Mary the ark

[Lamb]

Could Mary be considered a type of ark since she had our Lord in her womb?

 

[Lanman87]

Typology is a tricky thing as often a matter of opinion and speculation.

Catholics like to say that the Ark of the Covenant and Mary are link typo-logically. They do this to show the perpetual virginity of Mary and other Marian dogmas. Basically, because they are both "arks" and because if you touched the Ark of the Covenant you died then if Joseph would have touched Mary sexually he would have died or that Joseph would have not touched Mary sexually because she gave birth the Christ and didn't want to soil the vessel that carried the Christ.

To me, that is a lot of speculation. First of all, just because things are linked typo-logically that doesn't mean everything about them is exactly the same.

For instance, King David is often said to be a "type" of Christ. And this is very true. David was a Shepherd, a King, a warrior, a poet, and a prophet. However, David was also an adulterer, a liar, a murderer and vengeful. King David pointed toward and foreshadowed Christ, which is what a "type" does.

I wouldn't say that Mary is a type of Ark I would say that the Ark is a type of Mary. The Covenant with Israel points to the New Covenant in Christ, not the other way around. The Ark was where the covenant was stored. Mary is where the new covenant was given. From that perspective you could also say that Mount Sinai was also at type of Mary. Mount Sinai was where mankind received the Law and Mary is how mankind received the Christ.

But however you put it, there is also a lot of differences. First of all Mary was a human and the Ark (or Mount Sinai) were inanimate objects. The ark didn't have emotions or needs. There was no need to touch the ark. But I bet Mary needed a hug just like everything other human.

Second of all, the ark is where the law was stored. Mary was where the Christ was given. The Law stayed in the Ark. Christ didn't stay in Mary. This begs the question, if the Law was removed from the ark, is it still the ark? If someone touched the ark after the law had been removed would they have died like Uzzah did when he tried to keep the ark from falling? Or is the ark without the law inside just an empty box?

Is Mary an "ark" only while she is pregnant or is she an "ark" for the rest of her life?

That is the problem with typology. If often causes more questions than it gives answers.

 

[Josiah]

Typology is a tricky thing as often a matter of opinion and speculation.

Catholics like to say that the Ark of the Covenant and Mary are link typo-logically. They do this to show the perpetual virginity of Mary and other Marian dogmas. Basically, because they are both "arks" and because if you touched the Ark of the Covenant you died then if Joseph would have touched Mary sexually he would have died or that Joseph would have not touched Mary sexually because she gave birth the Christ and didn't want to soil the vessel that carried the Christ.

To me, that is a lot of speculation. First of all, just because things are linked typo-logically that doesn't mean everything about them is exactly the same.

For instance, King David is often said to be a "type" of Christ. And this is very true. David was a Shepherd, a King, a warrior, a poet, and a prophet. However, David was also an adulterer, a liar, a murderer and vengeful. King David pointed toward and foreshadowed Christ, which is what a "type" does.

I wouldn't say that Mary is a type of Ark I would say that the Ark is a type of Mary. The Covenant with Israel points to the New Covenant in Christ, not the other way around. The Ark was where the covenant was stored. Mary is where the new covenant was given. From that perspective you could also say that Mount Sinai was also at type of Mary. Mount Sinai was where mankind received the Law and Mary is how mankind received the Christ.

But however you put it, there is also a lot of differences. First of all Mary was a human and the Ark (or Mount Sinai) were inanimate objects. The ark didn't have emotions or needs. There was no need to touch the ark. But I bet Mary needed a hug just like everything other human.

Second of all, the ark is where the law was stored. Mary was where the Christ was given. The Law stayed in the Ark. Christ didn't stay in Mary. This begs the question, if the Law was removed from the ark, is it still the ark? If someone touched the ark after the law had been removed would they have died like Uzzah did when he tried to keep the ark from falling? Or is the ark without the law inside just an empty box?

Is Mary an "ark" only while she is pregnant or is she an "ark" for the rest of her life?

That is the problem with typology. If often causes more questions than it gives answers.

