply “woman” or “the woman.”

Also, it’s no coincidence that the Wedding at Cana appears in book of John, which commences with the same “In the beginning” opening as Genesis, creating not only the parallel of Mary being the new Eve but Christ as the new Adam as well.

Christ becomes the new perfected Adam, as He humbly submits himself to the will of the Father rather than rejecting it.

Similarly, by calling His mother 'woman,' Christ identifies her as the new Eve—one who, unlike the first, will be obedient to the Father’s will rather than reject it.

Just as death entered the world through Eve’s disobedience, so too did life and salvation enter through Mary—not only in giving birth to Christ, but also in prompting His first sign, which revealed His glory and led His disciples to believe in Him.

In other words, Eve invited Adam to bring death unto the world while Mary invites Christ to bring salvation.

The parallels don’t stop there.

Mary accepted her role as the Mater Dei—the mother of God—from the faithful angel Gabriel when he approached her and told her to not be afraid.

Conversely, Eve was approached by the fallen angel Satan, who eventually convinced her to disobey God and eat the forbidden fruit.

Additionally, at the fall, you had Adam, Eve, and a tree (of the forbidden fruit). Similarly, at Christ’s crucifixion, you had the New Adam, New Eve at the foot of the cross, and a tree (the cross).

The only difference between the two scenes is that the former was the tree of death and the latter was the tree of life.

Diving into modern critiques of Catholicism’s views on Mary, one of the first is the classic “chapter and verse” request that explicitly describes Mary’s Immaculate Conception.

Frankly speaking, this is something that deserves its own memo (and will get one eventually), but as a teaser, a quick analysis can be executed.

The opponents will say something along the lines of, “If you believe Mary was conceived in the womb of her mother St. Ann without original sin, doesn’t that elevate her to divine status?”

Not exactly.

Christ is one example of a being that was fully human yet bore no sin. However, the clear caveat here is that He was fully God as well.

However, there are two examples of people without a divine essence that were created without sin.

You guessed it: Adam and Eve.

We all know Christ, the new Adam, was incarnated without sin, and the reason why is obvious.

However, if Mary, the new Eve, was conceived with the stain of sin, then the logical entailment of that is that she is lesser than the original Eve in some way, and this is simply not the case.

One question that comes to mind for most Catholics is how modern day Protestants can have an at-best neutral view of Mary even though, like mentioned in The Prot-igal Son , the original reformers like Luther affirmed the Catholic view of Mary.

The answer is that to have the full understanding of Mary and her role in salvation history, one needs more than simply a plain reading of the New Testament. Although there are certain references, especially in Luke and Revelations, that point to Mary’s special role, more context is required.

To fully understand the Marian mysteries, one needs to read the New Testament in light of the Old Testament, in addition to the interpretations and teachings of the earliest Christians, specifically the Church Fathers.

Given this context, it becomes clear why Marian veneration declined only a few generations after Luther; his emphasis on separating the Old and New Testaments, along with the rejection of Sacred Tradition and the authority of the Church Fathers, set the stage for such a loss.

When looking at Mary’s role as the Ark of the New Covenant, the necessity for reading the New in light of the Old becomes evident.

The original Ark of the Covenant was meant to be an Earthly representation of God’s dwelling place on Earth and contained the Ten Commandments, manna, and Aaron’s staff.

When the Israelites would enter into battle with the ark leading the way, a victory was a surefire event. However, when they didn’t, a loss was imminent.

This perfectly represents our modern day battle, as the fight we face is not against flesh and blood but against principalities like Paul mentions. Because of this, we need the new Ark of the Covenant at the front of the battle line, and the easiest way to do that is through praying the Rosary.

But that also deserves its own memo.

Soon after, a temple was built to hold the Ark, but the Babylonians came and burnt Jerusalem to the ground in the 6th century BCE, destroying the temple. However, there was much speculation about what actually happened to the ark.

The answer is hidden in 2 Maccabbees, where the priest Jeremiah took the ark out of the temple before the Babylonians arrived and brought it to Mount Nebo, hid it in a cave, and closed off entrance, proclaiming the location to be unknown until the cloud reappears and God shows his mercy.

This references the cloud that originally descended upon the ark that fulfilled the sanctity of the ark when it was being constructed.

With all of this in mind, jumping back to the New Testament, when the angel Gabriel appears to Mary, he specifically says, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.”

