Against Mary - "Totus tuus, Mary"

[reluctant_saint]

It’s obvious that Justasking4 wants a little more Biblical meat from the Catholics on this issue, so I’ll try to avoid Sacred Tradition as much as possible to give a more Biblical account of Catholic Marian doctrines.

This is rather long, so I’m going to have to post parts at a time.

In his encyclical letter “Inneffabilis Deus,” where the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was solenmly defined, the main Biblical text that Pope Pius IX focused on was what’s known as the Proto-Evangelium, where God says to the Serpent “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” (Gen. 3:15)

All Christians understand that the seed of the woman refers to Christ who triumphs over Satan, but few Protestant scholars are willing to admit the fact that the woman in this Scripture refers to Mary. As to that we must jump ahead to the Apostle John, who was entrusted with Mary as his mother, to see that the woman is this passage really is Mary.

There are two times in the Gospel of John where Mary is mentioned: first at the wedding feast of Cana (2:1-11) and second at the Crucifixion (19:26-27). In both these cases, Jesus addresses her as “Woman,” a title which, I should add, was not used in a derogatory manner back then as it is now. As for Jesus saying to Mary “What have I to do with thee,” Biblical studies show that this phrase is a Hebrew idiom which can at one time express disagreement, but at the same time express consent. So it should not be considered as a rebuke in any way.

So why does John call Mary “Woman”? Because John was very concerned with showing the Jewish roots of Christianity. The Gospel of John is full of such instances where he is more concerned with showing the fulfillment of the Old Testament than he is with expressing historical truth. Consider how the Gospel begins. “In the beginning . . .” That comes straight from the first words of Scripture. What about where he talks about being born again of water and the Spirit? He’s referring to the second verse of Genesis chapter one where it says “And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” So the world came into being through water and spirit; so also the believer is born again of water and spirit.

How about this one? Why do all the Synoptic Gospels say Simon of Cyrene helped Christ to carry his Cross, but the Gospel of John says “and he went out, bearing the cross for himself”? (19:17) The answer is because John wants to point back to Genesis 22:16 where “Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son.” He’s showing how Christ is the fulfillment of Isaac, who also carried the wood on which he was to be sacrificed.

Why does the Gospel of John say that Christ was crucified on the day of preparation of the Passover (John 19:14), but the other Gospels say he died the next day? Matthew tells us that it was “the day after the preparation” (Mat. 27:62), and the other two Gospels say it was the day of preparation of the Sabbath (Mark. 15:42 & Luke 23:54). Now the first three Gospels make sense together for saying that Christ died on a Friday, but what about the Gospel of John? Again, John is concerned with Spiritual truths. He says that Christ was tried and crucified of the day of preparation of the Passover, “and it was about the sixth hour.” (19:14) Now the sixth hour was the traditional time the Temple Priests would have begun slaughtering the lambs for the Passover. Remember, the Gospel of John is the only Gospel which actually calls Jesus the “Lamb of God.” (1:29,36) The phrase otherwise also appears in the book of Revelation, which John also wrote, but it is not found anywhere else in the New Testament. So John is emphasizing the fact that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Pascal lamb.

I could talk even more about the Gospel of John, but I think that’s enough to show my point. That’s how John’s Gospel works. He’s constantly taking things from the Old Testament and showing what they correspond to in the New.

 

[reluctant_saint]

So what then is the significance of Jesus calling Mary “Woman”? John is setting Mary up as the woman mentioned in Genesis 3:15. Let’s delve deeper into Scripture to see if this holds up.

In the Book of Revelation, John gives us the fulfillment of the Proto-Evangelium. In chapter twelve of Revelation we see “A woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.” (12:1) He goes on to say, “she was delivered of a son, a man child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and unto his throne.” In this same chapter he writes “And there was seen another sign in heaven; and behold, a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his heads seven diadems. . . . the great dragon was cast down, the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world.”

Remember how John writes. He’s always referring to the Old Testament. Here in this chapter we see everything spoken of in the Proto-Evangalium: a woman, her seed, and the ancient serpent (i.e. The one in the Garden).

So who is the woman? The woman is no other than the one whom Jesus called “Woman”: his mother, Mary. Indeed, I can’t think of anybody else that gave birth to “a male child who is to rule the nations with a rod of iron.” Mary is the only figure who fits the character of the women spoken of in Revelation 12.