Extremely well put.... better than I've ever seen. Thank you!



A blessed Advent and Christmas season to you and yours.


- Josiah


.

 

[Albion]

Making these unwarranted connections is typical of Roman Catholicism, however. In order to justify some of the doctrines that almost no other Christians believe, some 'fast footwork' like this Mary-Ark explanation is needed.

Another example concerns the Assumption of Mary (bodily into heaven), which lately has become an official dogma, required under "pain of mortal sin." Nothing in the Bible points to it. And then there's also the idea of Mary as "ever virgin." This idea arises from the old notion that there is something inherently holy about being a virgin, so why would God allow Mary to be "unvirgined" by the act of giving birth to Jesus? Again and again, teachings are based on rationalizations, not Scripture or even "Holy Tradition."

 

[Stephen]

I wouldn't say that Mary is a type of Ark I would say that the Ark is a type of Mary. The Covenant with Israel points to the New Covenant in Christ, not the other way around.

If the OT points to the NT as in "the Covenant with Israel points to the New Covenant in Christ", then surely the OT ark would point to the NT ark (Mary).

 

[Albion]

If the OT points to the NT as in "the Covenant with Israel points to the New Covenant in Christ", then surely the OT ark would point to the NT ark (Mary).

Only if Mary is, in reality, an Ark.

 

[Lanman87]

If the OT points to the NT as in "the Covenant with Israel points to the New Covenant in Christ", then surely the OT ark would point to the NT ark (Mary).

Like I said, it leads to a lot of speculation.

The Ark was where the tablets (the old covenant) were stored and transported. Mary was how Christ (who brought the New covenant) was delivered to mankind. Mary and the Ark had different purposes and a different outcome. The Ark was built by man at the instruction of God. Mary was favored and chosen by God and submitted to God in obedience.

It also needs to be pointed out that while the Ark carried the Tablets the Glory of God actually dwelt in the Tabernacle.

34 Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. 35 And Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting because the cloud settled on it, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle Exodus 40:34-35

Since God dwelled in Mary as Jesus it might be better to say that Mary is the Tabernacle of the New Covenant.

But, if you want to say that Mary is the "New Ark" because she carried "the Word" then that might be a topological relationship. But I reject going beyond that correlation to try and prove/show other correlations between the Ark and Mary. It doesn't mean that she was a sinless, ever-virgin. It also doesn't mean that she is not those things. But the Typological argument is a weak argument from presuppositions and speculation.

 

[Albion]

Good post, Lanman. I liked it...and I appreciated the earlier one, too.

As I understand what has been posted, you and I both contended that there is something of a case that can be made for the idea of connecting Mary and the Ark, but that it's a stretch.

Also, you pointed out here that a good argument can be made from both Scripture and history which leans towards the opposite conclusion. All things considered, I agree with that conclusion.

 

[atpollard]

There are two arks in scripture and, functionally, both point more towards Christ than Mary.

Noah constructed an ark that enclosed 8 people and delivered them from the Judgement and destruction of God in the great flood: it is Christ in whom men find ultimate deliverance from judgement and destruction (more so than Mary).

Moses constructed an ark of wood in which dwelt the Law on tablets of stone, written by the hand of God and delivered to men. The Glory of the Lord came down and rested on the Ark in the tabernacle. The new law of the new covenant (the word) is found in Christ, upon whom the Spirit of God descended as a dove and from whom shone the Glory of God (more so than Mary).

Thus both OT arks functionally point to Christ more than they point to Mary.

 

[Stephen]

I don't think comparing the Ark of the Covenant to Mary is a stretch at all.

The old Ark contained (Manna) bread from heaven; the new Ark contained the bread of life, the new bread from heaven (see Jn 6:31-32).

The old Ark carried the written word of God (Ten Commandments); the new Ark contained the living Word of God

The old Ark contained the symbol of the High Priest (Aaron’s Rod); the new Ark contained the eternal High Priest.

in Revelation 11:19 John says he has seen the Ark in heaven. This would be truly astounding to the Jews of that time. After 6 centuries the ark was seen again. Then in the next sentence John says "A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head." That woman is Mary. Mary is the Ark that John saw.

