A while ago a man called in to say my argument for the Assumption of Mary including references from the Old Testament was wrong.
I had quoted 1 Kings 2:19 where Solomon had raised his mother up to a throne on his right hand to reign as Queen of the Kingdom. The man arguing with me said, “That was the ONLY case of a mother being a queen in the Old Testament.”
He prefaced his comment by saying that he knew the Old Testament well and it does not support what I had asserted.
Well, if he DID know his Old Testament as well as he said, he would realize I was correct and he was very wrong.
In the Old Testament, the kings of Judah following Solomon had queens but the queens were not their wives — but their mothers — with one exception of the queen being a grandmother.
The Queen Mothers of earthly kings of Judah were not always good examples or godly queens. Many of them were egregious sinners and would intercede for the people with improper requests to the king. But, this takes nothing away from the fact that the mother was the queen and intercessor. It only confirms that many of the Old Testament kings and queens were disobedient to God.
But there is a perfect King and a perfect Queen — Jesus and his mother Mary. They follow the pattern of protocol and the royal institution. It is the royal protocol and the historical precedent and the office that is important in the analogy. Kings of Israel DO what Kings of Israel do and always have done. Jesus is THE king of Israel and would follow the protocol.
Jesus is a king sitting on the throne of his fathers David and Solomon (Luke 1:30-33; Daniel 7:13-14; Rev 5:5; 19:16) and all the subsequent kings of Judah. Solomon was called the son of David because that’s what he was. But the phrase “Son of David” became a title of the Messiah. Jesus is referred to as THE Son of David (Matt 1:1; 21:9) and is therefore the ultimate and true king.
The kings of Judah all had queens but the queens were not their wives — they were their mothers. This is the royal protocol of the Old Testament and the kings of Judah. It is ultimately fulfilled in Christianity and the Kingdom of God which, obviously, is based on the Old Testament model. Jesus is our king and obviously his mother is the queen. It is proper and justly so.
Remember, the kings of Israel do what the kings of Israel do. Jesus is the ultimate King of Israel, so…
…let’s follow the logic:
2) the mothers were referred to as the Queen Mothers or the Great Lady;
3) they sat on a throne near their sons (1 Ki 2:19);
4) The kings of Israel do what the kings of Israel do;
5) Jesus is the quintessential Jewish King with an eternal kingdom;
6) Jesus is the fulfillment of the Israelite offices of Prophet, Priest & King;
7) As the Davidic king, Jesus who obeyed the Law perfectly, would honor his mother more than earthy kings honored their mothers;
8) It is biblical, historical, and reasonable to expect the perfect Jewish king to follow the protocol of the kingdom and his fathers by assuming his mother to a throne at his right hand.
9) It is proper and biblical to consider Mary in a position of intercessor as the Queen of Heaven.
10) Mary is seen as the Queen of Heaven in Revelation 12:1.
Queenship of Mary is a Marian feast day in the liturgical calendar of the Roman Catholic Church,established by Pope Pius XII. On 11 October 1954, the Pontiff pronounced the new feast in his encyclical Ad caeli reginam. The feast was celebrated on May 31, the last day of the Marian month. In 1969, Pope Paul VI moved the feast day to August 22.
***********************************
One question was asked today about the Queen in Psalm 45. If the queen was the bride marrying the king, then how can we say the queen was always the mother and that it was a pattern by which we could see Jesus, like other Jewish kings, appointing his mother as his queen. I speculate a bit on the matter here.
For a response to the argument that Jeremiah condemns those who worship the Queen of Heaven, click here.
For more on Mary, get my documentary filmed on location. It is entitled Mary, Mother of God. You can learn more about it and order it here. My talk Mary: Real Girl & Woman of Mystery here.
This Post Has 15 Comments
Hi Steve,
The Psalm 45 question seems like another classic example where Catholics can say “both/and”. That is to say, Mary qualifies as Queen both as the mother of the King, and as His bride. After all, there was a time when she–as the first and only Christian–constituted the Church in her entirety. And as such, she was both mother and bride of Jesus the King. And not in some weird incestuous way of course. Just as we do not attribute anything homosexual to the fact that men are a part of the bride of Christ, neither is there anything unseemly in the fact that Mary, His mother, is also–as the perfect Christian example–His bride.
Hi steve!
I learned about you from a seminar I attended this weekend. A teacher from woodrose school mentioned your advocacy and I was really inspired and it made me proud to be a catholic. I am happy to know that there are people who defend the catholic faith. I want to be one of them.
