Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[apophasis]

Let me see if I understand you. Are you saying that “EVERY “type” taught” refers to Jesus only? There were no OT types of baptism or the Lord’s Supper?

Concerning Mary, is there no prophecy concerning her in Genesis 3:15?

“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”

Whenever do we normally speak of “seed” as being from a woman? Isn’t “seed” commonly thought of as coming from the man? Yet, there was no man involved in the conception of Jesus, so this passage must refer to that unique conception that we call the “virgin birth”.

Since we are all “at odds” with Satan who seeks to destroy us, why should there be any special “enmity” between this woman and the ancient serpent. In fact, because of our sinfulness, we actually have some affinity with the devil. But Mary, conceived without sin, does not.

Therefore, I submit that this passage (and those of Revelation 12) refers specifically to Mary.

Perhaps I have missed your point…

I have to leave early today but I’ll just say, there is a difference between a “type” and a “prophecy.” For instance, Adam was a “type” of Christ. Adam the type, Jesus the anti-type (see Rom. 5:14-21). Joseph was a type of Christ, as was Issac. Scripture gives no indication that the “ark” below the “mercy seat” was a type of Mary. She being the anti-type.

A prophecy is different. And no, I disagree. Gen. 3:15 is not a prophecy specifically about Mary herself. There are no prophecies specifically predicting the person of Mary like prophecies specifically predicting the Person of Christ in Scripture. The O.T. prophetic hope was not Messiah and His mother. For instance Peter writes:1 Pet. 1:10-11 "As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that {would come} to you made careful searches and inquiries, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow."Mary herself was not the object of prophecy in the O.T. The identity sought was not that of a virgin, but of Christ. Biblical Christianity is not about a virgin, but the One to whom a virgin gives birth.

The woman in the sign in Rev. 12 is not the person of Mary. Contextually it is the nation of Israel. Please don’t come back to me with “we Catholics believe it’s Mary, Israel and the Church.” Mary herself is not the direct object of Biblical prophecy.

Now there are prophecies directly regarding future events concerning national Israel and the church, but they are always in relationship to the Person of Christ.

Rather than just react, I hope you’ll give some thought to what I’m trying to communicate here.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have to leave early today but I’ll just say, there is a difference between a “type” and a “prophecy.”

Agreed. I did shift gears quickly in my last post, didn’t I?

For instance, Adam was a “type” of Christ. Adam the type, Jesus the anti-type (see Rom. 5:14-21). Joseph was a type of Christ, as was Issac. Scripture gives no indication that the “ark” below the “mercy seat” was a type of Mary. She being the anti-type.

A prophecy is different. And no, I disagree. Gen. 3:15 is not a prophecy specifically about Mary herself. There are no prophecies specifically predicting the person of Mary like prophecies specifically predicting the Person of Christ in Scripture. The O.T. prophetic hope was not Messiah and His mother. For instance Peter writes:1 Pet. 1:10-11 "As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that {would come} to you made careful searches and inquiries, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow."Mary herself was not the object of prophecy in the O.T. The identity sought was not that of a virgin, but of Christ. Biblical Christianity is not about a virgin, but the One to whom a virgin gives birth.

So, from your perspective, there is no type or prophecy of Mary in the OT?

The woman in the sign in Rev. 12 is not the person of Mary. Contextually it is the nation of Israel. Please don’t come back to me with “we Catholics believe it’s Mary, Israel and the Church.” Mary herself is not the direct object of Biblical prophecy.

Why do I have to accept your position on this when the Church has specifically stated that although all three ideas are acceptable, the primary meaning of Revelation 12 is Mary?

Rather than just react, I hope you’ll give some thought to what I’m trying to communicate here.

Gee, I hope I didn’t overreact!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Apophasis-

I know you’ve seen the following before, so I’m not going to ask you to comment on this specifically. However, after reviewing these parallels, are you saying that this is all just coincidence? If not, what?

The ark of the Old Covenant contained the words of God written on Stone. (Deut. 10:5, Hebrews 9:4)
The Ark of the New Covenant contained the Word of God made flesh. (John 1:1)

The ark of the Old Covenant contained the jar of manna which came down from heaven. (Exodus 16:32, Hebrews 9:4)
The Ark of the New Covenant contained Jesus, the bread which came down from heaven. (John 6:31-41)

The ark traveled to the house of Obed-edom in the hill country of Judea (2 Sam. 6:1–11).
Mary traveled to the house of Elizabeth and Zechariah in the hill country of Judea (Luke 1:39).

