Posted on 02/03/2014 1:36:37 AM PST by markomalley
Good overview, but i cannot recall where it says that the broken tablets were what was placed in there.
Also of note is the postulation here on reconciling 1 Kings 8:9 with Heb. 9:4.
The rod is a symbol of authority.
Christ, the Good Shepherd.
Christ, the Judge.
2) A Pot of Manna, and
The bread from heaven that kept God's people alive.
John 6:31ff Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat…I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.
3) The Broken Tablets from Mt Sinai.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us
Those items in the Ark represent three cases of disobedience to His Plan.
You are critically incorrect here. The items in the ark are prefigurements of Christ.
And God, the Holy Spirit overshadowed the ark and filled it (cf. Exodus 25).
Now we could run through more prefigurement. How the ark traveled on the way to Jerusalem and stopped at a small town in the hill country outside Jerusalem (and then how Mary traveled to Elizabeth...in the hill country outside Jerusalem). How David leaped for joy (how John the Baptist leaped for joy).
But I don't want to bother with it, as it wouldn't change your thinking in the least bit.
After all, Catholicism has nothing to do with the Bible and no amount of quoting the Bible by Catholics will change some folks' minds about it.
“no amount of quoting the Bible by Catholics “
Anyone can quote. Quoting to support something not taught is called taking it out of context... Regardless of denomination.
True, and that is one of my chief complaints against anti-Catholic antagonists
... Regardless of denomination.
Having said that, if you can show where I cited something that would change its meaning "in context," I'd like to read that.
“Having said that, if you can show where I cited something that would change its meaning “in context,” I’d like to read that.”
You opined out interesting things that are not taught. You use it to make Mary into something God didn’t teach. A “type” that isn’t revealed as a type, is an interesting observation and no more.
You can see a horse in the clouds, but it isn’t a horse. It remains just a horse-shaped cloud. When you insist it is sky horse and teach horses have power over the sky, you’re just making up things that go far beyond reality.
Both are false statements, and the issue for me relative to your statement is not simply whether the golden ark prefigured Mary - and i do not disallow you can make a case for that, but i do reject that as helping warrant the demigodess stature ascribed in manifold ways to the Mary of Rome - but the issue now it is that while you appeal to Scripture for your interpretation, you cannot claim full assurance upon that basis, lest you be as an evangelical, and your goal in using Scripture must be to convince us to submit to Rome in order to find real assurance of Truth.
Moreover, as the veracity of RC doctrine is not dependent upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, nor do they even need any actual evidence thereby, then your interpretation carries no real weight even for Catholics, unless Rome officially teaches it.
Furthermore, as RCs have great liberty to interpret Scripture in order to support Rome, then unless Rome officially teaches it another RC could interpret the Ark differently.
Really?
The problem I have with the statement is that you haven't shown me that God has taught otherwise. In essence, my interpretation of what you wrote is that although I have cited Scripture and cited it in context, I've applied an improper interpretation to the passages I've cited.
Yet this has been the orthodox belief since the beginning of Christianity. To demonstrate that,
At that time, then, the Saviour appeared and showed His own body to the world, (born) of the Virgin, who was the “ark overlaid with pure gold,” with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without; so that the truth is demonstrated, and the “ark” made manifest. Hippolytus, in Daniel 6 (From around 200 AD)
Or, from a few decades later:
Most of the holy fathers, and patriarchs, and prophets desired to see Him, and to be eye-witnesses of Him, but did not attaint hereto. And some of them by visions beheld Him in type, and darkly; others, again, were privileged to hear the divine voice through the medium of the cloud, and were favoured with sights of holy angels; but to Mary the pure virgin alone did the archangel Gabriel manifest himself luminously, bringing her the glad address, "Hail, thou that art highly favoured!" And thus she received the word, and in the due time of the fulfilment according to the body's course she brought forth the priceless pearl. Come, then, you too, dearly beloved, and let us chant the melody which has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, "Arise, O Lord, into Your rest; You, and the ark of Your 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. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Homily 1 On the Annunciation (from c. 260 AD)
Again, I have no interest in posting all of the respective quotes. Nor am I trying to assert that the above two that I did quote are Divinely Inspired and on a par with the Scriptures...so don't go there. The reason I did quote those two is to show that this is no new idea. It is not a product of the medieval Church (in fact, both those quotes pre-dated the First Council of Nicea and even the Edict of Milan. So they would both be from a period before Constantine went and "paganized" the Church (an Alexander Hislop allusion with the last). I also don't believe that either Hippolytus or Gregory created that belief out of whole cloth and, considering one was in Rome and the other in Asia Minor, it's doubtful that they were horribly close collaborators.