I have this friend, who is a protestant, who challenged my faith about the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. He said that it is a void object of faith. He also said that it is groundless and that it has no reliable evidence. It’s just a pity that they are missing the beauty of our mother.
Hi Steve,
I always enjoy listening to you on Morning Air 950 AM.
As you may know, Eastern Orthodox Christians hold many of the same beliefs as Roman Catholics on the Virgin Mary, or as we call her, the Theotokos (Greek for “God Bearer”, the name the Church gave to her in 431-Ephesus). That is because we were one and the same Church until 1054 AD.
One example of our agreement, based on the beliefs of the early Church, is that Orthodox Christians also agree in the ever-virginity of the Theotokos. As you rightly pointed out on this morning’s show with Sean, the early Church held this belief, and it is very well documented.
Another belief by the early Church that is well documented is the Dormition of the Theotokos, which is what Orthodox Christians still believe. The Theotokos died a natural death – the Dormition – and then her body was assumed into heaven. That is the truth, and again, is well documented by the early Church. I would be happy to provide the names of homilies by 5th, 6th * 7th century bishops on this subject.
I encourage you to learn about the early Church’s orthodox beliefs in the Dormition of the Theotokos.
Best Regards,
Excellent post and feedback. I’m not sure whether its been mentioned, but the Jewish model of the Geribah or Queen Mother was pretty much universal. I think I got that from Dr. Scott Hahn, including the fancy word which I’m surprised I could recall. Anyway, it makes sense because, if you remember, the Jews asked for a king like those of the nations surrounding them (1 Sam 8:5). So, it follows that they must have incorporated all the customs having to do with royalty and inheritance.
Anyway, Our Virgin Mother fits all the requirements for Queen.
1st. A Queen is selected by the King. Our Lady is described as the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.
2nd. A Queen gives birth to a King. Our Lady is the Mother of Christ the King.
3rd. A Queen is married to a King. In a figure of the Church, Our Lady is the Bride of Christ.
Sincerely,
De Maria
STEVE RAY HERE COMMENTING ON THE POST BY BLANCHE: WHY SAY THE WOMAN IS ISRAEL AND NOT MARY? DON’T YOU KNOW HOW JOHN WRITES ON MULTIPLE LEVELS? THE WOMAN IS BOTH MARY AND ISRAEL. SCRIPTURE HAS MULTIPLE LEVELS. THE OLD TESTAMENT BEGINS WITH A REAL MAN, A REAL WOMAN AND A REAL SNAKE. THE BIBLE ENDS WITH A REAL MAN A REAL WOMAN AND A REAL SNAKE. WE ALL AGREE THE MAN AND THE SNAKE ARE REAL SO WHY DO YOU DENY IN REVELATION THAT THE WOMAN IS REAL (AND NOT JUST FIGURATIVE)?
BLANCHE’S COMMENT: This post is intriguing.. a couple of questions that always baffles me:
(i) Who is that woman who carries a child in her hand? Many say that she is “Mary help of Christians with the baby Jesus”. Is this correct?
(ii) Jesus God incarnate in-the-flesh also chose the 12 Apostles to preach the “Good News” to the uttermost parts of the earth. They laid down their lives for the purpose in fulfilling the “Great Commission”. Shouldn’t we also be exalting “equally” their exemplary deeds much how Mary obeyed the will of God? Does not the scripture say that God is not a “respecter” of persons (Acts 10:34)?
In Revelation 12:1, John sees a vision of a woman “clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars”. Note the similarity between this description and the description that Joseph gave of his father Jacob (Israel) and his mother and their children (Genesis 37:9-11). The twelve stars refer to the twelve tribes of Israel. So the woman in Revelation 12 is Israel and not Mary. The women associated with the Sun (Jacob) moon (Rachel) and twelve stars ( twelve tribes of Jacob) is Israel ( Gen 37:9-10). Israel is taken into wilderness for protection on eagles wings (Rev 12: 6,16, Hos 2:14-15, Deut 32:9-11). Israel is the women that brings forth Jesus Christ. Rev 12:5, Heb 2:16, Gal 3:16 , Rom 1:3).
Blanche d;souza
Pingback: Snow White vs Virgin Mary | Words I Never Said
BLANCHE’S COMMENT: This post is intriguing.. a couple of questions that always baffles me:
(i) Who is that woman who carries a child in her hand? Many say that she is “Mary help of Christians with the baby Jesus”. Is this correct?
