I did one of these posts a while back and recent conversations have led me to go ahead with part II… (starting a new thread hoping this will stay more on topic).

Mary is the Ark of the Covenant:
The Blessed Virgin Mary is the new ark of the covenant. The OT ark of the covenant is a type of Mary and Mary is the NT fulfillment of the OT dwelling place of God among his people Israel. Mary was the literal dwelling place of God on Earth. What the whole world could not contain, Mary contained inside her womb. It was from Mary that Jesus took his flesh, and from Mary his entire DNA. While in her womb, Jesus and Mary shared blood which coursed through their veins and that same blood was poured out for all mankind on the cross.

You can find my previous OP on: Holy Mary, The New Eve and The WOMAN here:
https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/3224950/replies/60107144

Quote:

---

Background: Biblical Typology
As Catholics, we approach the Bible through the eyes of the Apostolic Church, and through the lens of typology. Nothing in Catholic doctrine or dogma can contradict anything in Holy Scripture and nothing does. The Church testifies to the scriptures and the scriptures testify to the Church. We do not 'proof-text' our way into doctrines and teachings of the faith by citing chapter and verse, but rather we look at the totality of scripture OT + NT. Context is not simply reading a few verses before and a few verses after a key verse, but context is looking at everything from Genesis to Revelation. Apostolic Tradition informs Biblical understanding and interpretation and the two are inseparable. There is a great deal of Christian truth and theology that is not explicitly written in a biblical "proof-text", but is supported through scripture all the same.

Biblical typology is basically the idea that the new is foreshadowed in the old, and the old is revealed in the New Testament fulfillment. Looking forward things are a little hazy but looking back they become clear. For example, Adam was an Old Testament prefigurement that points us toward Jesus, and Jesus is revealed as the new Adam in the NT. Some NT types are more clear than others, and in fact several references in the NT confirm that Jesus is indeed the new Adam (and Joshua, Isaac, Moses, David, etc).

Biblical types of baptism would include circumcision, Noah and the flood, Moses and the parting of the sea, Joshua crossing the Jordan River, etc. Biblical types of the Eucharist include Melchizedek, The passover lamb, Manna, bread of the presence, etc. In some cases a person/event can have multiple types/anti-types. In Biblical typology it is important to remember that NT fulfillments are always greater than their OT prefigurement, but we should not expect precision between the type and the anti-type. In some cases the typology is almost a perfect correlation between OT and NT, but not in all cases. The Jews in the OT were living in a kind of prophetic fog they knew certain things would happen but they did not know exactly how, or why, or what the fulfillment would look like, which is why many rejected Jesus initially but came to accept him over time and by searching the scriptures (nod to the Bareans).

The Bible is FULL of types pointing toward and foreshadowing the Blessed Virgin Mary. I cannot go into all of them here, but my hope is that by introducing people to typology it might open their minds and hearts to a new and possibly deeper understanding of scripture, while at the same time showing how the Apostolic faith is not a bunch of extra-biblical doctrines.

There are some types of Mary that are more obvious and identifiable, and others are more subtle prefigurements. My previous post was on Mary the new Eve (The Woman), and this one will present Holy Mary: the New Ark of the Covenant.

---

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Holy Mary, The NEW Ark of the Covenant
In Exodus God commanded the Israelites to build and bless the ark of his covenant and He provided them with very detailed instructions including: incorruptible wood, pure gold, incense, statues of the Cherubim, etc. It was to be the holiest object on earth because it was to be the dwelling place of God on earth. The glory cloud of God, Shekinah, would overshadow the ark, and no one was to touch the ark once blessed except for those appointed who could hold the golden poles by which it was carried, lest they be struck dead.

Exodus 25:8, 10-11, 16
"Let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst"
"They shall make an ark of acacia (incorruptible) wood. You shall overlay it with pure gold, inside and outside you shall overlay it, and you shall make on it a molding of gold around it.

Exodus 25-40: Requirements & qualities of the ark

• The ark was to be the dwelling place of God on earth
• Sacred container holding the Manna, 10 Commandments, staff of Aaron (the bread, the word, the authority)
• Holy and made of incorruptible wood (Acacia wood)
• Covered in pure gold free from any impurities both inside and out - as a symbol of divinity, purity, and absolute holiness
• A mercy seat (throne) of pure gold overshadowed by the wings of two golden statues of Cherubim (angels)
• The ark was to be covered when carried by veiling it with a cloth of blue (Numbers 4:5-6)
• God's glory cloud (shekinah) descended from heaven and overshadowed the ark and filled the tabernacle. The cloud covered the tent of meeting and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.