A man touched the Ark to steady it without God’s permission and was struck dead on the spot. David was filled with awe and said, “Who am I that the Ark of the Lord should come unto me?” (2 Samuel 6:9)
Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Spirit and said, “Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come unto me?” (Luke 1:43)

Dressed as a priest, David danced and leapt in front of the ark (2 Sam. 6:14).
John the Baptist—of priestly lineage—leapt in his mother’s womb at the approach of Mary (Luke 1:41).

David shouts in the presence of the ark (2 Sam. 6:15).
Elizabeth “exclaimed with a loud cry” in the presence of the Mary (Luke 1:42).

The ark remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months (2 Sam. 6:11).
Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months (Luke 1:56).

The house of Obed-edom was blessed by the presence of the ark (2 Sam. 6:11).
The word blessed is used three times; surely the house was blessed by God (Luke 1:39–45).

The ark returns home and ends up in Jerusalem, 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).

 

[apophasis]

It is an error to assume that no writings are Theopneustos just because they are not included in the canon. Although the Church has proclaimed that all the ones contained in there definitely are, it does not follow that there are others that may be also. For example, perhaps the letter to the Laodicians that Paul wrote?

Col 4:16 "When this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part read my letter {that is coming} from Laodicea."Paul is not saying he wrote a letter to the Laodicieans (as some contend was subsequently lost). The early church copied and passed his letters around. It’s far more likely Paul was talking about the letter he’d written to the church at Ephesus. There are no lost letters, else God is not watching over His word to perform it (Jer. 1:12).

No, no scripture is the basis for the formation of Christian doctrine. On the contrary, the scriptures are the reflection of Christian doctrine. The doctrine is formed by the preaching of Christ and the Apostles. Some of this is reflected in scripture, but the doctrine came first, and the scripture later.

All Christian doctrine (teaching) must be based on what has been divinely revealed. Not what men “feel.” The Scriptures themselves ARE divine revelation (theopneustos, God-breathed). We teach that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent because that is what Scripture reveals about Him. We teach the triune nature of God because that is what is revealed about Him in the Scriptures. The Christian doctrines pertaining to Christ and salvation are based on what the Scriptures reveal.

For example, when the magi inquired as to where the king of the Jews was to be born they looked to the Scriptures which revealed it (Matt. 2:1-6), where that truth about Him was revealed and preserved for the generation that would experience it.

Our generation could not accurately know about Christ and salvation except God preserved those truths in Holy Writ. Even Jesus explained to His Apostles the things concerning Himself and what He had to suffer according to the Scriptures, in which those prophetic truths were preserved (Lk. 24:25-27, 32, 45).

And, consequently, we can also test the teachings of men by them. For instance, the early Christian doctrine of the Trinity merely codified what was already divinely revealed about God in the Scriptures. The Trinity is not a personal belief based on men’s feelings about God (like men express their feelings about Mary), but that which was divinely revealed about Him and preserved in Scripture.

One of the factors used to determine canonicity of the early writings was the consistency of the content with the Apostolic Faith as it has been handed down.

But they were theopneustos at the very moment they were penned. Men had no say in this factor. The Scriptures are, inherently, divine revelation. Men do not determine them so. And all doctrines taught by men in the Church must reflect what has been revealed in them. That’s why Catholic Marian dogmas are considered extra-biblical.

 

[Mickey]

You’ve got it backwards.

No. In the New Testament the Ark is Mary, who housed the miraculous bread from heaven.

You can twist and spin until the cows come home, but you will never change simple truths.

 

[justasking4]

No. In the New Testament the Ark is Mary, who housed the miraculous bread from heaven.

You can twist and spin until the cows come home, but you will never change simple truths.

Where in the NT does it say “the Ark is Mary, who housed the miraculous bread from heaven”? Which writer of the NT or church father ever taught such a thing?

 

[davidv]

Where in the NT does it say “the Ark is Mary, who housed the miraculous bread from heaven”? Which writer of the NT or church father ever taught such a thing?