The point is that the interpretation I offer is one that is consistent with the vast majority of Christian thought for the Church's first 1,500 years (the only Patristic writer that I can think of who said anything contrary was Irenaeus, who thought of the Ark as Christ's body...and I can see some major issues with that thought -- on the surface, it sounds almost Nestorian). But you say "you're wrong" without showing where I'm wrong.
So where am I wrong?
Good point. Deut 10:2 points out that God remade 2 tablets from stock made by Moses and gave them to Moses and Moses came down and placed them in the Ark.
Other studies observe that when a contract or covenant is made, one copy is given to both parties to keep as the original agreement. One set being those given to Moses for Israel and the other retained by God in the Ark. I don;t know if that teaching is consistent, but I had been taught that perspective.
It appears Hebrew tradition holds the broken and whole pieces were both placed in the Ark, but Deut 10 clearly states nothing else was in that ark than the two remade tablets.
The Ark may be a prefigurement of Jesus Christ, with the wood representing His humanity and the gold His Diety. It doesn’t seem consistent to make a blood offering on the Mercy seat which covers the Ark, unless the offering covers all sin, so unless they represent the sin imputed to Christ, I don’t find the contents to represent Christ. I agree He is given all authority, He provides, and He fulfills the Law, but that is consistent with those pieces representing our sin in those areas.
Almighty God established a very special, real "God Presence" in the tiny "Ark of the Covenant", then later, Almighty God established a very special, real "God Presence" inside the tiny body of the Blessed Mary, and Almighty God also establishes a very special, real "God Presence" in the tiny Sacred Hosts of His Holy Eucharist today, just as He solemnly proclaimed He would as recorded in numerous texts in the Bible.
It is amazing how so few people there in the Temple back then at the "Presentation" (two -- Simeon and Anna) actually recognized God's Salvation in the form of that little baby Jesus, and also how few ever recognized God in Jesus throughout His entire life here on earth -- even to His death on Calvary, when most human beings there were just too ignorant and foolish and blind to recognize who He really was, and yelled evil, insulting things at Him, and grievously attacked and killed the "Son of God".
That same kind of blindness continues to this very day, with these "know-it-all", stubborn, willfully ignorant, self-appointed-authority types who simply cannot/will not permit the Holy Spirit to open their eyes to the Real Presence of Jesus Christ today in the Holy Eucharist which God Himself instituted. In their foolish pride, they sadly "prefer the darkness to the light", as Jesus said many would.
Just as some saw just a human baby in the Temple, or saw just a strange human man telling them to "eat His flesh and drink His blood" (as recorded in John 6) and promptly abandoned Him, or saw just a mocked and severely beaten human man hanging and dying on cross on Calvary, some today see just bread and wine, not the Real Presence of our Lord and our God in His Holy Eucharist, as He solemnly proclaimed in numerous biblical citations. In their stubbornly foolish ignorance, and prideful, self-inposed blindness, they all thought/think they knew/know better than God.
I believe the fate of those who mocked and rejected the Real Presence of God back then (in His humanity) will be the same fate as those who stubbornly and willfully mock and reject the Real Presence of God today in His Holy Eucharistic Presence.
Thanks again, markomalley, and have a great evening!
“Yet this has been the orthodox belief since the beginning of Christianity. To demonstrate that,...(From around 200 AD)”
As it turns out, the beginning of Christianity was two hundred years earlier.
Let’s set aside the late entry of this idea, because truth isnt determined by time or the number of people who believe an idea. There is no evidence the Apostles believed or taught this. More importantly, the Scriptures do not teach that Mary is the fulfilled ark.
You and other Catholics “see” what you’ve written and string these observations together, believing that by organizing them, the Scripture must be teaching the whole thing as a truth, ergo, Mary IS the ark. They remain just interesting observations.
You are correct that these are interesting observations. You are trying to make observations into a teaching, which goes beyond the main point of the passage.
God sat upon the Mercy Seat and filled the ark. The symbolism was not that the ark would represent God, but was the vessel upon and within that He would choose to place Himself.
