Whom does the Ark of the Covenant typify?
We have seen how the author of the above mentioned article takes all of the glories of Jesus and gives them one by one to his version of Mary. He first made his Mary the source of true light, although the Bible says that Jesus is the Light… Then he gave to her name the meaning of “Lord of the sea”, thus indirectly giving to his Mary the Lordship of Jesus… Then he gave the whole glory of the virgin birth to Mary, as if that were a merit of Mary and not a glory of Christ… Then he placed Mary at the center of worship, and he justified that by saying that he’s just blessing her with the blessing that is due to the remnant, although the Bible says that this blessing belongs to Christ, as we have seen… We have seen all of the details in our previous studies. Let’s see now what are some other glories of Christ that this author will still insist to give to Mary…
Now, he says that the Church Fathers often call Mary the New Ark (i.e. of the Covenant). Well, what does this mean? Some Church Fathers said that the Apocrypha of the Old Testament is a part of the Bible; does this mean that they were right? Some of them even quoted from Apocrypha books that even Roman Catholics do not accept; does this mean that they were right? Some other Church Fathers clearly said that the Old Testament Apocrypha books that Roman Catholics accept today are not a part of the Bible; do Roman Catholics consider them right? (For a study about the Apocrypha, click here, and for a study of the Canon of Scripture, click here). Some Church Fathers said that we will become God; does this mean that they were right?… Many early Church Fathers were premillennialists, while Roman Catholics are amillennialists by their own confession (read this); so who is right: the early Church Fathers who were premillennialists? Or the Roman Catholics?… It is really hypocrite for the Roman Catholics to often cite the early Church Fathers as agreeing with them, because the fact is that the early Church Fathers made many mistakes, and the Church retains from their writings only whatever agrees with the teaching of the Bible. But the Roman Catholics retain from the writings of the Church Fathers what agrees with their wrong teachings; and this is a weak point for the Roman Catholics, as they boast of being the heirs of the errors of the Church Fathers… So when the Roman Catholics quote the Church Fathers, they only quote what agrees with their views, but they do not tell you about the other passages of the Church Fathers that do not agree with them… Of course, if the Church Fathers never made any mistake, then why would the Church reach a place where it needed a reformation? If no mistake was made, then why would a correction be needed? When Roman Catholics made a counter-reformation, they thus admitted that the Church had made some serious mistakes and needed some kind of correction, although they thought that the correction should not be done according to God’s Word, as the Protestant Reformation thought, but according to the mistakes of the same Church Fathers whom they wanted to correct…
So what does it mean if the Church Fathers often call Mary the New Ark? Answer: nothing, as long as the Bible does not call her the New Ark; and, on the contrary, the Bible explains how JESUS (and not Mary) is typified by the Ark of the Covenant and by all of the types of the Old Covenant (cf. Colossians 2:17), and that we don’t need a “new” Ark under the New Covenant, as the Roman Catholics dream (see Jeremiah 3:16-17 –> Jerusalem is the Throne of God, and not Mary). So we are before another case in which Roman Catholics replace Jesus with Mary, thus making a solar eclipse, as we have seen in our first study in this series. We will see the details of this fact in this article.
The author of the article says:
St. John tells us (1:14) “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” If one translates the Greek into Hebrew the word “dwelt” would be “shakhan,” obviously from the same root as “Shekhinah,” the Presence of God that rested upon the Holy Ark. John is saying quite forthrightly that Jesus is that Divine Presence, but no longer resting on an Ark of wood, He “pitched His tent among us” in the Womb of a living woman of flesh and blood.
Now, this was a trial to insert the wrong Roman Catholic Mary into the Bible, instead of reading the Bible as it is. The New Testament was inspired in Greek and not in Hebrew, so this is just a philosophy. Anyway, we will take the argument of this author as it is and we will refute it. We will see how this Roman Catholic author is wrong, both by logic and by what the Bible says.