John 6:48 I am the** bread of life**. [miraculous bread from heaven]
Matt 1:16 …Mary, of whom Jesus was** born**… [housed]

 

[clmowry]

Apophasis-

I know you’ve seen the following before, so I’m not going to ask you to comment on this specifically. However, after reviewing these parallels, are you saying that this is all just coincidence? If not, what?

The ark of the Old Covenant contained the words of God written on Stone. (Deut. 10:5, Hebrews 9:4)
The Ark of the New Covenant contained the Word of God made flesh. (John 1:1)

The ark of the Old Covenant contained the jar of manna which came down from heaven. (Exodus 16:32, Hebrews 9:4)
The Ark of the New Covenant contained Jesus, the bread which came down from heaven. (John 6:31-41)

The ark traveled to the house of Obed-edom in the hill country of Judea (2 Sam. 6:1–11).
Mary traveled to the house of Elizabeth and Zechariah in the hill country of Judea (Luke 1:39).

A man touched the Ark to steady it without God’s permission and was struck dead on the spot. David was filled with awe and said, “Who am I that the Ark of the Lord should come unto me?” (2 Samuel 6:9)
Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Spirit and said, “Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come unto me?” (Luke 1:43)

Dressed as a priest, David danced and leapt in front of the ark (2 Sam. 6:14).
John the Baptist—of priestly lineage—leapt in his mother’s womb at the approach of Mary (Luke 1:41).

David shouts in the presence of the ark (2 Sam. 6:15).
Elizabeth “exclaimed with a loud cry” in the presence of the Mary (Luke 1:42).

The ark remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months (2 Sam. 6:11).
Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months (Luke 1:56).

The house of Obed-edom was blessed by the presence of the ark (2 Sam. 6:11).
The word blessed is used three times; surely the house was blessed by God (Luke 1:39–45).

The ark returns home and ends up in Jerusalem, 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).

 

[Axion]

I
The woman in the sign in Rev. 12 is not the person of Mary. Contextually it is the nation of Israel. Please don’t come back to me with “we Catholics believe it’s Mary, Israel and the Church.” Mary herself is not the direct object of Biblical prophecy.
.

Not true.

All the other personages in Revelation 12 are INDIVI|DUALS. To make just one person (the woman giving birth to Jesus) not an individual but a collective, does excessive vioplence to the text.

The “anyone but Mary” argument is formed by starting from your preconceptions and prejudices (Mary herself is not the direct object of Biblical prophecy,) and then bending the text to fit them.

Contextually the nation Israel has not been seen as the Woman of revelation - as verified by the fact that virtually no theologian prior to the past century or so ever came up with that notion.

 

[Mickey]

John 6:48 I am the** bread of life**. [miraculous bread from heaven]
Matt 1:16 …Mary, of whom Jesus was** born**… [housed]

 

[apophasis]

Randy Carson:

So, from your perspective, there is no type or prophecy of Mary in the OT?

Not of Mary herself. That a virgin would conceive, yes. But the O.T. Scriptures do not anticipate the coming (birth) of Mary. Nothing there was written to foreshadow or prefigure the person of Mary. She is neither the focus nor the anticipation of the O.T. Scriptures.

My “perspective” is based on what was written in the Old and revealed in the New. Nowhere in the New does it say anything to the effect of: "And it came to pass, according to the Scriptures, that a woman in the hill country of Nazareth immaculately conceived a female child, and she in turn conceived and carried in her womb the New Covenant (being a type of the Ark of the old covenant; and according to the Scriptures, upon her death was bodily assumed into heaven, was glorified, sat down at the right hand of her Son, and forever reigns as heaven’s Queen, interceding for the saints on earth."Corporately NONE of these events were anticipated in the O.T. and recorded as fulfilled in the New. ALL are extra-biblical dogmas imposed on Christianity by men. The notion that the person and life of Mary, like Christ (the Messiah), was an anticipation in the O.T. Scriptures, making her (personally) an object of “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), is foreign to Biblical Christianity. In fact, after giving birth to Jesus she’s barely mentioned in the Gospel accounts. And after a brief mentioning of just her name in Acts chapter one she completely disappears from Scripture altogether. And never once is she brought up in the Apostolic message taken to the world regarding salvation. Mary was not their message (1 Cor. 1:23; 2:2).

