The office of the Queen Mother is not a “nexus”. The King is the nexus. Her office derives completely from His. She has no “office” apart from Him.
I contend that the office of queen mother is a valid one as applies to Mary – however, the office is temporal (it does not extend to the idea of queen of heaven).
Jesus breaks from His family; and reveals a disengagement between His temporal family and spiritual family
*While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matt. 12:45-50).*
Also:
And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come.” (John 2:4 NASB).
Many biblical versions will place a word like “dear” in front of woman to make it seem like Jesus is not rebuking His mother, since “woman” in such a context (by itself) is a Jewish idiom that might mean a rebuke or the way a man would address a subordinate female (such as a wife). It is not the way a son would address his mother.
It is here where I believe Mary’s role as queen mother (analogous to the mother of David and Solomon) is important to understand. Under the king queen dichotomy it would be appropriate for Jesus to address His mother as “woman.”
However, the disengagement I noted earlier sends another important message – these roles do not extend beyond the temporal.
Another important misconstruction IMO is the typology of Mary as Ark. This is admittedly a more ambiguous question, however, I strongly believe we can take clues from the construction of the Ark itself as a strong indication that Jesus is the only appropriate “type” for the Ark. For instance, the Ark is constructed of “acacia wood” and “gold” – wood is indicative of “humanity” while gold of “divinity.”
The Ark is the throne of God. In John’s vision it descends within the heavenly city (the New Jerusalem) at the outset of the millennial kingdom. There is no room for the idea that Mary is a “type” for this Ark.
The nexus that RCC theologians make between Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 is IMO fallacious. The vision of the Ark appearing in the temple of the Lord and the idea of a woman who is clothed with the sun and moon are distinct periods. One speaks of the coming kingdom (and the descent of the New Jerusalem) while the woman is Israel (also appropriately represented by Mary).
The distinction is drawn at Rev. 21:23. The city (the New Jerusalem) “has no need of the sun or the moon to shine on it” whereas the “woman” is illuminated by the sun (and has the moon at her feet).
Hence under this dichotomy we can take a fresh look at the protoevangelium of Genesis 3:15.
And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel."
First, this indicates war between humanity and Satan. As Matthew Henry points out:
War is proclaimed between the Seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. It is the fruit of this enmity, that there is a continual warfare between grace and corruption, in the hearts of God’s people. Satan, by their corruptions, buffets them, sifts them, and seeks to devour them. Heaven and hell can never be reconciled, nor light and darkness; no more can Satan and a sanctified soul. Also, there is a continual struggle between the wicked and the godly in this world. A gracious promise is here made of Christ, as the Deliverer of fallen man from the power of Satan. Here was the drawn of the gospel day: no sooner was the wound given, than the remedy was provided and revealed.
The woman in this context becomes representative of humanity and Israel. There is no co-role for the woman revealed here. It is very clearly stated that “He” (Christ) will bruise you on the head, and “you” (Satan) shall bruise Him on the heel (speaking of the crucifixion).
There is no need for a new Eve, because at the end all is joined. God made both man and woman in His image.
I’ve frequently hear quite a bit of confusion regarding the idea of Jesus as the last Adam. Many do not understand that it is the resurrected Christ referred to as the new (or last) Adam:
So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit (1 Cor. 15:45).
Hence we must separate the temporal role of Mary as queen mother from the post-resurrection Jesus, understand the disengagement that Jesus revealed between the temporal (including His family) and spiritual, and understand how to properly view the concept of “last Adam” – in order to properly synthesize these difficult questions.
