Why So Much Fuss About Mary? Because She is Our Queen!

[onlyvoice]

Onlyvoice,

As one who questions (and is seeking to understand) historical Church teachings which have become divisive to the Body of Christ, I appreciate your logical, Biblical stance on the queenship of Mary question.

However, I’ve also talked with Christians who I assume want only to elevate Christ, and diminish the “Mary worship” they’d seen among Catholics, and as a result have said such things as, “how can we know if Mary is in heaven?”

So, in the spirit of building unity in mind and Spirit among everyone who proclaims the death, resurrection and return of Jesus Christ, would you consider these questions:

Do you believe there is any role for Jesus’ Mother to play in eternal Biblical/Salvation history, other than gestating, birthing, feeding and raising Jesus to be a good Jew who understood the OT Scriptures?

First of all, thank you for respecting my position on the issue and for not taking a contrary opinion as an attack against your cherished beliefs. To answer your question: No, I don’t believe Mary has any role to play other than carrying the child Jesus to term, delivering Him and just being a good mother to Him.

And by the way, Jesus would not need His mother to teach Him about the Scriptures because He is the Source of those writings. Mary, like all the other Jews at the time, had very little understanding of the Scriptures especially the prophetic writings concerning the Messiah’s sacrifice, death, resurrection and establishment of the Kingdom.

And, any ideas why Luke writes (NIV), "41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me? 44 For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy. 45 And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord.”

Mary is indeed “blessed among women” as she was the one chosen by God, out of the millions on earth, to be the means whereby God could be “manifest in the flesh.” And for that Mary must be highly honored by us. But the honor we bestow upon her must not equal, or even come close, to the honor we bestow upon her Son, Jesus. Saying Mary is sinless and our “Mediatrix” would be putting Mary on a level with Jesus Christ, who, the Scriptures say, is the only one born human who committed no sin and who now stands as the one and only mediator between God and man.

I would like to add here that this benediction invoked upon Mary is not unique. The Apostles were similarly blessed (Greek, eulogeo): “…and he [Jesus] lifted up his hands, and blessed them” (Luke 24:50). In fact, all those of the true faith “are blessed with faithful Abraham” Gal. 3:9), as is everyone who will inherit the Kingdom will be blessed by the Father (Mat. 25:34).

*And then (NIV), “My soul exalts the Lord, 47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. 48 For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave; For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed. 49 For the Mighty One has done great things for me;” *

Yes, all generations will count Mary blessed (Greek, makarizo). But don’t we also count them blessed those who have suffered affliction in this world as a result of their steadfastness in keeping the faith (James 5:11)?

By saying she “has rejoiced in God my Savior,” Mary knew herself to be a sinner who needed a Savior. She “rejoiced in God” knowing of the salvation [from sin] through the promised Messiah.

 

[onlyvoice]

I agree, and I would add that Revelation allows for multiple layers of valid interpretation. For example, a particular passage can provide a teaching from a literal view, and provide another teaching from a symbolic one. It is possible for both teachings to be simultaneously valid, so long as they do not contradict one another.

The woman depicted in Rev. 12 can represent both an individual person as well as the Church. You have provided a biblical stance for the latter (which, I might add, is an acceptable one within Catholic Scripture study) so I will now provide a biblical stance for the former.

In Rev. 12 there are four key figures:

1) A woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. (Rev. 12:1, RSV)

2) A great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. (Rev. 12:3, RSV)

3) A male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron. (Rev. 12:5, RSV)

4) Michael. (Rev. 12:7, RSV)

So we have a woman, child, dragon and Michael. Let us examine how they are treated as persons in the Book of Revelation.

Michael
Michael the Archangel is clearly treated in Revelation as a person, as is the case when he comes up elsewhere in the Bible.

The Dragon
Does Revelation treat the dragon as a specific person? Yes, he is Satan:
And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. (Rev. 12:9, RSV)

The Child
Does Revelation treat the child as a specific person? Yes, he is Christ:
And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, followed him on white horses. From his mouth issues a sharp sword with which to smite the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; he will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. (Rev. 19:14-15, RSV) (Note the iron rod reference in 12:5)

So Revelation is clear that the figures of the child, Michael and the dragon are individual persons. Once again, when I say this I am not ruling out the possibility of there also being acceptable symbolic interpretations, I’m only saying that Rev. 12 does, indeed, allow for a literal interpretation from a biblical standpoint.

Moreover, it is worth pointing out both the child and the dragon are described with symbolic imagery (i.e., the dragon seven diadems, the child is destined to have a rod of iron, etc.). So symbolic imagery in Revelation associated with a figure does not necessarily indicate that the figure is not supposed to be considered from a literal viewpoint.

Based upon all this, it is perfectly valid to likewise interpret the woman to be an individual person. Because the child she gives birth to is specifically identified as Christ, the only possible identity we can ascribe to her (when in keeping with this particular type of literal interpretation) is Mary.

You may not decide to interpret the woman of Rev. 12 as Mary, but based on what I just outlined, you cannot say that an interpretation of this woman as Mary is invalid. In short, the information you provided simply shows that seeing the woman as a symbol of the Church is yet another valid interpretation, but your information does not allow for the conclusion that “the woman in Rev. 12 could not be anything but the Church.”

You pointed out that the woman is described in Rev. 12 with symbolic imagery. But so is the child and the dragon, and yet they still represent specific people. The dragon can be validly seen as a symbol for the forces of evil in the world, and also literally seen as Satan. The woman can be validly seen as representing the Church, and Mary, and the Jewish lineage of the Messiah. As I said before, there can be multiple levels of valid interpretation.

Furthermore, it makes no sense for one to admit that three of the four figures of Rev. 12 refer to specific people (as the full text of Revelation compels us to do) but then say that the figure of the woman cannot be a specific person.

So I agree that you presented a valid interpretation of the woman of Rev. 12, but that does not make it the only valid interpretation. If I see the imagery of Rev. 12 as supporting the queenship of Mary then my interpretation is just as valid, and has just as much biblical support, as yours.

Thanks for the detailed explanation you provided to support the position that the woman in Rev. 12 can also be depicted literally, as Mary.

I agree that the characters in Rev. can also be taken as literal persons (I in fact said that the child who came out of the woman is the Christ child). However, as far as the woman, the only interpretation that would fit perfectly and is biblical supported is that it signifies the Church of God. BTW, isn’t the dragon used as a symbolism to depict the devil (not interpreted as a literal dragon but as Satan)?

Would you have an explanation as to why Mary would have a crown with 12 stars? And why 12 and not some other number?

Another thing (I have not mentioned this because I did not really intend to dwell much on the subject, Revelation being highly interpretative and so no certainty of getting everything right), but the other consideration placed on interpreting the woman as the Church is context. By context here I mean the whole Bible taken in its entire context. What does it teach about Mary, the Church, Christ, death, resurrection, Christ’s Kingdom, etc.? The interpretation we apply to the woman in Rev. must be consistent with the Bible’s teachings on these subjects.