Was/Is Mary the Ark?

[Radical]

So . . . OT types MUST be positive like their NT fulfillments??
That is a preposterous claim.

You should tell that to someone who has made that claim…oh, and btw, are you suggesting that Elizabeth’s exclamation in the NT (wrt the unexpected blessing of Mary’s presence) was somehow a fulfillment of David’s exclamation in the OT (wrt the problem of transporting the ark)?

 

[Doxiemom]

Nope. She was His mom.

She was the Woman whose seed would crush the head of the serpent.

Quite a gal, I would say.

 

[Radical]

To say the New Ark is Christ himself is not accurate at all.

it seems that Irenaeus thought that the ark was a “type” of Christ’s body (Frag 49)…can you tell me when the novelty of Mary = New Ark was first suggested?

 

[CaptainPicard]

it seems that Irenaeus thought that the ark was a “type” of Christ’s body (Frag 49)…can you tell me when the novelty of Mary = New Ark was first suggested?

I agree that the Ark may well be a type of Christ, but it doesn’t follow that it isn’t also a type of Mary. There are Old Testament types that foreshadow multiple New Testament things.

1. The temple is a type of a Christian’s body and is also a type of Christ.
2. Joseph the Patriarch is a type of Christ. see: pages.sbcglobal.net/clocks/josephtp.html

He’s also a type of St. Joseph, Jesus’ foster father. They both share the same name, they’re both described as “righteous” and “just”, they both receive revelations in dreams, they both find themselves exiled to Egypt, and both prepare the way for a greater event, the exodus led by Moses, and the redemption accomplished by Christ.

1. Elijah is a type of Christ and John the Baptist. There’s a whole interesting article on that (and other aspects of Elijah and Elisha and their relationship) by Cardinal Newman here:
   newmanreader.org/works/subjects/sermon13.html

I’m sure that there are more instances, but those are the ones that come to mind.

To answer your question, I found these quotes from a Catholic answers article:

Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373) was the main defender of the deity of Christ against the second-century heretics. He wrote: “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 [Ark of the] 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” (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin).

Gregory the Wonder Worker (c. 213–c. 270) wrote: “Let us chant the melody that has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, ‘Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy sanctuary.’ For the Holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary” (Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary).

And this one from another site:

St. Methodius of Olympus (+311):

God paid such honor to the ark, which was the image and type of your sanctity, that no one but the priests could approach it, open or enter to behold it. The veil separated it off, keeping the vestibule as that of a queen. Then what sort of veneration must we, who are the least of creatures, owe to you who are indeed a queen — to you, the living ark of God, the Lawgiver — to you, the heaven that contains Him Whom none can contain?

As an aside, it seems that you respect Irenaeus and the Church fathers. You many be interested in what he and other Church fathers have to say about Mary as the New Eve here (an article which is a compilation of parts of various Cardinal Newman works):
christendom-awake.org/pages/marian/newman1.html

 

[swariffin]

Yes she is, she is the Ark of the New Covenant who contained the Word of God, Christ been the Word, within her.

Not only the Word of God. Inside Mary’s womb, there was also the High Priest of God and the Bread of Heaven.

 

[wwolverine]

All you who say a hearty ‘yes’ did Mary exist before she was conceived?

Well Mary’s birth is not in the Holy Bible. I have read in other sources and I believe that its true, that Mary’s mother was barren. and like Isaac, Samson, and John the Baptist, they were all children born thru God’s intervention, and hence They are Holy and may have existed before, as John the Baptist was said to be Elijah.

 

[Deconi]

was/is Mary the new ark? Nope…if any one could be properly labelled the new ark, then it would be Christ himself.

IMHO the shameless manipulation of scripture is utilized to make the claim…such as this “parallel”:

2 SAM 6:9 And David was afraid of the LORD that day and said How shall the ark of the LORD come to me?
LK 1:43 And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

This sort of parallel is supposed to support the argument that Mary is the new Ark, but David’s question is one of dread and concern and Elizabeth’s question is nothing of the sort. One is positive and one is negative, but that inconvenient distinction is ignored to proclaim that since David asked how the ark can come to him and since Elizabeth asked how Mary should come to her, Mary must be the new ark. Utilizing that sort of fudging, any sort of result is possible.

Drivel.

An ARK is the ‘vessel, the carrier’ to contain ‘something within.’

Noah’s ark…as an example.

God commands Moses to construct ‘The Container’ to carry specific contents.

St John says, ‘The Word was God.’ The Word is therefore Jesus. Not His words or teachings are to be The New Covenant, but, HIM!

Since His PERSON is the covenant, only deliberate ignorance can say His ‘Carrier’ is not the Ark!

That’s where you came in!

 

[onenow1]

Drivel.

An ARK is the ‘vessel, the carrier’ to contain ‘something within.’