But John is not the only evangelist to see Mary as the ark of the new covenant.

Luke, who is believed to get his infancy narratives from Mary herself, seems to identify Mary with the Ark by drawing comparisons between Mary’s visit to Elizabeth (Lk chap 1) and David’s expedition to recover the Ark (2 Sam 6)

1. David travelled to the “house of Abinadab on a hill”. (2Sam 6)
Mary travelled to the “hill country” (lk 1:39)

2.David feared the Lord that day and said, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Sam 6:9)
Elizabeth says And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? (Lk 1:43)

3.The ark of the Lord remained in the house of Obededom the Gittite for three months (2 Sam 6:11
Mary remained with her [Elizabeth] about three months and then returned to her home. (Luke 1:56)

4. David “danced before the Lord”.
The infant in Elizabeth’s womb [John] “leaped for joy” in her womb.

5. The ark returns to its home and ends up in Jerusalem, where God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple (2 Sam. 6:12; 1 Kgs. 8:9–11).
Mary returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple (Luke 1:56; 2:21–22).

There is one more place where Luke indicates that Mary is the new Ark. He reports the angel saying to Mary “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” (Lk 1:35). The Greek word for overshadow is the same Greek word used in Ex 40:34 (in the Greek LXX) when the glory cloud of the Lord (the Shekinah Glory) covered (overshadowed) the tent of meeting.

 

[Albion]

I don't think comparing the Ark of the Covenant to Mary is a stretch at all.

The old Ark contained (Manna) bread from heaven; the new Ark contained the bread of life, the new bread from heaven (see Jn 6:31-32).

The old Ark carried the written word of God (Ten Commandments); the new Ark contained the living Word of God

The old Ark contained the symbol of the High Priest (Aaron’s Rod); the new Ark contained the eternal High Priest.

That would be the reason we have different Christian denominations, I suppose.

But although it is possible to string together a number of apparent similarities, that doesn't make for a very solid case when asserting as true such a theory as this one. And that's especially noteworthy when it is obvious that there are quite a few dissimilarities involved as well! That point was referred to in earlier posts.

 

[Stephen]

That would be the reason we have different Christian denominations, I suppose.

But although it is possible to string together a number of apparent similarities, that doesn't make for a very solid case when asserting as true such a theory as this one. And that's especially noteworthy when it is obvious that there are quite a few dissimilarities involved as well! That point was referred to in earlier posts.

How many similarities do you want?

 

[Lanman87]

How many similarities do you want?

I have no problems saying that Mary and the Ark are somehow typologically related.

I do however, have a problem saying that typological relationship means that Mary is/was a sinless ever-virgin. Just because one may be true doesn't mean the other has to be true. Old Testament types foreshadow and point to New Testament types. It doesn't mean they are replicas or share every feature or mean anything more than simply showing the New Covenant is a continuation/maturation of the Old.

 

[Albion]

I have no problems saying that Mary and the Ark are somehow typologically related.

I do however, have a problem saying that typological relationship means that Mary is/was a sinless ever-virgin.

Good point.

Just because one may be true doesn't mean the other has to be true. Old Testament types foreshadow and point to New Testament types. It doesn't mean they are replicas or share every feature or mean anything more than simply showing the New Covenant is a continuation/maturation of the Old.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Catholics like to say that the Ark of the Covenant and Mary are link typo-logically. They do this to show the perpetual virginity of Mary and other Marian dogmas.

That attribution of motives does not sound right.

Mary is regarded as the ark of the new covenant because of passages in scripture, one of which is this:

And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple. And there were lightnings and voices and an earthquake and great hail. And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. And being with child, she cried travailing in birth: and was in pain to be delivered.​

Revelation 11:19-12:2

 

[Stephen]

I have no problems saying that Mary and the Ark are somehow typologically related.