But suppose you think the women referred to in Revelation is only a symbol for something else, say, the Church. Although Catholics recognize that the women does refer to the Church, it also refers to Mary for one important reason. If the Proto-Evangelium was referring to a real man when it said “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed,” that is, if the seed of the woman was a real man, (and we believe it was a real man, Jesus Christ) then why would the “woman” also mentioned here not be a real women? Eve was a real person. Adam was a real person. The seed of the woman was a real person. Why not the woman herself? Do you now see why the Early Church Fathers referred to Mary as the New Eve? Christ was the New Adam; Mary the New Eve.

So back to “Ineffabilis Deus,” Pius IX says that since Scripture says there is enmity between the woman and the serpent, the women cannot be defiled by sin. The woman is an enemy of the serpent in the same why that her seed is the enemy of the serpent’s seed. This does not mean that the women conquers the serpent. It’s her seed that does that. But it does mean the serpent cannot touch her. Indeed, if you look again to Revelation 12, that’s exactly what you’ll see.

Rev. 12:13-16
“And when the dragon saw that he was cast down to the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child. And there were given to the woman the two wings of the great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness unto her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. And the serpent cast out of his mouth after the woman water as a river, that he might cause her to be carried away by the stream. And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the river which the dragon cast out of his mouth.”

The woman, Mary, cannot be touched by the serpent. This also shows the woman is sinless. No attack of the serpent can reach her. So what does the serpent do?

Rev 12:17
“And the dragon waxed wroth with the woman, and went away to make war with the rest of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and hold the testimony of Jesus.”

This is also why we call Mary our mother. Yes, I believe that when Jesus gave her to John, he was giving her to all of us. In fact, in his Gospel, John refers to himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” In effect, Jesus gives his mother not to John but to “the disciple whom he loved.” And I think its fair to say that all we who follow Christ are his beloved disciples.

That’s my Biblical defense of the Immaculate Conception.

 

[justasking4]

1. “Theoretically”…do you think St. Ignatius of Antioch, a student of the Apostle John could have known something of the things in the Jn 20,30 passage?
2. “Theoretically”…do you think something of this can be also in his writings? (btw - there is no passage in the Bible that says he couldn’t write it)

Its possible. However, today the catholic church nor any church for that matter does not know exactly what these “other things” Jesus said and did. Since this is the case, Sacred Tradition may sound convincing in and of itself it does not tell you exactly what Jesus said and did outside the NT.

 

[justasking4]

ElizabethPH;2550548]That everything is not in the bible; That there is an oral teaching where from the earliest church Fathers comes our belief that Mary intercedes for us…she is the Holy Mother of God.

I’m not sure what you mean by the “earliest church Fathers” since these beliefs about Mary don’t appear for centuries after the NT was written.

Paul was speaking about what he “preaches” not about anything he has written; as in the bible…which you obviously believe everything must be in the bible.

The problem you with this view is that if its not in the inspired-inerrant Scriptures its the teachings of men. In this case with Mary and the claims about her they are speculations since the scriptures never speak of her in this way.

She is my Mother; given to us by Jesus on the cross when he told John ‘behold your Mother’ whether you believe that to be false doesn’t it make it so.

The problem is that you have no evidence-proof from the NT that she was ever regarded as the mother of the church. There is not one NT writer that refers to her that way. Think about this: those closest to her never thought of her like this. How could they be so blind?

 

[justasking4]

Ok. Good point! So how long did the thinking process “in Christ” take you to come up with the canon of the Bible?

Just wondering.

The canon was finalized around the 4th century.

 

[justasking4]

zemi;2550283]Justasking,

1. Mary was Jesus’ mother

1. God gave us commandent: “Honor your father and your mother”

1. Jesus would most certainly with the uttermost perfection keep all the commandments perfectly including the one stated above.

1. the word “honor” was/is in Hebrew “kabodah” which means “bestow glory” and is derived from Hebrew “kabod” which means weight, glory.

1. So Jesus honors his Father and obeys his command by bestowing unprecedented glory upon the one that he has chosen from all eternity to be his mother. Did it diminuish in any way his intimate relationship with his Father? No. Not at all.

Your 5th point is problematic. We have absolutely no evidence for this claim that He gave her "unprecedented glory ". Even if this was the case, you still don’t know what this would look like anyway.