The ark was the powerful and was the first thing the 12 priests brought into the promised land. The glory cloud was a visible sign that God had come down to be with his people, and it was the means by which God would lead his people through the wilderness and into the promised land. If the Israelites fought their enemies with the ark in their midst they were victorious, and when the ark was absent they were defeated.

Eventually King David decided to build a permanent home for the ark. David "arose and went" with the people of Israel "to bring up from there the ark of God which is called by the name of the LORD of Hosts" (2 Samuel 6:1-2). The oxen stumbles and Uzzah reaches out to catch the ark and is struck dead. And David was afraid of the LORD and said, "How can the ark of the LORD come to me?…so David took the ark aside (hill country) to the house of Obed-Edom and the ark remained there for 3 months and the LORD blessed Obed-Edom and all his household." (2 Samuel 6:6-11)

The ark was always Holy and untouchable, with and without the presence of the glory cloud. So then we see David treating the ark with the dignity and respect it deserves as David humbles himself and brings the ark into the City of Jerusalem. "So David went and brought up the ark of God….with rejoicing…and David danced before the LORD with all his might…with shouting and the sound of the horn." (2 Samuel 6:12-15)

According to Ezekiel, before the Temple was destroyed by the Babylonians in 587 B.C. The glory cloud of God's presence departed from Jerusalem and the temple. So what happened to the ark? Jewish tradition holds that Jeremiah the prophet took the ark up to Mount Nebo (where Moses had gone up east of the Jordan) and hid the ark there and declared "The place shall be unknown until the glory of the Lord and the cloud will appear." (2 Mac 2:4-8)

So the Jews were were keenly aware that in the temple they were missing two important components the glory cloud and the ark. When the high priest entered the Holy of Holies it was empty and bare, but it also shows the Jews were anticipating that one day the ark and cloud would return. And this is exactly what we see in Luke's Gospel with the annunciation: the return of the glory cloud of the LORD which overshadows the Blessed Virgin Mary fills her womb making Mary the literal tabernacle and ark of Jesus, our LORD. It was at this moment of conception that God became man, and his chosen place to tabernacle with us was the womb of his Blessed Mother, Mary; the Holy of Holies. Mary was the literal special dwelling place of God on earth.

++Okay, so now lets look at what Luke is obviously wanting the reader to understand++

In the sixth month (of Elizabeth's pregnancy) the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary. And he came to her and said "Hail, Full of Grace, the LORD is with you, but she was greatly troubled at this saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be."

" …And the angel said to her - - - The Holy Spirit will come upon you , and the power of the Most High will overshadow you, and therefore the child will be called holy, the Son of God - - - And Mary said, "Behold, I am the handmaiden of the LORD; let it be done to me according to your word."

So when read this passage in light of 2 Samuel and how David treated the Ark and see the parallels that Luke is making:

"In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country to a city of Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the child leaped in her womb: and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And why is this granted me, that the mother of my LORD should come to me? For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the child in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the LORD. - - - And Mary remained with her about three months, and returned to her home. "

Luke is basically shouting from the mountain tops that Mary is the Ark in his Gospel, but unfortunately this is a completely new concept to many Protestant Christians because of their interpretive tradition of proof texting Scripture. Mary's important and unique role in our salvation history is something that Catholic and EO Christians have always understood and embraced. We venerate her, and we seek her guidance and help because like the Ark in the OT we will be victorious with her, and defeated without her. I find the typical Protestant tends to downplay who Mary is and dismiss her significance as if she was just some random, ordinary teenage girl. She was not. She was set apart by God to be his mother and his dwelling place. Only through Mary can we know Jesus, and Mary does not distract us or take anything away from Jesus but rather she helps us draw closer to her son.

Lets turn to Revelation to see what John had to say about the ark and Mary:

"Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple, and there were flashes of lightening, loud noises, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. And a great sign appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars, she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. - - - And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days. - - - Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus." (Rev 11:19 12:6, 17)

I encourage our Protestant brothers and sisters to take a deep breath, and maybe a step back when it comes to your attitude and love towards our Blessed Mother. Mary is uniquely special and Mary is the exception to all mankind. Loving and venerating Mary takes nothing away from God and will only deepen your love and understanding for Jesus. Before dismissing what I have written here and jumping to attack me or our Blessed Mother, please just take a moment to reflect on how St. Luke introduced us to Mary and what he wanted us to see in the Mother of our Lord and Savior.