First, the logic of this author, even considered without the light of the Word of God, is lame. Let’s quote John 1:14 and see how his logic is lame:
“And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14)
The verb translated as “dwelt” is the Greek verb “eskeinOsen” which is clearly from the same root of “skeinei” which is translated as “tabernacle” in many passages (ex.: Acts 7:44). So John 1:14 is saying that when the Word became flesh, He thus tabernacled among us, and thus we have seen His Glory… This Roman Catholic author says that this tabernacle is the womb of Mary… Now, let’s think about this logically: John is talking about how the Word was incarnated and how they saw His Glory; how could they see His Glory while He was in the womb of Mary? Actually, you notice how this Roman Catholic only quoted the first part of this verse, and he didn’t quote the part in which John says that, through this “tabernacling”, they saw Christ’s Glory… Besides this, Jesus didn’t stay in the womb of Mary for the whole of His life on earth, so how could the womb of Mary be that Ark in which the stones of the Law were placed to stay there?…
So the sole logical study of this Roman Catholic’s argument reveals how desperate he is in his trial to defend the Marian worship…
The error in the light of the Word of God
Now, read the verse again:
“And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14)
We said that “dwelt” is “tabernacled” or “made tabernacle”. In other terms, John is saying that when the Logos (the Word — see John 1:1) became flesh, He thus made a tabernacle among us, and they thus saw His Glory, as they saw God in flesh. Note with me this word “flesh”, because it is a key word here… Actually, John is saying that this bodily form (the human flesh) is the visible tabernacle in which the invisible God (the Logos) appeared to us. So the tabernacle is the body of Christ. Well, did Jesus ever say that His body is this tabernacle or Temple? Yes, He did. Read with me:
“The Jews therefore answered and said to him, What sign shewest thou to us, that thou doest these things? Jesus answered and said to them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. The Jews therefore said, Forty and six years was this temple building, and thou wilt raise it up in three days? But he spoke of the temple of his body.” (John 2:18-21)
So, indeed, Jesus said that His body is that Temple or tabernacle in which the whole Divine Nature appeared in bodily form. And did the Apostles agree with this? Of course they did. Paul said: “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form“ (Colossians 2:9); even angels saw God for the first time when the Logos appeared in flesh: “And confessedly the mystery of piety is great. God has been manifested in flesh, has been justified in [the] Spirit, has appeared to angels, has been preached among [the] nations, has been believed on in [the] world, has been received up in glory.” (1 Timothy 3:16) And the Apostle John, filled with the Joy of having seen God, says: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.” (1 John 1:1-2)
So the body of Jesus Christ is that tabernacle or Ark in which the Word (the Logos) appeared to us and lived among us. The womb of Mary was not a very practical way to make this Word appear to humans, because medical 2D, 3D and 4D echographies were not invented yet in those times…
The Bible teaches also that it is in the Messiah that the New Covenant is made. Indeed, that’s inherent to the meaning of the word “Messiah”! I can’t write the whole explanation of this fact here, but if you want to read the details, then please read our article What does the word “Messiah” mean? Who is the Messiah? Concentrate especially on that part of that article where we have explained how Jesus is the Prophet like Moses who was promised in the Law. As Jesus is the Messiah, and not Mary, so it is in Jesus that the Word of the New Covenant was placed, and not in Mary… Jesus is the Prophet of the New Covenant, and not Mary… It is in Jesus that the following words of the prophet were fulfilled, and not in Mary: “A prophet will I raise up unto them from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.” (Deuteronomy 18:18) As the Bible says that the tables of the Old Covenant were placed in the Ark of the Covenant (cf. Hebrews 9:4), and as it also says that the Word of the New Covenant is placed in the Messiah, and as Jesus is the Messiah and not Mary, then how could Mary be that Ark of the Covenant instead of Jesus?? Do you see how the Roman Catholics try to replace Jesus with Mary? This time they made her the Messiah, because they don’t even know what the word “Messiah” means…
And please note that, in the Old Testament, wherever the Ark of the Covenant was present, that place was called the Temple of God, because the Ark of the Covenant itself was the place where the Glory of God appeared in a visible form to the children of Israel, although not yet in the full form in which it appeared in Christ, as we have seen above. As Eli the priest was sitting at the door of the tabernacle where the Ark of the Covenant was, so the Bible says that he was sitting at the door of the Temple of the LORD (cf. 1 Samuel 1:9), although the Temple was not built until the day of the king Solomon… Wherever the Ark of the Covenant was, there the Temple of God was, because the Ark of the Covenant itself is a summarized representation of the whole Temple of God, the body of Christ. When Moses brought the Ark of the Covenant into the tabernacle, the Glory of God filled the tabernacle (cf. Exodus 40:20-21, 34). When the Ark of the Covenant was behind the priests, it is written that “the seven priests carrying the seven trumpets of rams’ horns before the LORD went forward and blew the trumpets” (Joshua 6:8), although it is previously said that “seven priests shall carry seven trumpets of rams’ horns before the ark“ (Joshua 6:4)… So when the priests went before the Ark, it was like they went before the Lord, because the Ark represented the Lord Jesus Christ, and not Mary… Whenever the Ark of the Covenant was taken from the children of Israel, they said that the Glory of God departed from Israel (cf. passages like 1 Samuel 4:22). So when Jesus says that His body is the true Temple, He is actually saying that His body is the real Ark of the Covenant, as the Ark of the Covenant used to typify His body. Besides this, all what was in the tabernacle or the Temple in the Old Testament was a type of Jesus Christ. The main subject of the whole Bible is Jesus Christ, and not Mary… For instance, the veil was also a type of the flesh of Christ: “Having therefore, brethren, boldness for entering into the [holy of] holies by the blood of Jesus, the new and living way which he has dedicated for us through the veil, that is, his flesh“ (Hebrews 10:19-20). Note also that Hebrews 10:9-10 says that now we enter the Holy of Holies by the blood of Jesus, while in the Old Testament the priest used to enter the Holy of Holies by the blood of animals that typified the sacrifice of the body of Christ (cf. Hebrews 9:7). So those animal sacrifices also, which were offered in the Temple, typified Jesus Christ, and not Mary… The Temple and all what was in it typified Jesus Christ, and not a human like Mary, because no human has the Glory of God, not even Mary. The Tabernacle is the representation of the worship of God, and Mary is a human who should not have any place in that worship.