1. Justasking, do you (try to) imitate Jesus also in this or are you a judge to yourself a pick things in which you want to imitate Jesus?

Following Christ is the hardest thing a person can do. I also fall far short of this standard. That being said, to imitate Christ requires also a deep and rich knowledge of the Scriptures. See John 15:7 and Colossians 3:16.
Also, keep in mind that Jesus Himself never exhorted nor taught anyone that we are in any sense to be devoted to Mary. In fact in those places in the gospels where He does have some interaction with her He is distancing Himself from her instead of showing how important she is to Him. For example, He never applauds what a great disciple she is nor ask her advice. She is also not part of the “inner circle” of the disciples.

In regards to your question—“are you a judge to yourself a pick things in which you want to imitate Jesus?” the answer would yes. Not everything Jesus said and did applies to us today.

PS: Why is it so hard to accept that Mary could after all be your Mother as Jesus (implicitly) told it and the Church (explicitly) teaches it? Unless you adhere to the self-destructing and contradicting principle of having everything explicitly in the Bible…I don’t see any reason if you are open to think about it…

The reason i reject the catholic church’ teaching on Mary is:
1-The Scriptures don’t teach it
2- it is an obstacle in the purity and devotion to Christ. 2 Corinthians 11:3

 

[justasking4]

Tantum ergo;2549781]Just, you are forgetting Revelation. The ideas of this mystical book have historically been considered to support the continuous apostolic teachings and to support Mary’s place in salvation history as has been Christian teaching since the beginning and is still taught by Catholics today.

If what you are saying is true, then why don’t you see these claims about her for centuries? Take Rev 12. No one of any standing taught that this was a reference to her. Even the idea that she was always a virgin didn’t appear to around the 4the century. So the idea that these beliefs have been there since the beginning are not supported history.

It’s in there as well as in Sacred Tradition – the other ‘part’ of the deposit of Faith, as you must well know that Scripture itself never, never, EVER claims to contain ‘all’ knowledge but rather not only states that it does not contain all the teachings that Christ Himself spoke and did in the 3 years of his ministry (but which were passed down through oral tradition) but also the ‘truth’ that the Holy Spirit whom Christ sent would guide us to.

There are so many problems with using Sacred Tradition and oral traditions. On the issue of oral traditions, you have no way to know what they were if they were no written down. Take your example that we don’t have all the teachings of Christ. My question to you is where is this teaching that is not in the NT? Can you give me a couple of examples of it?

 

[justasking4]

Quote:
Originally Posted by love4mary
I just don’t get it. If having a devotion to Mary and the Saints brings us closer to Jesus, why do some have such problems with this? In my humble opinion, anyone or anything that brings us closer to our Lord and Saviour is a good thing.

Simply and nicely put, love4mary

I also had problems with some teachings of the RCC. Once I studied them and saw them properly explained I came to realize what a great sense does it all make. I think that’s also the cure for the anti/non-Catholicism of many anti/non-Catholics.

How exactly does Mary bring you closer to Christ?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Your contention that the Bible contains “all teachings” still remains to be proven. The Bible itself denies it. There is enough evidence from the Bible as to what the deposit of faith and teachings is–the Church founded by Christ has the authority to teach the deposit as given by Christ and expounded on–brought to full fruition and truth–by the Holy Spirit.

Second, we have over and over demonstrated to you, through written evidence of continuous teachings from the earliest times, that these doctrines you complain as not ‘being there for hundreds of years’ were, in fact, there, and were taught then, and only had to be formally declared when there was a difficulty with the ‘protestants’ calling them into question with their ‘Bible only’ olatry.

 

[Axion]

If what you are saying is true, then why don’t you see these claims about her for centuries? Take Rev 12. No one of any standing taught that this was a reference to her. Even the idea that she was always a virgin didn’t appear to around the 4the century. So the idea that these beliefs have been there since the beginning are not supported history.

Not true.

Hippolytus, Orat. Inillud, Dominus pascit me (before A.D. 235)
“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.”

Origen, Homily 1 (A.D. 244)
“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.”

Ambrose,Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388),
Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin."

As far as Revelation 12 is concerned, you do realise that Revelation was not universally accepted as a Scriptural book until 382 AD, when the contents of the New testament were settled by Church Councils. Therefore it would not be used for proofing doctrine until after this date.