Peace in Christ.

I am not a theologian by any stretch of the imagination, and I don't have any formal training. I'm just a Catholic that seeks to understand and live our faith. I rely on a lot of different theologians, and what I put forward is supported by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (although I may make mistakes from time to time). The confidence comes from a 2,000 year lineage of Christians going back to the Apostles. I don't have to try and figure this out on my own because it's already been delivered to me. I just have to accept it and seek to live it.

I would add that part of the reason I decided to put this OP together is that you specifically seemed genuine in the other thread when you stated that this parallel of Mary being the ark was something completely new to you. But then you quickly dismissed the significance of what it might mean and that it really doesn't impact your faith or spiritual life. You immediately jumped to conclusions about everything else you already have been conditioned to think about Mary without slowing down to dig in to the ramifications of her actually being the ark.

What I am proposing in this OP is not new or novel to the Christian faith. It has been held by virtually all Christians going back to the apostles, with the exception of some modern day evangelicals that refuse to accept the obvious connection between Mary and the ark. It's almost like evangelicals are unwilling to engage because it might lead to something they are unwilling to accept. Don't stick your fingers in your ear on this, but instead just slow down and focus on the question of "is Mary really the ark of the covenant? Is she the literal tabernacle of the LORD?" When you are able to accept that she is, only then should you ask yourself how that might be significant.

Thanks for your time to thoroughly explain the position of the RCC.

I finally came across a detailed Protestant/reformed rebuttal that address many of the items you listed out as I was doing some research from the other thread this week. I'm sure it will not be anything ground breaking but it at least brings forth the other perspective.
https://www.keithmathison.org/post/is-the-ark-of-the-covenant-a-type-of-mary

At the end of the day, the very end of the article sums up my thoughts as he shows a picture of a statue/replica of the ark in a Catholic Church.

Quote:

---

If you don't know what this is, allow me to explain. It is what the Old Testament would refer to as an abomination. It is a replica of the ark of the covenant with a statue of Mary placed on the Mercy Seat between the cherubim. Let me repeat that. Mary is on the Mercy Seat between the cherubim. Mary is in the place that exclusively belongs to God.

Anyone who is even remotely familiar with the Bible and the passages we just explored will immediately recognize this for what it is. It is blasphemy. Roman Catholics and those impacted by Roman Catholic hermeneutics, on the other hand, will try to find ways to justify this abomination. Your reaction to these photos is actually a good litmus test. If you are in any way sympathetic to it to them, you need to immediately repent.

---

Excellent job! Thanks for posting this!

No, man, that completely misses it. It absolutely and fundamentally misses it.

The place where Yahweh appears - YES! And where did Christ appear? How? He was born of a virgin. He appeared once a year in the Tabernacle, but here he came and tabernacled among us, as St John says.

The Platytera Icon - that of the Mother of God over the altar - is an image of Christ. It is a confession that the person born of Mary is the SAME god who appeared over the altar in the tabernacle.

It is not a call to worship Mary. How do I know? Because every Orthodox Church has this icon over the altar. I've never worshipped the Theotokos and I never will. I don't look up there and worship her, it's not part of our faith and it never will be. Because that is an image of Christ. And, truly, everything we say about the Theotokos is about Christ, not about her. She points to Him.

Zobel said it already above, but when I saw the image I immediately saw Christ - not Mary. Think about it this way, God's rightful place is on the throne or Mercy Seat. Mary is the true tabernacle and the image is not Mary on the Mercy Seat but Jesus who at the moment of conception became man and dwelt among us IN THE WOMB OF MARY. This is where the saying comes from that "In her womb she contained what they whole world could not contain".

This image is not idolatry in any way whatsoever, but rather this image is perfect Theology. Think about it, if Jesus is God and he is dwelling in his Mother, where else should his mother be than on the Mercy Seat?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I have enjoyed the process of learning about this whole concept, as I have mentioned in the other thread. It is an interesting connection, but not one that I ultimately am going to embrace as doctrine. John 3:30 states, "He must increase, but I must decrease." I am not a fan of taking a singular verse out of scripture and using it alone, but it is one of my over arching pillars of what to live my life by. I don't think Mary is excluded from this sentiment, even being a blessed and highly favored instrument of the LORD. The idea of increasing Mary's stature or significance beyond fallible man - from how I have been taught and catechized - I don't see how the two can exist with what scripture teaches us about who God is and man's relation to that. In addition, the entire NT is just void of any further clarification about Mary and her elevated significance.