Now, a question rises: As Jesus is the Temple, and as the Ark of the Covenant was inside the Temple, then I wonder if Roman Catholics think that Mary’s womb was inside Jesus, as they say that the Ark of the Covenant, which was inside the Temple, typified Mary’s womb… Indeed, the position of the Roman Catholics is so illogical that it becomes ridiculous… Actually, as Roman Catholics refuse to accept the biblical truth that all what was in the Temple or in the tabernacle was a type of Christ, so they get confused before many other similar biblical truths. For instance, how can the veil, which is inside the Temple, be a type of the flesh of Christ, when the Temple itself is a type of the body of Christ?… How could those animal sacrifices, which were offered inside the Temple, be types of Christ?… Besides this, the Bible teaches that the tabernacle through which Jesus entered is not of this creation (cf. Hebrews 9:11); as the Ark of the Covenant was inside the tabernacle, so the true Ark of the Covenant also is not of this creation… Does this mean that Roman Catholics think that Mary’s womb is not of this creation?… Again: How could Jesus be both the door of the sheep and the Shepherd of the sheep who entered through that door (cf. John 10)?… How is Jesus both the High Priest of the New Covenant and at the same time the sacrifice that the high priest used to present (cf. Hebrews 4:14 and Hebrews 8:3)? In brief: How could Jesus be both a son of David and the Lord of David? How could He be both God and human?
Indeed, this is the mystery of the incarnation that the Roman Catholics dismiss when they want to glorify Mary instead of Jesus, as they think in the way humans think and not in the way God thinks. They think in the following way: As Jesus is the Word, and as Jesus was placed in the womb of Mary, then Mary is the Ark of the Covenant… What a wrong human logic! The Bible clearly says that the Temple and all what was in it typified Jesus Christ and His Glory… Whenever any biblical type talks about the human nature and the flesh of Christ, Roman Catholics automatically link it to Mary, and they thus ignore the incarnation. It seems that they think Jesus is only the non-incarnated Word… Actually, how did they imagine that the Ark of the Covenant is Mary’s womb? It is by thinking that Jesus is only the non-incarnated Word which is placed in the Ark of the Covenant which is Mary’s body. But have they forgotten that the Word became flesh?…
By making the Ark of the Covenant a type of Mary, Roman Catholics make a big blasphemy against Christ. Although Roman Catholics always refuse to be accused of Marian worship, but all of their arguments for Mary prove that they worship Mary instead of the Lord Jesus Christ, as we have seen till now in these articles. Indeed, the Ark of the Covenant was placed at the center of Jewish worship, behind the veil, in the Holy of Holies… Thus, when they compare Mary to the Ark of the Covenant, Roman Catholics place her at the center of worship… Indeed, we have seen that the Ark of the Covenant was placed behind the veil, in the Holy of Holies, in the place of worship; so Roman Catholics make Mary the object of worship… The high priest under the Old Covenant had to enter that Holy of Holies with the blood of sacrifices, a clear symbol of true worship; so by placing Mary behind that veil, Roman Catholics make her the object of worship… By making Mary the true Ark of the Covenant which is not of this creation (see Hebrews 9:11 and the explanation above), Roman Catholics make Mary a goddess who is not a creature (who is not of this creation)!! In the Old Testament, the Ark of the Covenant was the place where God revealed His Will to the children of Israel (as the tables of the Covenant were in that Ark – cf. Judges 20:27) as a type of the incarnated Son who alone revealed the Father to us (cf. John 1:18). So when Roman Catholics make Mary the Ark of the Covenant, they say that Mary revealed to us God, and not the incarnated Son… In the Old Testament, the Ark of the Covenant led the children of Israel in the way of God, taking them to the place of rest (cf. passages like Numbers 10:33, Joshua 3:3, Joshua 3:11), and that was a type of the Way to the Father who is Jesus Christ (cf. John 14:6). By making Mary the Ark of the Covenant, Roman Catholics are making Mary our leader to God, instead of Jesus (cf. Hebrews 12:2)… Many other dangerous implications result from this false teaching that makes Mary the Ark of the Covenant. By this teaching, Roman Catholics replace Jesus with Mary, as is their habit… And they still tell us that they don’t worship Mary…
Grace be with you!
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posted in Religious Movements | Roman Catholicism and similar heresies
This is part 5 of the series: Roman Catholic desperate defense of Marian worship