The Ark of the New Covenant-- concept too complicated for Protestants?

[ac_claire]

Say a Protestant hears the phrase and asks you “what is the Ark of the New Covenant?” Any ideas on the clearest, least-complicated answer I can give? I want to avoid being accused of scriptural hair-splitting.

Thanks!

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Say a Protestant hears the phrase and asks you “what is the Ark of the New Covenant?” Any ideas on the clearest, least-complicated answer I can give? I want to avoid being accused of scriptural hair-splitting.

Thanks!

Do your friends know what the ark of the old covenant was? That would make a big difference in how you explain what it is. The concept is huge and very central.

CDL

 

[ac_claire]

Do your friends know what the ark of the old covenant was? That would make a big difference in how you explain what it is. The concept is huge and very central.

CDL

They do understand the AOTC in the OT. I’ll tell you the context of the conversation if that will help: These are born-again Christians on an online forum that I’ve been on for a few months. They were discussing the ark of the old covenant, and different theories about where it might be. And someone mentioned that she heard somewhere that the ark was taken straight up to heaven because it was so holy. So I said, “whoever told you that may have been talking about the Ark of the New Covenant.” And she asked…“what is that?”

I wanted to expand on this in a PM with her.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

They do understand the AOTC in the OT. I’ll tell you the context of the conversation if that will help: These are born-again Christians on an online forum that I’ve been on for a few months. They were discussing the ark of the old covenant, and different theories about where it might be. And someone mentioned that she heard somewhere that the ark was taken straight up to heaven because it was so holy. So I said, “whoever told you that may have been talking about the Ark of the New Covenant.” And she asked…“what is that?”

I wanted to expand on this in a PM with her.

The born againers are like infants in the faith. You are right to treat them gently. They are drinking milk and if they get stuck with other born againers for any length of time they will think this milk is actually meat and find destestible the meat of the Gospel. Having said that you need to point out that just as the content of the old covenant was found in the tablets of the Ten Commandments so the content of the New Covenant is found in the Word of God made flesh, Jesus Christ. Then you point out that that which carried and presented the old Covenant to the world was called the Ark of the Covenant or Tabernacle. Then you might assert that a human being became the Ark of the New covenant and ask them who that was who bore the New Covenant in her body. Depending upon the person they may balk at answering or if they are honest they will say “Mary” or the Virgin Mary. Then you can compliment them on their insight. Then go to the next step. Just as the old Ark is hidden in God so the New Ark is now hidden in God. Martyrs and Saints as the Scriptures tell us are already in the bosom of God. Mary certainly is just now.

I don’t know if this will be shocking to them or not but you may need to be ready with some medicine to revive their shock. On the other hand if they are truly gentle souls seeking the truth they will receive this truth with joy. If they do receive it with joy then go onto Revelation 12.

CDL

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Can you guys get any more condenscending toward Protestants? asking for answers that even a poor protestant can understand? saying that protestants are but infants in the faith? My goodness why in the world would any protestant listen. Such arrogance!

 

[ac_claire]

Can you guys get any more condenscending toward Protestants? asking for answers that even a poor protestant can understand?

Not Protestants in general, but the ones I am trying to reach in particular. This thread is specific to this one conversation I’m having with some born again Christians. (Although the title of the thread was phrased as a general question.)

But I think Gregory’s analogy (infants in faith, moving from milk to meat) is very apt in describing the born-again psychology in general. A hallmark of most born-again Christians I know is a desire to simplify their faith and get back to the Bible “basics.” I don’t really see this as insulting, but more of a fact.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Can you guys get any more condenscending toward Protestants? asking for answers that even a poor protestant can understand? saying that protestants are but infants in the faith? My goodness why in the world would any protestant listen. Such arrogance!

My advice is based upon a lifetime of being a Protestant and 27 years as a UM minister. It is based upon realism and compassion.

CDL

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Not Protestants in general, but the ones I am trying to reach in particular. This thread is specific to this one conversation I’m having with some born again Christians. (Although the title of the thread was phrased as a general question.)