I contend that Mary (herself) was not an anticipation of O.T. prophecy, or that she, personally, was prefigured in those divine writings by types and shadows. And that she (herself) was never intended to be exalted as an object of N.T. faith. I contend that such notions were imposed upon “the faith” (Jude 3) by men after the Apostolic age being void of any Scriptural proof or Apostolic teaching.

Why do I have to accept your position on this when the Church has specifically stated that although all three ideas are acceptable, the primary meaning of Revelation 12 is Mary?

Because the church did not give birth to Christ. And the interpretation that the “woman” is Mary is based on the post-Apostolic, extra-biblical dogma of her bodily assumption into heaven. You’d be submitting a Biblical text to an unprovable, post-Apostolic, extra-biblical doctrine. Also the content of the “sign” itself does not support a Marian interpretation in that “the woman” in the sign is never seen in heaven. The son to whom she gives birth is caught up to God and to His throne (Heb. 1:1-3), but the woman herself remains on earth.

 

[apophasis]

Not true.

All the other personages in Revelation 12 are INDIVI|DUALS. To make just one person (the woman giving birth to Jesus) not an individual but a collective, does excessive vioplence to the text.

“Does excessive violence to the text” is a gross overstatement. And anyway, the nation of Israel is an individual entity.

The “anyone but Mary” argument is formed by starting from your preconceptions and prejudices (Mary herself is not the direct object of Biblical prophecy,) and then bending the text to fit them.

I carry no prejudice toward Mary, nor am I “bending the text” to fit anything. Chapters eleven and twelve are of a Jewish context and the “woman” described in chapter twelve parallels Gen. 37:9-11. And nothing in 12:14-17 parallels the life of Mary.

Contextually the nation Israel has not been seen as the Woman of revelation - as verified by the fact that virtually no theologian prior to the past century or so ever came up with that notion.

You’ve heard and read every theologian prior to this present century? You must be quite old.

 

[apophasis]

Apophasis-

I know you’ve seen the following before, so I’m not going to ask you to comment on this specifically. However, after reviewing these parallels, are you saying that this is all just coincidence? If not, what?

The ark of the Old Covenant contained the words of God written on Stone. (Deut. 10:5, Hebrews 9:4)

The Ark of the New Covenant contained the Word of God made flesh. (John 1:1)

The ark of the Old Covenant contained the jar of manna which came down from heaven. (Exodus 16:32, Hebrews 9:4)

The Ark of the New Covenant contained Jesus, the bread which came down from heaven. (John 6:31-41)

Yet neither in Scripture or by recorded Apostolic teaching is she predicated that title.

But just for argument sake let’s just leave Rome’s allegorical teachings about Mary and the ark out of the picture and let’s just look simply at the O.T. context. Take note that each of the items placed in the ark were associated with a specific event when Israel (nationally) rebelled against God and His divine authority or provision:

• (1) The Ten Commandments: Israel rebelled against God’s Commandments. Moses destroyed the original at the time of Israel’s idolatrous acts while he was receiving them on Mt. Sinai (Ex. 32).
• (2) The manna: Israel rebelled against God’s provision to sustain their physical life in the wilderness. They grumbled because they were sick of eating the manna God provided to sustain them (Num. 11).
• (3) Aaron’s staff that budded: Israel rebelled against the priesthood God required as mediator between Himself and the people (Num. 16-17).

Now we read in the Book of Exodus:Ex 25:21-22 "You shall put the mercy seat on top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony which I will give to you. There I will meet with you; and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, I will speak to you about all that I will give you in commandment for the sons of Israel."In Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers the Ark is also called “the ark of the testimony.” Each item placed inside the ark testified of Israel’s rebellion. But it’s not what was placed inside the ark that gave the ark its significance, but that which was placed ABOVE it: THE MERCY SEAT. It wasn’t inside the ark where God met with Israel, but ABOVE it, between the cherubim, according to His grace and mercy, but not without first the sprinkling of blood. Without the “mercy seat” all the ark could ever do was testify of Israel’s rebellion.

The contents of the ark did not carry the Old Covenant, but testified of the rebellious acts of God’s covenant people. The golden “mercy seat” above testified, annually, on the Day of Atonement, of God’s grace toward them through the blood sacrifice of an unblemished goat. The ultimate expression of Israel’s rebellion was the rejection of her Messiah; but the ultimate expression of God’s grace toward them was the substitutionary, blood sacrifice of her Messiah on their behalf - as well as all the world’s sin (Jn. 1:29).