That's where I'm at (shrug).

---

This is what makes these conversations difficult because many evangelicals or "Sola Scriptura" Christians are unable or unwilling consider anything that might not align with their interpretive tradition of proof texting.

On this specific subject, you were introduced to something that was completely foreign to you and a novel concept based on how you have been catechized. This is a concept that the Apostolic Church has held and taught going all the way back to the Apostles, and yet you had never been introduced to it before. What was your response? To essentially do a little cursory reading on a few websites that align with your preconceived ideas and just "shrug" it off like it doesn't matter or make any difference.

I appreciate the website link you provided, however the author did essentially what you are doing only with more words. He was dismissive and did not address the issue with substance. Then threw out some red meat with the image/statue and claimed victory not realizing he failed miserably in his critique.

I hope you will keep an open mind and do some more research on the subject. Remember that God's people were victorious when they were in the presence of the ark, and without the ark were defeated. This holds true even today as we fight our spiritual battles in this fallen world.

Peace in Christ to you.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Appreciate it.

And with all due respect, I am following my doctrine and catechism just as you are. For example, I would anticipate your investigation of TULIP to be in the context of what the RCC teaches and says about it.

---

First of all, I really appreciate the civil discourse here.

Five point TULIP Calvinists make up less than 30% of Protestants (and that is being very generous as a lot of those who call themselves Calvinists do not believe in double predestination). So it is not just the RCC who teaches a different theology than Calvinism.

Catholic and Orthodox theologians reject Calvinism.

Calvin completely changed the way predestination and election had been taught for over 1500 years.

Just seems strange that all of these Christian theologians and leaders (as well as the majority of Christians) reject Calvinism. Are they all misled?

Calvin was a great mind and had a lot of good thoughts but he is only a man. I do not understand the almost total dependence on one man's interpretation of Scripture.

OP, there is a major flaw in Catholicism's view of Mary as the Ark.

You continually state Mary IS the Ark. No, she isn't. She WAS the Ark.

Mary died 2,000 years ago and was only saved by the grace of her son, God's only Son.

Our SAVIOR lives. He is risen indeed.

Mary, on the other hand, does not live and was not risen. The use of anything present tense describing Mary is just weird….

AgPrognosticator said:

---

OP, there is a major flaw in Catholicism's view of Mary as the Ark.

You continually state Mary IS the Ark. No, she isn't. She WAS the Ark.

Mary died 2,000 years ago and was only saved by the grace of her son, God's only Son.

Our SAVIOR lives. He is risen indeed.

Mary, on the other hand, does not live and was not risen. The use of anything present tense describing Mary is just weird….

---

Even Jesus speaks of the dead in present tense

"He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive." Luke 20:38

"Jesus answered him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."" Luke 23:43

AgPrognosticator said:

---

OP, there is a major flaw in Catholicism's view of Mary as the Ark.

You continually state Mary IS the Ark. No, she isn't. She WAS the Ark.

Mary died 2,000 years ago and was only saved by the grace of her son, God's only Son.

Our SAVIOR lives. He is risen indeed.

Mary, on the other hand, does not live and was not risen. The use of anything present tense describing Mary is just weird….

---

This is not a flaw in Catholic theology, as Catholics believe that saints are fully alive in heaven.

Faithful Ag said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Why would she say that?

---

Because everything about Mary leads us to Christ, and Mary perfectly and completely magnifies Christ for us. This is why when Zobel and I looked at the "blasphemous image of Mary" from your link, we both saw a beautiful image of Christ. Yes, Mary was there by she was not the focus but rather she was magnifying Jesus. Nothing about Mary detracts from God but everything about Mary magnifies Christ.

I think sometimes the evangelical reaction is somewhat knee-jerk when it comes to Mary. There is so much sensitivity and offense taken by anything highlighting Mary that the conditioned response is to jump to blasphemy accusations. Taking a step back and a deep breath might help to see that the accusations might be missing the mark.

Quote:

---

And Mary said,
"My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant.
For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
And his mercy is for those who fear him
from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts;
he has brought down the mighty from their thrones
and exalted those of humble estate;
he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent away empty.
He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
as he spoke to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his offspring forever."