But I think Gregory’s analogy (infants in faith, moving from milk to meat) is very apt in describing the born-again psychology in general. A hallmark of most born-again Christians I know is a desire to simplify their faith and get back to the Bible “basics.” I don’t really see this as insulting, but more of a fact.

I’m glad to be of help. I hope you let us know how the conversation goes. CDL

 

[ac_claire]

[Here’s what I came with it. I posted it, but there hasn’t been time to get any substantial replies yet.]

First, look at 2 Samuel 6:9-16. King David sees the ark being brought to him after the Israelites recaptured it from the Philistines, and, in awe, says “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (verse 9). As the ark approaches, David is seen “leaping and dancing for joy before the Lord.” (verse 16).

Then go to Luke 1:39-45. When Elizabeth sees Mary approaching she cries out “how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” Just as David leapt for joy before the ark, so John the Baptist leaps for joy in Elizabeth’s womb when Mary, (the Ark of the New Covenant), comes into her presence.

John’s leap for joy was for the same reason as David’s–not because of the ark itself, but because of what the ark contained: the Word of God. (Interesting, no?)

And then, go to Revelation 11:19 when St. John the Divine is called up to see the Ark of the Covenant.

Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.

So what was it- what exactly did he see? Look at the very next verse: 12:1-2:

*A great sign appeared in the sky, 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 wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth… *(12:1-2)

She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne. (12:5)

(The woman’s offspring are “those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus.” The earliest interpreters of scripture have seen that the woman is clearly the Virgin Mary and the male child is Jesus. In John’s symbolism, she represents the Church and/or Israel, and he represents faithful Christians.)

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Looks good to me.

CDL

 

[japhy]

First, look at 2 Samuel 6:9-16. King David sees the ark being brought to him after the Israelites recaptured it from the Philistines, and, in awe, says “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (verse 9). As the ark approaches, David is seen “leaping and dancing for joy before the Lord.” (verse 16).

Then go to Luke 1:39-45. When Elizabeth sees Mary approaching she cries out “how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” Just as David leapt for joy before the ark, so John the Baptist leaps for joy in Elizabeth’s womb when Mary, (the Ark of the New Covenant), comes into her presence.

There’s even more there. The Ark first goes to the house of Obed-edom the Gittite (most likely in Gath on the border of Judah) for three months, and his household is blessed by its presence. Similarly, Mary went to see Elizabeth, who lived in a city of Judah, for three months, and Elizabeth was clearly blessed because of it. (The link offers a few other parallels.)

The contents of the ark were the tablets with the law, the jar of manna, and the rod of Aaron. The trinitarian nature is obvious, but the three elements also point directly to Jesus, who is the true teacher of the Law, who is the true bread from heaven, and who is the high priest and king of the Davidic Kingdom.

 

[ac_claire]

japhy-- thanks. I hope I will get a chance to expand on my first post over at this other site. The funniest response so far has been, “Interesting, but can you show me where this can be found in scripture?”

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

[Here’s what I came with it. I posted it, but there hasn’t been time to get any substantial replies yet.]

First, look at 2 Samuel 6:9-16. King David sees the ark being brought to him after the Israelites recaptured it from the Philistines, and, in awe, says “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (verse 9). As the ark approaches, David is seen “leaping and dancing for joy before the Lord.” (verse 16).

Then go to Luke 1:39-45. When Elizabeth sees Mary approaching she cries out “how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” Just as David leapt for joy before the ark, so John the Baptist leaps for joy in Elizabeth’s womb when Mary, (the Ark of the New Covenant), comes into her presence.

John’s leap for joy was for the same reason as David’s–not because of the ark itself, but because of what the ark contained: the Word of God. (Interesting, no?)

And then, go to Revelation 11:19 when St. John the Divine is called up to see the Ark of the Covenant.

Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.