The ark (with the “mercy seat” above it) is not about Mary, but prefigured the person and work of Jesus Christ. It’s always about Christ. He’s who the O.T. anticipated.

 

[Axion]

“Does excessive violence to the text” is a gross overstatement. And anyway, the nation of Israel is an individual entity.

A nation is a collective entity, not an individual PERSON as are all the other symbols in Revelation 12.

Dragon = Satan
Child = Jesus
Stars = Individual angels
Woman = Mary

In addition, Israel is never directly portrayed in scripture as a woman.

I carry no prejudice toward Mary, nor am I “bending the text” to fit anything. Chapters eleven and twelve are of a Jewish context and the “woman” described in chapter twelve parallels Gen. 37:9-11. And nothing in 12:14-17 parallels the life of Mary.

I take it you are referring to the standard evangelical argument that the Moon, Sun and stars that ADORN the woman in the Genesis dream represent Israel. However this does not make a case for you, since it is the Moon, Sun and Stars that may be taken to represent Israel in revelation 12 - not the woman. The presence of the moon, sun and stars prove only that the woman is connected with Israel. The stars are often also taken to represent the twelve apostles.

The sign of the woman who gives birth to Jesus and later has to flee persecution does indeed represent the major events of Mary’s life. The eagle can even be taken to Indicate St John, who took MAry into his home.

You’ve heard and read every theologian prior to this present century? You must be quite old.

No one has been able to produce evidence of any widespread acceptance of the view that the Woman is israel dating from prior to the last century or so.

 

[Mickey]

The ark (with the “mercy seat” above it) is not about Mary, but prefigured the person and work of Jesus Christ. It’s always about Christ. He’s who the O.T. anticipated.

**Luke **1:35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

The Blessed Virgin Mary, the Holy Ghost upon thee, overshadowed by the power of the most High, and carrying the Savior of mankind in her womb—truly the Ark of the New Covenant. This takes nothing away from the glory of Jesus Christ. It only reinforces it.

 

[clmowry]

Each item placed inside the ark testified of Israel’s rebellion.

I’ve never seen this interpretation before, it’s interesting, though I don’t agree with it, it is at rational and self consistent.

Is it not, however, just as consistent to interpret the items within the ark as items representing God’s merciful actions to save a rebellious people?

• The Ten Commandments: He gave them the word of the Law to bring them to the realization of their need for the Word made flesh.
• The manna: He gave them Manna in anticipation of their need to be fed by God the Bread of Life.
• Aaron’s staff that budded: He left them as a reminder of their need for the Mediator and the danger of rebelling.
  I don’t see anything explicit about the “sign” of the Tablets but we have some statements about the other two items.

Exodus 16:31-35
“Now the house of Israel called its name manna; it was like coriander seed, white, and the taste of it was like wafers made with honey. And Moses said, “This is what the LORD has commanded: 'Let an omer of it be kept throughout your generations, that they may see the bread with which I fed you in the wilderness, when I brought you out of the land of Egypt.’” And Moses said to Aaron, “Take a jar, and put an omer of manna in it, and place it before the LORD, to be kept throughout your generations.” As the LORD commanded Moses, so Aaron placed it before the testimony, to be kept. And the people of Israel ate the manna forty years, till they came to a habitable land; they ate the manna, till they came to the border of the land of Canaan. 36 (An omer is the tenth part of an ephah.)

This command seems to make it explicit that God intended this as a reminder of His mercy not of their rebellion.

Numbers Chapter 17:8-11

“And on the morrow Moses went into the tent of the testimony; and behold, the rod of Aaron for the house of Levi had sprouted and put forth buds, and produced blossoms, and it bore ripe almonds. Then Moses brought out all the rods from before the LORD to all the people of Israel; and they looked, and each man took his rod. And the LORD said to Moses, “Put back the rod of Aaron before the testimony, to be kept as a sign for the rebels, that you may make an end of their murmurings against me, lest they die.” 11 Thus did Moses; as the LORD commanded him, so he did.

Now the “sign” of Aaron’s rod seems to match up very well with your interpretation, but doesn’t seem to be consistent with the “sign” meant by the manna.