Even so, St Augustine draws the Mary link with Reveleation 12 in a Sermon to catechumens.

Ye have also received the creed, which protecteth your travailing Mother against the venom of the dragon. In the Apocalypse of the Apostle John it is written: And the dragon stood before the Woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as it was born. That this dragon is the devil ye all know. Ye likewise know that by the Woman is signified the Virgin Mary, who, herself a Virgin, bore our Virgin-Head, and who is revealed unto us as a type of the Holy Church; for even as Mary bore a Son and yet remained a Virgin, so the Church doth in all times give birth to her members, and yet is ever presented a chaste virgin to Christ.

 

[zemi]

Huh? In Christ we are called to think. The church cannot do the thinking for you.

Ok. Good point! So how long did the thinking process “in Christ” take you to come up with the canon of the Bible?

Just wondering.

The canon was finalized around the 4th century.

I know that very well.

My question however remains. If the Church with cooperation of the Holy Spirit did some thinking and came up with the canon, YET it “cannot do the thinking for us” as “in Christ we are called to think” then I suppose you did not accept what the Church taught and that you came to the exact same canon as the Church by your thinking “in Christ”.

I hope you see your position is hopelessly self-refuting unless you cherry-pick where you can do the thinking “in Christ” and what things you accept because the Church “did the thinking”.

 

[terri_fortner]

There are so many problems with using Sacred Tradition and oral traditions. On the issue of oral traditions, you have no way to know what they were if they were no written down. Take your example that we don’t have all the teachings of Christ. My question to you is where is this teaching that is not in the NT? Can you give me a couple of examples of it?

You are right maybe we shouldn’t trust the bible, since it is just another Sacread tradition, handed down for hundreds of years by oral tradition. The bible was never ment to be to only the only auhtority to be followed. It’s like studying to be a Doctor of medicine and refusing to use a particular anatomy book. Because this other book has most of the same stuff in it, and actually claiming that simply because that other stuff was written down later after further study it can’t possably be true.

 

[terri_fortner]

How exactly does Mary bring you closer to Christ?

I pray a whole lot more now that I am praying with Mary… PRAYER = TIME WITH GOD, more of it is good… Or are you going to claim that is false too?

 

[zemi]

Justasking,

1. Mary was Jesus’ mother
2. God gave us commandent: “Honor your father and your mother”
3. Jesus would most certainly with the uttermost perfection keep all the commandments perfectly including the one stated above.
4. the word “honor” was/is in Hebrew “kabodah” which means “bestow glory” and is derived from Hebrew “kabod” which means weight, glory.
5. So Jesus honors his Father and obeys his command by bestowing unprecedented glory upon the one that he has chosen from all eternity to be his mother. Did it diminuish in any way his intimate relationship with his Father? No. Not at all.
6. Justasking, do you (try to) imitate Jesus also in this or are you a judge to yourself a pick things in which you want to imitate Jesus?

PS: Why is it so hard to accept that Mary could after all be your Mother as Jesus (implicitly) told it and the Church (explicitly) teaches it? Unless you adhere to the self-destructing and contradicting principle of having everything explicitly in the Bible…I don’t see any reason if you are open to think about it…

Your 5th point is problematic. We have absolutely no evidence for this claim that He gave her "unprecedented glory ".

We can absolutely reasonably conclude it on the basis of deduction from the first 4 premises unless you wanted to refute some of them.

Even if this was the case, you still don’t know what this would look like anyway.

Agreed! BUT - so what?! Can we comprehend what love it is that Jesus loves us just as he loves his Father? Hardly… So? Does that make his statement false? Hardly… It just makes a non-sequitur argument.

Following Christ is the hardest thing a person can do. I also fall far short of this standard. That being said, to imitate Christ requires also a deep and rich knowledge of the Scriptures. See John 15:7 and Colossians 3:16.

Sure. It is a life-long process known as sanctification and it will be completed only in heaven.

We agree also on the Scripure thing. You look at CCC 133

 

[zemi]

Also, keep in mind that Jesus Himself never exhorted nor taught anyone that we are in any sense to be devoted to Mary. In fact in those places in the gospels where He does have some interaction with her He is distancing Himself from her instead of showing how important she is to Him. For example, He never applauds what a great disciple she is nor ask her advice. She is also not part of the “inner circle” of the disciples.

