Jesus as the New Eve? Mary as the New Adam?

Ephrem the Syrian (AD 307-373), Saint Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron, Carmel McCarthy trans., Chapter II, Sections 2-3 (pp. 60-61)(footnotes omitted, brackets and italics are McCarthy's):

§2. [Mary] gave birth without [the assistance of] a man. Just as in the beginning Eve was born of Adam without intercourse, so too [in the case of] Joseph and Mary, his virgin and spouse. Eve gave birth to the murderer, but Mary gave birth to the Life-Giver. The former gave birth to him who shed the blood of his brother, but the latter to him whose blood was shed by his brothers. The former saw him who was trembling and fleeing because of the curse of the earth, the latter [saw] him who bore the curse and nailed it on his cross. The virgin's conception teaches that he, who begot Adam without intercourse from the virgin earth, also fashioned the Second Adam without intercourse in the virgin's womb. Whereas the First [Adam] returned back into the womb of his mother, [it was] by means of the Second [Adam], who did not return back into the womb of his mother, that the former, who had been buried in the womb of his mother, was brought back [from it]. 

§3. Mary was trying to convince Joseph that her conception was from the Spirit, but he did not accept [it] because it was an unwonted thing. When he saw however that her countenance was serene, although her womb was heavy, he was not willing to put her to shame, being a just man, but neither [was he willing] to receive her as husband, for he thought that she had intercourse with another man. In his uprightness therefore he judged that he should not take her, but also that he should not denounce her. Therefore, the angel appeared to him and said, Joseph, son of David. It was a wonderful thing that [the angel] also called him, Son of David, to remind him of David, the head of his ancestors, to whom God had made a promise that from his descendants according to the flesh he would raise up the Messiah. Do not be afraid to take Mary your spouse, because what is in her is from the Holy Spirit. If you are in doubt as to whether the virgin's conception was without intercourse, listen to Isaiah who said, Behold the virgin will conceive, and to Daniel, A stone was cut off, but not with [human] hands. This not like that [other passage], Look at the mountain and the well; since that [passage implies] a man and woman, whereas here it is [written], Not with [human] hands. Just as Adam fills the role of father and mother for Eve, so too does Mary for our Lord.  

I bring up this odd usage by Ephrem to encourage folks not to get overly excited by patristic-era use of comparisons between the New Testament and the Old.  These are fun comparisons, but they lack Scriptural warrant in terms of being the meaning of Scripture.  

Augustine on Psalm 132:8 (Vulgate Psalm 131:8)

From Augustine's Expositions on the Psalms at Psalm 132:8 

8. Arise, O Lord, into Your resting place [Psalm 131:8]. 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.

Notice the contrast between this view and the interpretation alluded to by Pope Pius XII's "Munificentissimus Deus," that the ark is Mary.  That's not even Augustine's back-up interpretation of the text.

Bede - the Ark of the Covenant, a Type of Christ and the Church

As mentioned in a previous post, contrary to at least one later Pope, Bede (A.D. 672-735) identifies the Ark of the Covenant with the human nature of Jesus.  The cited place I provided is not the only such place where Bede makes this identification:

And the priest who touched the ark of God with ill-advised rashness was to make expiation for the guilt of his audacity with an untimely death -- which should cause us to consider that while any offender who approaches the body of the Lord is guilty of transgression, if that person has undertaken vows as a priest he will be punished with death for taken hold of that ark (namely, the figure of the Lord's body) with less reverence than it deserves.

Bede, On Eight Questions, Question 8, p. 160 in "Bede: Biblical Miscellany," Foley and Holder trs.

Bede then goes on to explain:

But according to the allegory, David signifies Christ and the ark significance the Church.

Bede, On Eight Questions, Question 8, p. 160 in "Bede: Biblical Miscellany," Foley and Holder trs.

Bede goes on to give a lengthy allegorical discussion of the passage regarding retrieval of the Ark, in which he consistently refers the ark to the church.  For example he states the following:

Bede then goes on to explain:

Now the three months during which the ark tarried in [Gath] are faith, hope, and charity. For just as a month is filled with days, so does each one of the virtues come to its perfection step by step. These months do not end until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.

At last, David returns to bring the ark into the city of David, because the Lord will turn the hearts of the parents to the children through the preaching of Enoch and Elijah.

Bede, On Eight Questions, Question 8, p. 163 in "Bede: Biblical Miscellany," Foley and Holder trs.

-TurretinFan

Bede - the Ark of the Covenant, a Type of Christ

In general, the ceremonial law and its appointments all pointed to Christ and his work. Some of the early church fathers appreciated this more than others. On the other hand, Rome has tried to argue that some aspects pointed toward - you guessed it - Mary. For example, Munificentissimus Deus (Pius XII, 1950, defining the Bodily Assumption) repeatedly identifies the ark as a type of Mary (although, interestingly, Ineffabilis Deus by Pius IX in 1854 does not make this identification while defining the immaculate conception).

But what does Bede (A.D. 672-735) have to say. He declare the ark of the covenant to be a type of Christ:

Likewise, the ark, which has been brought into the holy of holies, is a type of the humanity assumed by Christ and led within the veil of the heavenly court, while the ark's carrying-poles prefigure the preachers of the Word through whom [Christ] became known to the world. A golden urn containing manna was in the ark because all the fullness of divinity dwells bodily [Colossians 2:9] in the human Christ. In the ark also was Aaron's branch which had flowered again after having been cut down because the power to sentence everyone belongs to him whose sentence was seen to have been removed in suffering's humiliation. The tablets of the covenant were also there, for in it are hidden treasures of wisdom and knowledge [Colossians 2:3]. Poles were fixed to the art for carrying it, because teachers who once laboured in Christ's Word now rejoice in the present vision of his glory. For what one of these [preachers] said about himself - I desire to die and be with Christ [Philippians 1:23- he surely meant to be understood of all who share in his work.

Bede, Thirty Questions on the Book of Kings, Question 14, pp. 111-12 in "Bede: Biblical Miscellany," Foley and Holder trs.

Bede's analysis is certainly not the only patristic comment on the matter, but it is a very reasonable analysis, and at least fits well with the overall typology.  By contrast, replacing Christ with Mary - as in Munificentissimus Deus, introduces a number of significant problems.

-TurretinFan