I do however, have a problem saying that typological relationship means that Mary is/was a sinless ever-virgin. Just because one may be true doesn't mean the other has to be true. Old Testament types foreshadow and point to New Testament types. It doesn't mean they are replicas or share every feature or mean anything more than simply showing the New Covenant is a continuation/maturation of the Old.

I have not said that "typological relationship means that Mary is/was a sinless ever-virgin". That sounds like a straw man invention of yours

As @MoreCoffee has pointed out, attributing that motive for the connection does not sound right. The arguments for Mary being sinless and ever-virgin do not start with the typological connection, though it does have a supporting role to what can be argued from scripture without it.

 

[Lanman87]

I have not said that "typological relationship means that Mary is/was a sinless ever-virgin". That sounds like a straw man invention of yours

I never said that "you" said that it what it means.

Here is what I said in my original reply

Catholics like to say that the Ark of the Covenant and Mary are link typo-logically. They do this to show the perpetual virginity of Mary and other Marian dogmas. Basically, because they are both "arks" and because if you touched the Ark of the Covenant you died then if Joseph would have touched Mary sexually he would have died or that Joseph would have not touched Mary sexually because she gave birth the Christ and didn't want to soil the vessel that carried the Christ.

The reason I said that is because just about every time I've had a discussion about Mary with Catholics (online or otherwise) they bring up that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and just like it forbidden to touch the First Ark and they point out Uzzah reaching out to brace the Ark and then falling over dead because he had not been instructed to touch the Ark. If it is a straw-man argument then it is one used by Catholics.

I also didn't say that this is the only argument Catholics have concerning the various Marian Dogmas. But this thread isn't about those other arguments.

My argument is that even if Mary and the Ark are typologically related that it isn't supportive of the Marian dogmas. You have to make assumptions about what being a "Type" means.

If you assume the type and ante-type have to share all the same attributes then "Mary the Ark" does support the Marian Dogmas.

If you assume the type only points to or foreshadows the ante-type and they don't have so share all or even most of the same attributes but are linked in a specific and limited ways, then "Mary the Ark" does nothing to support the Marian Dogmas.

I have no problem saying that "Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant" as long as the second (I believe the correct) assumption is used.

Another problem with typology is that it is very subjective.

For instance, I could logically say that the Ark/Tabernacle was a type of "Christian". After all, the Spirit of God dwelled in the Tabernacle and now the Spirit of God indwells all true believers. In a typological sense, all who are "in Christ" are Arks of the New Covenant. Christ abides in us and we in Him.

 

[Albion]

Catholics like to say that the Ark of the Covenant and Mary are link typo-logically. They do this to show the perpetual virginity of Mary and other Marian dogmas. Basically, because they are both "arks" and because if you touched the Ark of the Covenant you died then if Joseph would have touched Mary sexually he would have died or that Joseph would have not touched Mary sexually because she gave birth the Christ and didn't want to soil the vessel that carried the Christ............................................

The reason I said that is because just about every time I've had a discussion about Mary with Catholics (online or otherwise) they bring up that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and just like it forbidden to touch the First Ark and they point out Uzzah reaching out to brace the Ark and then falling over dead because he had not been instructed to touch the Ark. If it is a straw-man argument then it is one used by Catholics.

That's true. And why is it true? Because there is almost nothing else on which to base these Marian doctrines!

Joseph supposedly being afraid to touch his wife during the rest of his life is, of course, just a guess and a rather far-fetched one anyway.

The Assumption is based upon a legend that arose when one of the several claimed burial spots of the Virgin's body was opened and the grave found to be empty. Obviously, there are a number of other possible explanations, including that this wasn't the actual burial site. And another variant--that she was taken to heaven while still alive (which the Roman Catholic Church considers an acceptable theory)--leaves no reason for there to be a burial at all.

Then there's the idea of Mary being Ever-Virgin. This is possibly even more ridiculous, being based upon another pious legend that contended that Mary didn't lose her virginity in a physical sense by giving birth to Jesus because it took place in some other, unusual, manner such as through a magic and unassisted (!) Caesarian section that left no scars.