The greek word for overshadow—episkiazō—is used very rarely in the Old Testament, as one of the few times was Exodus 40:35, when the cloud overshadowed the Tabernacle, inextricably linking Mary to the Ark of the Covenant by suggesting she has become the new dwelling place of God.

The similarities don’t end there:

• In 2 Samuel 6:2, David “arose to the hill country of Judah” to bring the ark, and in Luke 1:39, Mary “arose and went to hill country of Judah” to visit Elizabeth

• Samuel proceeds to ask, “How is it that the ark of the Lord can come to me?” Similarly, Elizabeth asks, “How is it that the mother of my Lord can come to me?”

• Once in the presence of the ark, David “leaps” before the ark with “great shouting,” while John the Baptist “leaps” in Elizabeth’s womb while she cries out with a “loud shout.”

• Just as the ark dwells in the house of Obed-edom for three months, Mary stays in the house of Zechariah for three months

Mary’s identity of the Ark of the New Covenant is more than just a “wow, that’s pretty cool” moment.

Like alluded to previously, understanding Mary and her role helps us understand exactly who Jesus is.

Because the old Ark contained Ten Commandments, manna, and Aaron’s staff, we understand that Christ is Word made flesh, the bread from heaven, and the true high priest.

Once we establish Mary’s role as the new Ark, it is only logical to assume that she was bodily assumed into heaven.

There is obviously little doubt that her soul belongs in heaven, but since it is her body and not her soul that is the ark, then it would make sense for this dwelling of God’s presence to reside in the Heavenly Kingdom and new Jerusalem rather than six feet below the Earth.

Revelations 11:19 provides the scriptural basis for this, saying, “Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.”

Immediately, a question arises: does this refer to the old Ark or the new Ark, Mary?

The very next verse provides the answer to that question.

Although it is the next chapter, we must remember that when the original book was written, there were no chapters or demarcations of any type.

This beautiful description of Mary undeniably confirms it is indeed her, and not the old ark, that is being described in the previous chapter, meaning her physical body “was seen within his temple” in heaven.

The “read the New in light of the Old” paradigm can be applied to another “debated” aspect of Mary’s identity: her perpetual virginity.

The counter evidence is extremely sparse and consists of two main references: Mark 6:3 and Matthew 1:25.

Mark 6:3 describes Jesus allegedly having brothers named James, Joses, Judas, and Simon.

Firstly, the greek word for brother—adelphos—does not solely refer to a biological brother, as Lot is also called Abraham’s adelphos when he is not in fact Abraham’s brother.

Also, Mark 15:40 and John 19:25 easily refute the idea of Jesus having biological brothers, as together they point to the same James and Joses—that are allegedly the brothers of Christ—being sons of a different Mary, husband of Clopas.

Matthew 1:25, on the other hand, states that Joseph had no relations with Mary until she bore a son.

Modern day Protestants key in on the “until” to imply that after Mary bore a son is when Mary and Joseph began to have relations.

As a starting point, there are numerous biblical references that contradict this implication:

• Psalm 110:1: “The Lord says to my Lord: ‘sit at my right hand until I make all of your enemies your footstool.’”

• 2 Samuel 6:23: “Michal, the wife of David, had no children until the day of her death.”

Using the second example, it’s clear that Michal did not begin to have children after the day of her death in the same way that Mary did not have relations after she bore a son.

Another interesting reference that is overlooked is Mary’s response to the angel Gabriel after telling her that she will bear the Messiah in her womb:

At first glance, it’s easy to assume she’s a virgin up until that point because she’s had no relations with a man.

However, her saying she doesn’t “know a man” parallels someone saying they “don’t drink”rather than “haven’t drunk”—implying not only that she hasn't, but that she doesn’t intend to in the future either.

The counterargument for this claim would be to point out that women taking a vow of virginity does not seem to be prevalent in the Bible.

However, Numbers 30 says otherwise.

The chapter describes vows to taken by women to deny themselves through fasting or sexual abstinence.

The first two describe that if a father’s daughter (single woman) or a widow takes a vow to deny herself, then it becomes binding.

The third one applies to Mary, as it states that if a married woman takes a vow to deny herself and her husband approves of it, then it becomes binding.

Once again, the answers to fundamental characteristics of Mary can once again be found in reading the New in light of the Old.

If you enjoyed this article, feel free to share with your family, co-workers, and friends and tell them to subscribe.

Thanks for reading and until next time.

Headlines