So what was it- what exactly did he see? Look at the very next verse: 12:1-2:

*A great sign appeared in the sky, 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 wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth… *(12:1-2)

She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne. (12:5)

(The woman’s offspring are “those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus.” The earliest interpreters of scripture have seen that the woman is clearly the Virgin Mary and the male child is Jesus. In John’s symbolism, she represents the Church and/or Israel, and he represents faithful Christians.)

Victorinus of Pettau (d. 304) wrote the first commentary on Revelation of which anything has survived - if indeed it was not the first. As to chapter 12, he writes:​

From the twelfth chapter.

1. “And there was seen a great sign 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 out travailing, and bearing torments that she might bring forth.”] The woman clothed with the sun, and having the moon under her feet, and wearing a crown of twelve stars upon her head, and travailing in her pains, is the ancient Church of fathers, and prophets, and saints, and apostles, which had the groans and torments of its longing until it saw that Christ, the fruit of its people according to the flesh long promised to it, had taken flesh out of the selfsame people. Moreover, being clothed with the sun intimates the hope of resurrection and the glory of the promise. And the moon intimates the fall of the bodies of the saints under the obligation of death, which never can fail. For even as life is diminished, so also it is increased. Nor is the hope of those that sleep extinguished absolutely, as some think, but they have in their darkness a light such as the moon. And the crown of twelve stars signifies the choir of fathers, according to the fleshly birth, of whom Christ was to take flesh.
3. “And there appeared another sign in heaven; and behold a red dragon, having seven heads.”] Now, that he says that this dragon was of a red colour—that is, of a purple colour—the result of his work gave him such a colour. For from the beginning (as the Lord says) he was a murderer; and he has oppressed the whole of the human race, not so much by the obligation of death, as, moreover, by the various forms of destruction and fatal mischiefs. His seven heads were the seven kings of the Romans, of whom also is Antichrist, as we have said above.
“And ten horns.”] He says that the ten kings in the latest times are the same as these, as we shall more fully set forth there.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.vi.ii.xii.html

My emphasis] **Wherever the interpretation of Mary as the woman comes from, it is certainly not the earliest identification of the woman. **

As to the OT Ark - there are plenty of Protestant books about it. I have two Victorian ones, both still in print, which see all sorts of types of Christ & His Work in the details of it.

**As a matter of the history of interpretation, Jesus was seen as the Ark before Mary was. Which would make Him the Ark, & (presumably) Mary the Ark-bearer. **

 

[GregoryPalamas]

japhy-- thanks. I hope I will get a chance to expand on my first post over at this other site. The funniest response so far has been, “Interesting, but can you show me where this can be found in scripture?”

I’m afraid that kind of response is quite typical. What they really most likely mean is “This is not what I’ve been conditioned to find. Therefore, I will not find it.”

CDL

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Victorinus of Pettau (d. 304) wrote the first commentary on Revelation of which anything has survived - if indeed it was not the first. As to chapter 12, he writes:​

From the twelfth chapter.

1. “And there was seen a great sign 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 out travailing, and bearing torments that she might bring forth.”] The woman clothed with the sun, and having the moon under her feet, and wearing a crown of twelve stars upon her head, and travailing in her pains, is the ancient Church of fathers, and prophets, and saints, and apostles, which had the groans and torments of its longing until it saw that Christ, the fruit of its people according to the flesh long promised to it, had taken flesh out of the selfsame people. Moreover, being clothed with the sun intimates the hope of resurrection and the glory of the promise. And the moon intimates the fall of the bodies of the saints under the obligation of death, which never can fail. For even as life is diminished, so also it is increased. Nor is the hope of those that sleep extinguished absolutely, as some think, but they have in their darkness a light such as the moon. And the crown of twelve stars signifies the choir of fathers, according to the fleshly birth, of whom Christ was to take flesh.
3. “And there appeared another sign in heaven; and behold a red dragon, having seven heads.”] Now, that he says that this dragon was of a red colour—that is, of a purple colour—the result of his work gave him such a colour. For from the beginning (as the Lord says) he was a murderer; and he has oppressed the whole of the human race, not so much by the obligation of death, as, moreover, by the various forms of destruction and fatal mischiefs. His seven heads were the seven kings of the Romans, of whom also is Antichrist, as we have said above.
“And ten horns.”] He says that the ten kings in the latest times are the same as these, as we shall more fully set forth there.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.vi.ii.xii.html