Chuck

Note: See Next Post on "before the testimony.

 

[clmowry]

Take note that each of the items placed in the ark were associated with a specific event when Israel (nationally) rebelled against God and His divine authority or provision:

Were the manna and the staff actually kept in the Ark? I thought the jar of manna and the staff were to be kept “before the testimony” or “before the LORD”. i.e. In the sanctuary near the Ark but not in the Ark itself.

i.e. The only analogies we should be proposing for the OT/NT types of the Ark would be the Tablets/Word of God vs. Christ/Word of God.

Though we do have

Hebrews Chapter 9:1-5
“Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly sanctuary. For a tent was prepared, the outer one, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence; it is called the Holy Place. Behind the second curtain stood a tent called the Holy of Holies, having the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, which contained a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail.”

We also have:

2 Chronicles Chapter 5:9-11
“The poles were long enough so that their ends could be seen from that part of the holy place nearest the sanctuary; however, they could not be seen beyond. The ark has remained
there to this day. There was nothing in it but the two tablets which Moses put there on Horeb, the tablets of the covenant which the LORD made with the Israelites at their departure from Egypt.”

The two seem to be inconsistent, perhaps Paul “really” just meant to say that the manna and rod and Ark were in the Holy of Holies and not that the Ark contained all 3? (Maybe there is a punctuation problem in the translation to English?)

I’m inclined to go with this interpretation and stick with what Exodus seems to say for two reasons: I don’t think a staff, at least what I envision as a staff, would fit very well in thw Ark, and secondly that if the Manna and Staff were meant by God to be visible reminders then it’s tuff to see them inside the Ark.

Chuck

 

[apophasis]

clmowry:

The two seem to be inconsistent, perhaps Paul “really” just meant to say that the manna and rod and Ark were in the Holy of Holies and not that the Ark contained all 3? (Maybe there is a punctuation problem in the translation to English?)

I’m inclined to go with this interpretation and stick with what Exodus seems to say for two reasons: I don’t think a staff, at least what I envision as a staff, would fit very well in thw Ark, and secondly that if the Manna and Staff were meant by God to be visible reminders then it’s tuff to see them inside the Ark.

Based on Heb. 9:4 we can assume the jar of manna and Aaron’s rod at some time were also put inside the ark.

Actually I should not have written Aaron’s “staff.” It was Aaron’s “rod.” They’re different. A “rod” is more like a club, much smaller and would have fit easily into the ark. According to Ex. 25:10 the box would have been about four feet long and two and a half feet high and broad.

All the items were in the Holy of Holies, not accessible or seen by the people. Both the ark and the mercy seat above it testified of God’s provision of His grace through sacrificial blood - in light of sin and rebellion.

 

[apophasis]

Axion:

A nation is a collective entity, not an individual PERSON as are all the other symbols in Revelation 12.

Dragon = Satan
Child = Jesus
Stars = Individual angels
Woman = Mary

In addition, Israel is never directly portrayed in scripture as a woman.

“Stars” aren’t a “collective” entity?

As for Israel never directly portrayed as a woman, have you read the prophet Hosea? Check out chapter two. Israel is primarily referred to with the pronoun “her.” In fact, at the time of the future restoration she calls God her “husband” (“Ishi,” “my husband”). Israel in the O.T. is portrayed as the wife of Yahweh who committed spiritual adultery, but in the latter days is restored to her husband (2:19-20).

 

[clmowry]

Based on Heb. 9:4 we can assume the jar of manna and Aaron’s rod at some time were also put inside the ark.

Actually I should not have written Aaron’s “staff.” It was Aaron’s “rod.” They’re different. A “rod” is more like a club, much smaller and would have fit easily into the ark. According to Ex. 25:10 the box would have been about four feet long and two and a half feet high and broad.

All the items were in the Holy of Holies, not accessible or seen by the people. Both the ark and the mercy seat above it testified of God’s provision of His grace through sacrificial blood - in light of sin and rebellion.

Yeah. I quoted Hebrews above.

You have no comment on the verses I provided that say the Ark contained nothing but the tabets or that the other items were “before the testimony”?

You have no comment on the verses I provided indicating that the mana was not being kept as a vestage of their rebellion?

Chuck