Noah’s ark…as an example.

God commands Moses to construct ‘The Container’ to carry specific contents.

St John says, ‘The Word was God.’ The Word is therefore Jesus. Not His words or teachings are to be The New Covenant, but, HIM!

Since His PERSON is the covenant, only deliberate ignorance can say His ‘Carrier’ is not the Ark!

Thanks Deconi.

Further more, Mary surpasses all of the old testament Prophets.

Here:Luke 1:46 And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed;
49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name.
50 And his mercy is on those who fear him from generation to generation.
51 He has shown strength with his arm, he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts,
52 he has put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted those of low degree;
53 he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent empty away.
54 He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy,
55 as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his posterity for ever.”

The word of the Lord.

God Bless
onenow1

 

[elvisman]

You should tell that to someone who has made that claim…oh, and btw, are you suggesting that Elizabeth’s exclamation in the NT (wrt the unexpected blessing of Mary’s presence) was somehow a fulfillment of David’s exclamation in the OT (wrt the problem of transporting the ark)?

Your preposterous claim:
**

One is positive and one is negative, but that inconvenient distinction is ignored to proclaim that since David asked how the ark can come to him and since Elizabeth asked how Mary should come to her, Mary must be the new ark. Utilizing that sort of fudging, any sort of result is possible.

**
Using your logic- Jesus could not be the fulfillment of Adam because Adam was a sinner.
NT fulfillments are always more glorious than their OT types - ALWAYS.

 

[elvisman]

Nope. She was His mom.

She was the Woman whose seed would crush the head of the serpent.

Quite a gal, I would say.

Ummmm . . . "quite a gal"?
She is the Mother of God - show a little more respect than that . . .

The one thing I really don’t get about statements like this is that you are all denying that Jesus IS the New Covenant. Mary was the vessel of that New Covenant. Ergo - she is the Ark of the New Covenant.

The Early Church agrees with this claim as she was proclaimed Theotokos (God Bearer) at the Council of Ephesus in 431. Do your homework before making these sorts of absurd statements.
**“Quite a gal”, indeed . . . **

 

[elvisman]

it seems that Irenaeus thought that the ark was a “type” of Christ’s body (Frag 49)…can you tell me when the novelty of Mary = New Ark was first suggested?

**Wow - another anti-Catholic who doesn’t understand (or rejects) polyvalent symbolism - what a shock . . . **

 

[GaryTaylor]

I see how man can think ahead, I can only imagine how God could see ahead. So whats explained as a mystery to man, is no mystery to God.

 

[LionHeart777]

Ummmm . . . "quite a gal"?
She is the Mother of God - show a little more respect than that . . .

The one thing I really don’t get about statements like this is that you are all denying that Jesus IS the New Covenant. Mary was the vessel of that New Covenant. Ergo - she is the Ark of the New Covenant.

**The Early Church agrees with this claim as she was proclaimed Theotokos **(God Bearer) at the Council of Ephesus in 431. Do your homework before making these sorts of absurd statements.
"Quite a gal", indeed . . .

Respectfully elvisman,

I don’t think the poster meant any disrespect. I saw it as their own way of honoring the Blessed Virgin (while disagreeing with Catholic teaching at the same time.)

 

[elvisman]

Respectfully elvisman,

I don’t think the poster meant any disrespect. I saw it as their own way of honoring the Blessed Virgin (while disagreeing with Catholic teaching at the same time.)

Regardless - it is disrespectful.

 

[Nicea325]

it seems that Irenaeus thought that the ark was a “type” of Christ’s body (Frag 49)…can you tell me when the novelty of Mary = New Ark was first suggested?

And can you tell us when the novelty of Mary NOT being the Ark started? I cannot believe how so many non-Catholics cannot connect dots between the Ark of the OT and Mary?

 

[Radical]

Hey Captain, thanks for a pleasant response.

I agree that the Ark may well be a type of Christ, but it doesn’t follow that it isn’t also a type of Mary.

good point….I don’t really have an objection if someone suggested that Mary could be viewed as a new ark…It is the “she was definitely the New Ark” assertion that I take exception to. From there the claims usually just get worse. Alleged parallels are produced with the claim that the parallels “prove” that Mary is the New Ark. The parallels are fudged, fabricated and/or forced and any discrepancy is forgiven. I don’t expect “types” to be precise, but one shouldn’t claim a proof with such “parallels”. I also take issue with what is then claimed concerning the qualities of Mary. IIRC a typical one will assert that since pure gold was used to make the Ark, Mary then must also be pure and that means that she would have been both sinless and a perpetual virgin……it is that sort of practice that is just wrong (IMHO). I realize that you may not have partaken of this practice…you haven’t at least on this thread.

To answer your question, I found these quotes from a Catholic answers article:

Thanks.

Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373) was the main defender of the deity of Christ against the second-century heretics. He wrote: “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 [Ark of the] 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” (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin).

Well I am describing my uneasiness with the assertions of Catholics I might as well add that this sort of adoration is over the top (IMHO). I can’t help but note how hostile certain Catholics become when Mary isn’t given her due. This seems somewhat at odds with the common Catholic claim that their beliefs wrt to Mary all relate to the status of Christ/the incarnation. If such was truly the way the matter worked, then why do we see such hostility on this thread? I would suggest that the concern here is not with any quality of Christ or with his status (as no one has even thought to check as to whether my view of Mary [not being the Ark] in any way results in me holding a lesser view of Christ). It seems to me that, the claims about Mary always pointing to Christ notwithstanding, the concerns of the excited Catholic on this thread seem to be all about Mary and not about Christ at all…and therein lies the problem.

As an aside, it seems that you respect Irenaeus and the Church fathers.

limited respect…I see their opinion, as to whether Mary was the new Ark or not, no more valuable than the opinion of any modern theologian.

 

[Radical]

And can you tell us when the novelty of Mary NOT being the Ark started?

nope

I cannot believe how so many non-Catholics cannot connect dots between the Ark of the OT and Mary?

I believe it is b/c one can’t see the dots unless one is wearing that special pair of glasses that gives the wearer Venerator Vision. I ordered a set from the Vatican gift shop, but it got held up at customs.

 

[Nicea325]

nope

I believe it is b/c one can’t see the dots unless one is wearing that special pair of glasses that gives the wearer Venerator Vision. I ordered a set from the Vatican gift shop, but it got held up at customs.

Well let me know when the novelty of Mary not being the Ark commenced. I am guessing with the 18/19th century Protestants.

Sorry,but those pair of glasses will not be delivered to followers of modern novelties. I’ll call customs to return them back to the Vatican gift shop…

 

[elvisman]

it seems that Irenaeus thought that the ark was a “type” of Christ’s body (Frag 49)…can you tell me when the novelty of Mary = New Ark was first suggested?

The Early Church Fathers overwhelmingly agrre with the Catholic position that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenent. Thes quotes are ALL before the Council of Ephesus (431) where Mary was declared Theotokos (God-Bearer) - and which you have failed to address.
**Ready? *Happy reading . . .

---

St. Hippolytus** (c. 170-c. 236)**
“At that time, the Savior coming from the Virgin, the Ark, brought forth His own Body into the world from that Ark, which was gilded with pure gold within by the Word, and without by the Holy Ghost; so that the truth was shown forth, and the Ark was manifested…And the Savior came into the world bearing the incorruptible Ark, that is to say His own body” (S. Hippolytus, In Dan.vi., Patr. Gr., Tom. 10, p. 648) (Blessed Virgin, p. 77).

St. Athanasius of Alexandria
“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 (Ark of the) 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.” Homily of the Papyrus of Turin.

St Dionysius** (died 264) **
**“Not in a servant did He dwell, but in His holy tabernacle not made with hands, which is Mary the Mother of God” (*Ib. ad Quoest. *vii.) See also Heb. ix. 11, 24) (Blessed Virgin, p. 81).

St. Gregory Thaumaturgus** (c. 213-c. 270) **
**“The ark is verily the holy Virgin, gilded within and without, **who received the treasure of universal sanctification. Arise, O Lord, from the Father’s bosom, to raise up again the ruined race of our first parent” (Orat. in Deip. Annunciat. Int. Opp. S. Greg. Thaumaturg) (Blessed Virgin, p. 89).

St. Jerome** (c. 345-420)**
“Behold one in truth, the handmaid of the Lord. Holy she is, in whom is no guile, all simplicity…The spouse of Christ is the ark of the covenant, within and without overlaid with gold, a keeper of the law of the Lord. As in the ark there was nothing but the tables of the Testament, so too in thee no one from outside should be thought of. Over this propitiatory, as though upon the Cherubim, the Lord is pleased to sit…The Apostle thus defines a virgin, that she should be holy in body and in spirit… (Epist. Xxii., Ad Eustoch. Nn. 18, 19, 21, 24) (Blessed Virgin, p. 216).

St. Ephrem** (c. 306-373)**
**“O Virgin Mother of God, Gate of heaven, and Ark, in thee I have a secure salvation. Save me out of the pure mercy (δωρεάυ, gratis), O Lady” (Precat. ix. Opp. Gr. et Lat. Tom. iii. P. 522) (Blessed Virgin, p. 294).

 

[elvisman]

nope

I believe it is b/c one can’t see the dots unless one is wearing that special pair of glasses that gives the wearer Venerator Vision. I ordered a set from the Vatican gift shop, but it got held up at customs.

That’s funny - I got my pair of Protestant glasses with no problem.**
They are available at over 33,000 locations . . .