Mary is frequently depicted with Jesus in her arms. So, it could be Mary help of Christians or Mary mother of God or any number of other icons or works of art. Do you have a link?
(ii) Jesus God incarnate in-the-flesh also chose the 12 Apostles to preach the “Good News” to the uttermost parts of the earth. They laid down their lives for the purpose in fulfilling the “Great Commission”. Shouldn’t we also be exalting “equally” their exemplary deeds much how Mary obeyed the will of God? Does not the scripture say that God is not a “respecter” of persons (Acts 10:34)?
Yes. But that doesn’t mean that God doesn’t respect anyone. Nor that God doesn’t love some more than others. See Numbers 12, where God shows more love for Moses than anyone of his time. And see Job 42 where God shows more love for Job than his friends. In the same way, God the Son, loves His mother more than any other human being.
In Revelation 12:1, John sees a vision of a woman “clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars”. Note the similarity between this description and the description that Joseph gave of his father Jacob (Israel) and his mother and their children (Genesis 37:9-11). The twelve stars refer to the twelve tribes of Israel. So the woman in Revelation 12 is Israel and not Mary. The women associated with the Sun (Jacob) moon (Rachel) and twelve stars ( twelve tribes of Jacob) is Israel ( Gen 37:9-10). Israel is taken into wilderness for protection on eagles wings (Rev 12: 6,16, Hos 2:14-15, Deut 32:9-11). Israel is the women that brings forth Jesus Christ. Rev 12:5, Heb 2:16, Gal 3:16 , Rom 1:3).
Look again. There are not twelve stars on JOSEPH’s head. But 10.
2nd. It is not Israel that has the 12 stars on his head.
3rd. Israel is bowing to Joseph in that dream.
So, the one that fits the description of Rev 12:1 best is Mary, the Mother of God the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, Jesus Christ.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Blanche d;souza
The New Covenant otherwise known as the covenant of consummation fulfilled all previous covenants, abolishing their temporal nature, and “completing the cycle of the covenantal revelation.” This covenant “was to be like all Old Testament covenants before it, in that it too would be centered” “not under the law but the under grace” of God (Rmn. 6:14) which was freely provided in the New covenant. This covenant was irrevocable being solely established by God’s promise of “I will” (Jer. 31:33-34). The New covenant was not unconditional, rather it required every individual to personally receive what God had offered.
“Although Israel had failed in fulfilling its covenantal responsibilities, the Lord God of Israel would not fail in His purpose to establish a great people and a great nation to glorify his own name. The Lord’s intention to redeem a people to Himself from among the fallen of humanity would not be thwarted.” Every believer was therefore, allowed to take part in that covenant relationship with God, through Christ via the New Covenant.
Prophets such as Isaiah, Ezekiel and Hosea prophesied the realization of the New covenant, however, Jeremiah was the only one who gave the clearest and fullest prophecy concerning the “making of a New Covenant with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah” (Jer. 31:31 see also Heb. 8:6-13;10:16;). The promise being that God would place within His people a new heart and mind upon which the laws of God would be written instead of tablets of stone (Jer 31:31). In order for humanity to be restored to God, repentance is required, coupled with, faith that Christ was the New covenant, and obedience to Jesus’ commandments. The greatest promise of the New covenant was the fullness of eternal life brought by faith and an “internal transformation of the heart”
This covenant varied from its predecessors in that it did not require either circumcision of the flesh, or its laws written on stone. All of these temporal elements were fulfilled and abolished by Christ, leaving only an internal seal on the heart and spirit (Rmn. 2:24-29; Col. 2:11-12;2Cor 3;Heb 8-10). An “everlasting inheritance” (Abrahamic Covenant), an “everlasting priesthood” (Mosaic covenant), and an “everlasting throne and kingdom” (Davidic covenant) were all made only possible in and through Christ, the Redeemer.
Even though the Old covenant completed its purpose, “the substance of the two covenants [the Old covenants and the New covenant] in terms of their redemptive intention is identical”. “The New covenant can be understood in no other way than as a bringing to fruition of that which was anticipated under the old covenant.”
I grew up Catholic. Left Catholic. Now learning on my own. Not a Catholic at this time.
Considering mother of the king as the queen was prevalent in a Hindu Royal family that ruled a part of the Indian state of Kerala. This royal family was one of the so called Princely States that accepted the authority of colonial Britten. The relinquished the power when India got independence in 1947.