---

---

Gotcha.
So to the idea that Mary was sinless…did she need a savior if she lived a perfect life? The whole reason we need a savior is because of sin. If someone, in your case Mary, is without sin, I'd think she had no use for a savior. Was Mary her own savior?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Why would she say that?

---

Because everything about Mary leads us to Christ, and Mary perfectly and completely magnifies Christ for us. This is why when Zobel and I looked at the "blasphemous image of Mary" from your link, we both saw a beautiful image of Christ. Yes, Mary was there by she was not the focus but rather she was magnifying Jesus. Nothing about Mary detracts from God but everything about Mary magnifies Christ.

I think sometimes the evangelical reaction is somewhat knee-jerk when it comes to Mary. There is so much sensitivity and offense taken by anything highlighting Mary that the conditioned response is to jump to blasphemy accusations. Taking a step back and a deep breath might help to see that the accusations might be missing the mark.

Quote:

---

And Mary said,
"My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant.
For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
And his mercy is for those who fear him
from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts;
he has brought down the mighty from their thrones
and exalted those of humble estate;
he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent away empty.
He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
as he spoke to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his offspring forever."

---

---

Gotcha.
So to the idea that Mary was sinless…did she need a savior if she lived a perfect life? The whole reason we need a savior is because of sin. If someone, in your case Mary, is without sin, I'd think she had no use for a savior. Was Mary her own savior?

---

Probably has been mentioned before in these threads (haven't read through them all), but she did have a savior... The same Savior... He saved her from falling into sin by a unique grace. Prevented from falling into the pit vs being rescued from the depths of the pit.

From the link you posted on Calvinism it speaks of "infant stages" and alludes to the development of doctrine over time:

Quote:

---

With a hearty consulting of primary sources, readers can certainly find the "infant stages" of all these Gospel doctrines throughout the writings of the early church. And not only these can be found in "infant stages" but they can be found quite specifically in many of the early writers.

---

I would ask you to apply this same idea to what we see throughout the history of the Apostolic Church with regard to Mary, beginning with her being the ark. I have shown you the "infant stages" of this idea straight from the gospel of St. Luke.

Faithful Ag said:

---

From the link you posted on Calvinism it speaks of "infant stages" and alludes to the development of doctrine over time:

Quote:

---

With a hearty consulting of primary sources, readers can certainly find the "infant stages" of all these Gospel doctrines throughout the writings of the early church. And not only these can be found in "infant stages" but they can be found quite specifically in many of the early writers.

---

I would ask you to apply this same idea to what we see throughout the history of the Apostolic Church with regard to Mary, beginning with her being the ark. I have shown you the "infant stages" of this idea straight from the gospel of St. Luke.

---

Great point and perspective.

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Appreciate it.

And with all due respect, I am following my doctrine and catechism just as you are. For example, I would anticipate your investigation of TULIP to be in the context of what the RCC teaches and says about it.

---

First of all, I really appreciate the civil discourse here.

Five point TULIP Calvinists make up less than 30% of Protestants (and that is being very generous as a lot of those who call themselves Calvinists do not believe in double predestination). So it is not just the RCC who teaches a different theology than Calvinism.

Catholic and Orthodox theologians reject Calvinism.

Calvin completely changed the way predestination and election had been taught for over 1500 years.

Just seems strange that all of these Christian theologians and leaders (as well as the majority of Christians) reject Calvinism. Are they all misled?

Calvin was a great mind and had a lot of good thoughts but he is only a man. I do not understand the almost total dependence on one man's interpretation of Scripture.

---

Calvin obviously made a huge impact regarding the doctrines of grace. However it's not true that this was not talked about or taught from early church fathers.

https://www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/calvinism-in-the-early-church-the-doctrines-of-grace-taught-by-the-early-church-fathers/

In addition to the post apostolic era, we (reformed) believe the apostles clearly taught all of this. Paul and Peter's letters are filled with it. Jesus taught it.

I'm not going to pretend to be a scholar on the matter, but we are also warned all over the place to beware of false teaching. So while I will agree that many of the revered saints are not false teachers, they are men. So yea, many could have been wrong. And some probably were flat out false teachers.

---

So are you saying that any theology other than reformed theology is false teaching?

And about 80- 90% of Christian theologians are false teachers?

---

You do realize that 40% of Christians worldwide are Protestant, right? I fully expect that ratio to grow. Catholicism's dependance on papal authority is in and of itself contrary to Jesus' teachings.

Jesus is my High Priest.