I tried to show you the opposite by my first 5 premises.

Moreover, if you look at John’s Gospel, you have Mary mentioned there 2 times → at Cana and at Cross. Now for the “Cana-argument”. Jesus called her there “woman” which some Protestants use to point to as some derogatory term Jesus said to Mary. However, on the contrary:

John 2:3-4 in no way supports some supposed sin on Mary’s part, except on prior Protestant presuppositions, making the argument circular (but I myself wouldn’t have thought when I was a Protestant that this verse is an unambiguous example of a sin committed by Mary). Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin writes:

*The title “Woman” is not a sign of disrespect, it is the opposite - a title of dignity. It is a formal mode of speech equivalent to the English titles, “Lady” or “Madam.” *

The Protestant commentator William Barclay writes:

*The word Woman (gynai) is also misleading. It sounds to us very rough and abrupt. But it is the same word as Jesus used on the Cross to address Mary as he left her to the care of John (John 19:26). In Homer it is the title by which Odysseus addresses
Penelope, his well-loved wife. It is the title by which Augustus, the Roman Emperor, addressed Cleopatara, the famous Egyptian queen. So far from being a rough and discourteous way of address, it was a title of respect. We have no way of speaking in
English which exactly renders it; but it is better to translate it Lady which gives at least the courtesy in it. *
(The Gospel of John, revised edition, vol. 1, 98)

Similarly, the Protestant Expositor’s Bible Commentary, published by Zondervan, states:
*
Jesus’ reply to Mary was not so abrupt as it seems. ‘Woman’ (gynai) was a polite form of address. Jesus used it when he spoke to his mother from the cross (19:26) and also when he spoke to Mary Magdalene after the Resurrection (20:15). *
(vol. 9, 42)

Even the Fundamentalist Wycliffe Bible Commentary put out by Moody Press acknowledges in its comment on this verse:

• "In his reply, the use of ‘Woman’ does not involve disrespect (cf. 19:26). *
  (p. 1076).

. . . Actually, the way Jesus is using the term - at the two key junctures in John’s Gospel where Mary appears - is symbolic and emblematic of her role in redemptive history. Whereas Eve was the First Woman, Mary is the Second Woman, just as Adam was the First Man and Jesus was the Second Man (1 Cor. 15:47).

from: socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/dialogue-on-nature-of-development-of.html

In regards to your question—“are you a judge to yourself a pick things in which you want to imitate Jesus?” the answer would yes. Not everything Jesus said and did applies to us today.

Hmm…No one tells you to get circumcised or to go to Jerusalem every year to imitate Jesus. The question is whether you try to imitate Jesus in all things God commanded us except those that were fulfilled in the New Covenant (some were retained (e.g. 10 commandments), some were fulfilled and changed in their form (e.g. animal sacrifices)). You don’t have to imitate him in Jewish customs.

I’d like to ask then - on the basis of which you decide in what you want to follow and imitate Jesus?

The reason i reject the catholic church’ teaching on Mary is:
1-The Scriptures don’t teach it
2- it is an obstacle in the purity and devotion to Christ. 2 Corinthians 11:3

For Mary being our Mother argument see the very first post HERE

 

[zemi]

Its possible. However, today the catholic church nor any church for that matter does not know exactly what these “other things” Jesus said and did. Since this is the case, Sacred Tradition may sound convincing in and of itself it does not tell you exactly what Jesus said and did outside the NT.

So do you agree that the Church Father may have “possibly” taught (and wrote down) something that came directly from Jesus’ mouth (that was handed down to them by the Apostles) but the problem is we do not know which parts of their writing we should actually tag: “This is what Jesus taugh the Apostles”?

 

[cpayne]

I just wonder what you would have to say I really heard it recently.

I am all a son, all a husband, and all a father, all at the same time. In the Lord, I am completely devoted to my wife and also completely devoted to my children. None of these things, it seems to me, takes away from complete and primary devotion to God. Nor would devotion to Mary.

 

[zemi]

I am all a son, all a husband, and all a father, all at the same time. In the Lord, I am completely devoted to my wife and also completely devoted to my children. None of these things, it seems to me, takes away from complete and primary devotion to God. Nor would devotion to Mary.