Since, until the incarnation of Christ, no man had ever seen God, making the blood offering upon the mercy seat was representative of offering that sacrifice to God.
The belief that Mary is the Ark of the new Covenant is not one elevating her in any way to "Godhood" or "demi-Godhood", but is a statement that she is the (created, formed from the dust of the earth) vessel where God chose to place Himself. Though I can appreciate that somebody wouldn't want to attach that "title" to her, I, for the life of me, cannot fathom how one could deny the essential facts of the situation. Just as I can appreciate where one would be reticent to actually state the Nicene Creed, how a Christian can deny the facts that are contained therein escapes me.
I'm wondering, though, if the problem is not Marian but actually a Christological problem. (I'm speaking here generically about those who believe Christ is the Ark, not about you specifically)
If one believes that Christ was the Ark, then it follows that since the Ark was a created thing, then Christ was a created thing (or, at a minimum, His body was a created thing)...and then that God chose to dwell in and around that created thing. That flies in the face of orthodox Christian belief that Christ was eternally begotten of the Father (as opposed to being created by the Father) and that Christ chose to become incarnate (that is, become in the flesh), taking His flesh from Mary.
The extreme end of that belief is Arianism (that Christ was a created being and, though the son of God, was a mere man).
The slightly more moderate version is Nestorianism or some form of Adoptionism, which separates the divine and human nature of Christ into two separate "persons" or "natures" -- and that Mary only gave birth to the human "person" of Christ, the divine being assumed at some point after birth. (This flies in the face of the orthodox teaching of the hypostatic union: that the divine and human natures of Christ, though distinct, were unified in one substance and one person)
That's where I have a massive problem with the idea that the Ark was Christ.
So instead, there is no problem with God who can be placed in a little box?
That is an ontological question. How much volume does spirit consume? Infinite? None? Someplace in between?
That's a really, really negative view.
The manna = Christ the bread of life. The rod = Christ the true High Priest. The Tablets = Christ the new Moses, the new Lawgiver.
It’s a very positive view.
Only one day a year did the High Priest enter into the Holy of Holies, on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, and spread the blood on the Mercy Seat for the Atonement of all sin.
It isn’t the Law, nor Providence, nor Authority that saves us from the penalty of sin. It is the Blood, which covers all sin, including the sins of disobedience as represented by the three items in the Ark.
God wasn’t contained in the Ark, rather He dwelt in the Tabernacle, the Dwelling Place, and His presence known by the Shekinah Glory (Glory of His Dwelling).
I’m curious, how did Aaron’s rod that budded and the sealed ephod of manna represent disobedience?
Numbers 17:10
The Ark of the Covenant is also referenced as the Ark of Testimonies.
Num 17:10
(10) And the LORD said unto Moses, Bring Aaron’s rod again before the testimony, to be kept for a token against the rebels; and thou shalt quite take away their murmurings from me, that they die not.
Numbers 15-17 describes the rejection of legitimate Authority as chosen by God by the others in the Israelite tribes. The last situation begged by Moses and Aaron, resulted in the Lord directing the 12 families to bring a rod each, one of the Levi’s with Aaron’s name on it, and the one He chose would bud. Aaron’s rod budded.
Numbers 17:10 points directly at the rod to represent a token against the rebels. It represented their sin,..i.e. their disobedience to God’s Authority.
Numbers 17:10
The Ark of the Covenant is also referenced as the Ark of Testimonies.
Num 17:10
(10) And the LORD said unto Moses, Bring Aaron’s rod again before the testimony, to be kept for a token against the rebels; and thou shalt quite take away their murmurings from me, that they die not.
Numbers 15-17 describes the rejection of legitimate Authority as chosen by God by the others in the Israelite tribes. The last situation begged by Moses and Aaron, resulted in the Lord directing the 12 families to bring a rod each, one of the Levi’s with Aaron’s name on it, and the one He chose would bud. Aaron’s rod budded.
Numbers 17:10 points directly at the rod to represent a token against the rebels. It represented their sin,..i.e. their disobedience to God’s Authority.
I’ve always thought of the rod that budded as God’s showing that He is the source of Life. BTW, the rod also bore almonds! IIRC. I always thought of the ephod of Manna as God showing them that it is He who will sustain the believers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.