Let me give a few examples of the danger in forcing a type rather than
letter Scripture confirm it: with enough imagination, almost anyone could be
turned into anything. For instance, one could even argue that Esther was a type
of the “ark of the covenant.”
1.
The
ark was kept hidden behind the veil in the Most Holy Place; Esther was hidden
behind a veil until the time of her presentation (Esther. 2:7-8)
2.
The
ark was the means by which God’s people received mercy; Esther was the means by
which God’s people received mercy. (Esther. 7:3).
3.
The
ark was associated with God’s presence enthroned between the cherubim; Esther
stood between royalty and before the earthly king.
4.
The ark
was central to Israel’s covenant life; Esther was central to Israel’s covenant
survival.
Of Joseph:
1.
The
ark was overlaid with gold (Ex. 25:11), and Joseph was “arrayed in garments of
fine linen and a gold chain” (Gen. 41:42).
2.
The
ark carried God’s law inside it; Joseph carried out God’s law faithfully (Gen.
39:9).
3.
The
ark was God’s instrument to preserve His people; Joseph was God’s instrument to
preserve His people (Gen. 50:20).
4.
The
ark went before Israel to prepare their way; Joseph went ahead to Egypt to
prepare Israel’s way.
It sounds persuasive until we remember: one of this makes Esther or
Joseph a type of The Ark of the Covenant. These are allusions at best and mere similarities
at least. God never identifies Esther or Joseph with the ark, and to do so is
to build doctrine of human imagination rather than divine intention. (Dale
Partridge, Reformed Versus Rome: Why Classical Protestantism is the Recovery
of the Historic Christian Church [Prescott, Ariz.: Relearn Press, 2025], 89-90)