Precisely! Very nicely put, cpayne. I just don’t get why it should not be so in the case of Mary for the Protestants…

 

[reluctant_saint]

In my last post I gave a general Biblical basis for belief in the Immaculate Concept. Right now I wish to focus on some other items of Scripture that point to the Catholic concept of Mary.

I don’t believe anyone has brought up the notion of the Queen-Mother (Hebrew: Gebira) mentioned in the Scriptures. In the Hebrew monarchy, the king’s mother stood in a place of prominence. Consider these verses.

Proverbs 31:1
“The words of king Lemuel; the oracle which his mother taught him.”

So the queen-mother advices the king.

Jeremiah 13:18
“Say thou unto the king and to the queen-mother, Humble yourselves, sit down: for your headtires are come down, even the crown of your glory.”

So the queen-mother is considered part of the ruling monarchy.

1 Kings 2:19,20
“Bathsheba therefore went unto king Solomon, . . . And the king rose up to meet her, and bowed himself unto her, and sat down on his throne, and caused a throne to be set for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right hand. Then she said, I ask one small petition of thee; deny me not. And the king said unto her, Ask on, my mother: for I will not deny thee.”

So the queen-mother is honored by the king, who even gives her a place at his right hand, and who “will not deny” her her request. Granted, in this story with Solomon and Bathsheba, Solomon does end up denying her request anyway, but that has no real reflection upon my point, as we shall see.

 

[reluctant_saint]

Jesus is the “King of the Jews.” Following the Jewish tradition, guess who that makes the queen? That’s right, Mary. But let me expand on this with an explanation of a Bible verse that is frequently used by fundamentalists as proof that “Mary was just an ordinary person,” and we shall look at it in light of the King/Queen-Mother relationship.

Luke 11:27,28
And it came to pass, as he said these things, a certain woman out of the multitude lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the breasts which thou didst suck. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

The first thing people need to understand about this passage is that Jesus is not saying that Mary is not blessed. Scripture tells us elsewhere (in fact, in the same book of the Bible) that she is indeed blessed.

Luke 1:41b,42,48b
Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost; and she lifted up her voice with a loud cry, and said, Blessed art thou [Mary] among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. . . . [Mary replied] from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

Since Scripture tells us that these word of Elizabeth were inspired by the Holy Spirit, I’m not one to doubt them. But why was Mary blessed? Elizabeth tells us in Luke 1:43

“Blessed is she that believed; for there shall be a fulfillment of the things which have been spoken to her from the Lord.”

So Mary is blessed because of her faith in her Lord. But there’s more to it than that. Elizabeth also proclaims: “And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come unto me? “ (Luke 1:43)

Mary is blessed because she is the Mother of the Lord. This is no small statement. How Protestants can skip it by with such careless ease is a testament to their lack of belief in “the whole Bible.” To be the Mother of the Lord is to be the queen of the world. Elizabeth, who is Mary’s elder, even implies that she is not worthy to be visited by Mary. But Mary, being true to the words of Christ, became least so that she might become great, (Luke 9:48) and she stayed with Elizabeth and assisted her until she delivered. (Luke 1:56,57)

What then of Jesus correcting the woman for praising Mary? The answer is simple. The woman thought that Jesus was great, because his mother was great, when in fact his mother was great because she “heard the word of God, and kept it.”

It is not the queen that give greatness to the king. It is the king who gives honor to the queen. Mary is holy because she bore the “Holy One.” She did not bear the Holy One because she was holy.

Christ is Mary’s savior too. She even admits it.

Luke 1:47
“My spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. “

And what of Solomon refusing the request of his mother Bathsheba? Solomon refused her request, because the request went against his will. But Mary does not make such requests of Jesus. Mary knows the number one rule of Christianity: to be great you must be the least.

Luke 1:38
And Mary said, Behold, the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.

Mary accepts the word of God (both figuratively and literally). She would never make any request that goes against his will. She is the Handmaid of the Lord.

So where does that leave us? It’s simple. Jesus is our “Everlasting Father and Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6) He is our Lord and king. (Isa 9:7, 33:22) If this is who Jesus is, then surely his mother reigns with him “on his right hand” (1 Kings 2:19) Mary is then our Queen and Mother. We honor her because the King has made her “blessed in all generations.”