I’d like to return to our ongoing discussion of how the Church sees the Ark of the Covenant. In our previous post in this series, we looked at the poetry of Saint Ephrem the Syrian. Now we’ll turn our eyes westward to examine what some of the most well-known western saints, Ambrose and Augustine, said about the typology expressed by the Ark.

Saint Ambrose of Milan

Saint Ambrose, living from 340-397, provides perhaps the clearest “rationale” for seeing the Ark as a type of Mary. He draws a number of parallels between the Ark and the Virgin in which those applied to the Virgin exceed those of the Ark. He contrasts the Law with the Gospel, the voice of God with the Word of God, and the glitter of gold with the splendour of virginity.

The prophet David danced before the Ark. Now what else should we say the Ark was but holy Mary? The Ark bore within it the tables of the Testament, but Mary bore the Heir of the same Testament itself. The former contained in it the Law, the latter the Gospel. The one had the voice of God, the other His Word. The Ark, indeed, was radiant within and without with the glitter of gold, but holy Mary shone within and without with the splendour of virginity. The one was adorned with earthly gold, the other with heavenly.¹

Saint Augustine of Hippo

Saint Augustine, living from A.D. 354-430, seems to be one of the few among his contemporaries who holds the Ark to be a type of the Church as the body of Christ rather than a type of the Virgin Mary. The very passage that Saint Gregory Thaumaturgus earlier interpreted as speaking of the Holy Virgin, Augustine interprets as referring to the Church.

Arise, O Lord, into Your resting place [cf. Psalm 131]. He says unto the Lord sleeping, Arise. You know already who slept, and who rose again… You, and the ark of Your sanctification: that is, Arise, that the ark of Your sanctification, which You have sanctified, may arise also. He is our Head; His ark is His Church: He arose first, the Church will arise also. The body would not dare to promise itself resurrection, save the Head arose first. The Body of Christ, that was born of Mary, has been understood by some to be the ark of sanctification; so that the words mean, Arise with Your Body, that they who believe not may handle.²

In the next post in this series, we will examine the more practical approach to this topic as presented by Saint Jerome.

---

¹ Qtd. in Thomas Livius, The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries, (London: Burns and Oates, Limited 1893), p. 77.

² Saint Augustine of Hippo, Exposition on Psalm 132, trans. J.E. Tweed, from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 8, ed. Philip Schaff, (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888), revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight, <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801132.htm>, .

In our previous post, we discussed the earliest patristic linkage between the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Mother of God. We continue here with the thoughts of Saint Dionysius of Alexandria.

Saint Dionysius was bishop of Alexandria in the middle of the third century. A letter bearing his name and written against Paul of Samosata is thought by many to be spurious. However, Bishop Bull makes a compelling case for the authenticity of this letter, making it worthy of a quick inspection.¹ While not a direct reference to the Ark of the Covenant, we start to see the Theotokos likened to the tabernacle in which the Ark itself rested, in the middle of the third century.

As Christ our priest was not chosen by hand of man, so neither was His tabernacle framed by men, but was established by the Holy Ghost; and by the power of God is that tabernacle protected, to be had in everlasting remembrance, Mary, God’s Virgin Mother.²

This is not inconsistent with earlier views. If the Ark is a type of Christ and the tabernacle a type of His mother, the analogy remains consistent, for the tabernacle contained the ark. Thus we call Mary the Theotokos, or God Bearer.

In our next post in this series, we will examine what Saint Gregory the Wonderworker contributed to this discussion.

---

¹ Bishop George Bull, Defensio Fidei Niceænæ, (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1851), v. 1, p. 320.

² Qtd. in Thomas Livius, The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries, (London: Burns and Oates, Limited 1893), p. 81.

In our previous post, we began a survey of patristic thinking on the Ark of the Covenant, starting with Saint Irenaeus of Lyons. We will continue by moving into the third century.

While much of his work is lost, the Holy Hieromartyr Hippolytus, presbyter of the Church of Rome in the early third century and likely a student of Saint Irenaeus,¹ provides two relevant mentions of the typology of the the Ark. In the only extant fragment from his commentary on Psalm 23, quoted by Theodoret, he strongly links the complete type with Christ, but connects the wood of the Ark with the human nature of the Holy Virgin. O’Carroll asserts that this passage is the first to expose a relationship between the Ark and the Theotokos.

And, moreover, the ark made of imperishable wood was the Saviour Himself. For by this was signified the imperishable and incorruptible tabernacle of (the Lord) Himself, which gendered no corruption of sin. For the sinner, indeed, makes this confession: “My wounds stank, and were corrupt, because of my foolishness.” But the Lord was without sin, made of imperishable wood, as regards His humanity; that is, of the virgin and the Holy Ghost inwardly, and outwardly of the word of God, like an ark overlaid with purest gold.²

Hippolytus’ interpretations of the visions of Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar include an attempt to link the physical dimensions of the Ark with historical time spans, which is irrelevant to the current discussion, but in the course of this diatribe he makes another comment revealing his understanding of the typology of the Ark:

the things that took place of old in the wilderness, under Moses, in the case of the tabernacle, were constituted types and emblems of spiritual mysteries, in order that, when the truth came in Christ in these last days, you might be able to perceive that these things were fulfilled … At that time, then, the Saviour appeared and showed His own body to the world, (born) of the Virgin, who was the “ark overlaid with pure gold,” with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without; so that the truth is demonstrated, and the “ark” made manifest.³

Comments by some scholars seems to indicate a variance in the translation of this passage that makes its meaning unclear to the author. McGuckin, for instance, claims that Hippolytus links the type with the Theotokos.⁴ It is unclear from the above translation whether the phrase, ‘who was the “ark overlaid with pure gold”’ modifies the noun “virgin” or “saviour,” though in the last phrase, the truth being demonstrated juxtaposed with the ark made manifest seems pretty clearly a reference to the Savior Himself. Migne’s latin rendering clearly makes the phrase parenthetical to the Virgin,⁵ but an alternative translation by Tom Schmidt seems to be more consistent with the commentary on Psalm 23 quoted above:

… the Savior comes from the Virgin, and then he offered the Ark, his own body, into the world, gilded in pure gold, inside with the Word, outside with the Holy Spirit, so that the truth may be shown and the Ark may be manifested.⁶

While Hippolytus does make a connection between the Ark and the Theotokos, it seems just as plausible that he saw the Ark in its completeness as a type of Christ. The likelihood that he was a pupil of Saint Irenaeus, who viewed the Ark as a type of Christ, along with the striking similarity between the two saints’ statements, reinforces this position.

In our next post, we will examine what Saint Dionysius of Alexandria had to say about the Ark. If you’re joining us late, you may wish to start at the beginning of our exploration of the Ark of the Covenant.

---

¹ Johann Peter Kirsch. St. Hippolytus of Rome, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 7, <New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910>.

² Translated by S.D.F. Salmond, Fragments from the Scriptural Commentaries of Hippolytus, from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co. 1886) revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight.

³ ibid.

⁴ John Anthony McGuckin, The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to its History, Doctrine, and Spiritual Culture, (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell 2010), p. 220.

⁵ Collected by Joanne Alberto Fabricio and Andrea Gallandio, Operum S. Hippolyti Quæ Supersunt, in Patrologiæ Græcæ, J. P. Migne (1857), vol. 10, column 647.

⁶ T.C. Schmidt, Hippolytus of Rome: Commentary on Daniel, (Schmidt 2010), p. 141.