In this royal family, the king’s mother is considered as the queen. Additional information can be seen from the following web site.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travancore_royal_family.
This royal family has the distinction of defeating the Dutch colonial forces. The commander of the Dutch forces, Eustachius De Lannoy, (a relative of subsequent American President Franklin D Roosevelt) surrenderd to the king. Due to this commander was responsible for the conversion of a local man whom Pope Benedict elevated to the list of the “venerated”.
The details are available in the following web sitres:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eustachius_De_Lannoy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devasahayam_Pillai
Best regards.
Cyriac Sebastian
Now a Catholic.
I am curious about the Catholic church’s stance on the Dormition of Theotokos, as mentioned by previous commenter “Orthodox in Chicago.” Is this something the Church has a stance on?
STEVE RAY HERE: The Church does not define if she died, fell asleep or was taken up alive and awake. It simply states in the Catechism,
“966 “Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death.” The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians: In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.”
Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed. (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), 252.
If you read Munificentissimus Deus, it becomes manifest that the Holy Father taught that our Immaculate Lady died an earthly death before being assumed bodily into Heaven. This belief is stated repeatedly in the text of Munificentissimus Deus. Here are some examples from Munificentissimus Deus:
Citing Pope Adrian I, His Holiness Pope Pius XII records:
“Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself.”
Citing the Byzantine liturgy:
“As he kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb.”
Citing Saint Modestus, the Holy Father writes:
“As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him.”
The citations employed by Pope Pius XII reveal that he believed and intended to show that the Immaculate Virgin Mary did in fact undergo death prior to her glorious Assumption.”
This is what Pope Pius XII meant when he wrote, “having completed the course of her earthly life” when he dogmatically declared the Assumption of Mary.
Hi Steve,
I love reading your articles, lots of learning and insights in it, and this article is a nice way of reflecting about the Assumption of Mary and her role as Queen of Heaven. I also read the references you included and they're all great support to your article. I have bookmarked your blog site and has been one of my my source in learning about the Catholic faith.
I would also like to share an insight from an article by Elizabeth Scalia in the Word on Fire Blog (https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/blog/to-jesus-through-mary-why-yes-and-twas-ever-thus/5970/) where she mentioned MICROCHIMERISM and were she also relate this science and discovery to the Assumption of Mary as well as to Mary's Immaculate Conception. I find the article illuminating and revealing as it connect and affirms God's truth as revealed through Faith and through the discovery of Science. Here is an excerpt in that article:
"This is a fact the Church might appreciate even more today than at any time previous, thanks to science and the discovery of microchimerism.
We have learned that within the process of microchimerism, every baby conceived by a woman leaves within her a microscopic bit of his or her cellular being, even if gestation is interrupted, and remains with her forever.
Mary, then, was indeed a tabernacle for the Divinity—not for a limited time but for all of her life, as these invisible but real reserves of the Christ remained within her.
Knowing this only reinforces how necessary, how profoundly sensible and reasonable-in-faith is the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which was deduced long before a time of microscopic discovery. It makes perfect sense that the God who is all good is also completely pure; therefore, the vessel in which he would reside and be made manifest need also be pure, or it could never have been able to sustain all of the light, all of the holiness, all of that power extant within the All-in-All.
Were Mary not be-graced by God for that very purpose of holy containment and development, she would have been crumbled into dust by the immensity of it.
And this relates directly to the Assumption of Mary as well. In the Psalms we read: “You will not suffer your beloved to undergo corruption” (Psalm 16:10). Christ’s divine body did not undergo corruption, but ascended into heaven; it follows that his mother’s body, which contained the cellular components of that divinity—and a particle of God is God, entire—would not be permitted to undergo corruption either.
It could not be otherwise. The God particle, commingled with humanity, necessarily preserves humanity and calls it to himself. This is Incarnational. It is Eucharistic, from the beginning.
It is our life, conceived in light."
God bless.
STEVE RAY HERE: Rel, good stuff. Thanks! By the way, I have developed this into a blog for Friday.
You’re welcome Steve. I’ll be checking that out definitely, this microchimerism provides a lot of eye-opener affirmation into Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Assumption into heaven and as Co-Redemptrix. It shows us how the Body of Christ draws Mary, His Mother, unto Him and likewise how the body of Christ in the Holy Eucharist will draw us near Him. I am amazed as to how it is all interconnected, truly God’s Divine Plan, with Mary our Mother being the masterpiece of His creation.
Comments are closed.