My emphasis] **Wherever the interpretation of Mary as the woman comes from, it is certainly not the earliest identification of the woman. **

As to the OT Ark - there are plenty of Protestant books about it. I have two Victorian ones, both still in print, which see all sorts of types of Christ & His Work in the details of it.

As a matter of the history of interpretation, Jesus was seen as the Ark before Mary was. Which would make Him the Ark, & (presumably) Mary the Ark-bearer.

I am grateful for your catch on this. It gets my juices flowing for a return to the study of these ancient pre-Nicene fathers.

Little, except for his commentary on the Apocalypse, has been preserved of his writings. It is therefore difficult to discern but didn’t St. Jerome honor him but consider him to be a millenarian? This approach may well help us see why he could not see the connection to Mary in this text. He was also persecuted and eventually became a martyr under Diocletian. His particular situation may color his view of who the woman was. I don’t think is position is adequate. However, can it be that the woman is both the suffering Church and the suffering Mary?

BTW don’t you love the Calvinist footnotes in the Ethereal library collection?

CDL

 

[victus]

Victorinus of Pettau (d. 304) wrote the first commentary on Revelation of which anything has survived - if indeed it was not the first. As to chapter 12, he writes:​

From the twelfth chapter.

1. “And there was seen a great sign 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 out travailing, and bearing torments that she might bring forth.”] The woman clothed with the sun, and having the moon under her feet, and wearing a crown of twelve stars upon her head, and travailing in her pains, is the ancient Church of fathers, and prophets, and saints, and apostles, which had the groans and torments of its longing until it saw that Christ, the fruit of its people according to the flesh long promised to it, had taken flesh out of the selfsame people. Moreover, being clothed with the sun intimates the hope of resurrection and the glory of the promise. And the moon intimates the fall of the bodies of the saints under the obligation of death, which never can fail. For even as life is diminished, so also it is increased. Nor is the hope of those that sleep extinguished absolutely, as some think, but they have in their darkness a light such as the moon. And the crown of twelve stars signifies the choir of fathers, according to the fleshly birth, of whom Christ was to take flesh.
3. “And there appeared another sign in heaven; and behold a red dragon, having seven heads.”] Now, that he says that this dragon was of a red colour—that is, of a purple colour—the result of his work gave him such a colour. For from the beginning (as the Lord says) he was a murderer; and he has oppressed the whole of the human race, not so much by the obligation of death, as, moreover, by the various forms of destruction and fatal mischiefs. His seven heads were the seven kings of the Romans, of whom also is Antichrist, as we have said above.
“And ten horns.”] He says that the ten kings in the latest times are the same as these, as we shall more fully set forth there.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.vi.ii.xii.html

My emphasis] **Wherever the interpretation of Mary as the woman comes from, it is certainly not the earliest identification of the woman. **

As to the OT Ark - there are plenty of Protestant books about it. I have two Victorian ones, both still in print, which see all sorts of types of Christ & His Work in the details of it.

As a matter of the history of interpretation, Jesus was seen as the Ark before Mary was. Which would make Him the Ark, & (presumably) Mary the Ark-bearer.

Also maybe you didn’t realize that Mary is the symbol of the Church. So, yes the Church can be seen here, but surely if Mary is the symbol of the Church, the woman is Mary.

 

[victus]

As to the OT Ark - there are plenty of Protestant books about it. I have two Victorian ones, both still in print, which see all sorts of types of Christ & His Work in the details of it.

As a matter of the history of interpretation, Jesus was seen as the Ark before Mary was. Which would make Him the Ark, & (presumably) Mary the Ark-bearer.

We all know St. Athanasius the Great

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).