[FONT=Arial]Read the article. Post your thoughts. That’s the deal, okay?[/FONT]
Yes. I particularly dig the typology of2 Kings 2:19-20 So Bathsheba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne and had a seat brought for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right. Then she said, ‘I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me.’ And the king said to her, ‘Make your request, my mother; for I will not refuse you’:o
‘Dig’? What are you, some 60s refugee??
I’ve learned that there is a lot of misconception if you read the bible without a good amount of history, context, and insight.
Hey man, nothing wrong with the 60s; prime years of my life. Graduated, first full time job, wife, first four kids, able to vote and drink alcohol legally, first years as catechist. Many, many fond memories.
I found that to be a superb argument. That the Queen was always the mother of the King and not the wife was a brand-new insight for me.
No sir/ma’am. Child of the 70s-80s.
This is part of the same reasoning I use with my RCIA class. I wish I had thought of it, but I’m not that much of a scholar. Most of what I teach is not original, it is simply a recitation of what I have read or heard!
I am part of a men’s Bible study at my parish. We are one chapter away from completing a study of the complete bible using Scott Hahn’s, “Understanding the Scriptures”. It only took us around 16 months to complete 30 chapters. We are all slow learners.
Anyway, we learned the basic underlying theme of Jesus’ ministry was the restoration of the kingdom. Who’s kingdom? David’s! The typology here is deep and wide - too much to go into here. But once that fact is understood, the rest of scripture unfolds like a rose bud.
One part of David’s kingdom that becomes apparent is the role of the Queen Mother. When I first understood that, then the rest of Marian theology just fell into place.
The restoration of the kingdom is paramount to gain a deep understanding of scripture. Too often, the surface of sacred scripture is simply skimmed and conclusions drawn without understanding the surrounding circumstances. This is especially true when reading the Gospels. Reading the words and works of Jesus make sense. But after understanding, even to a small degree, the restoration of the kingdom, they make perfect sense!
i’ve heard scott talking about this too but my problem is this: typology is all well and good but how does that prove anything about mary? and by the way i’m catholic and certainly not picking fights but this topic and the assumption of mary are two pretty vague teachings for me. and further clarification would be appreciated.
I love that article. I really like typology! The book of Revelation also peaks into Mary’s Queenship. I get a lot of arguments on my Mary Queen of Heaven video. :rolleyes: Someone even commented saying that if Mary is Queen of Heaven then she had to have been married to Jesus. :doh2: I don’t keep a lot of the comments though. Some people can be very rude.
Hi Geoff, I think it might be vague for you because you seem to be going strictly by the bible and mainly New Testament like many protestants do.
We as Catholics need to rely on the teachings of the Church and not just rely on Sacred Scripture. Sacred Tradition is very important also.
The typology about the Queen has a lot to do with Mary. If you understand that Jesus is the new “Adam” and the new “Moses,” then I don’t see how you would not understand that Mary is the new “Queen” and also the new “Eve” for that matter.
Did you read that whole article? If so, perhaps you need to read it again. It is very clear and I don’t know how much more clarity I can give. I have posted on here a few years back about Mary being the new Eve and how she is Queen and how she is sinless. The thread is closed but you can still read some of my posts which also go to the next page. You can also take a look at my video about Mary being Queen of Heaven.
You are right that many of the churches teaching on Mary have vague scriptural support when only look at through the eyes of the Bible verses singularly in the NT, but the church uses Sacred Tradition, History and the rest of the bible to support these teachings (which many Protestants chose to ignore thus their problems with these teachings). Jesus said he came to fulfill the OT and OT prophecies and many of these Prophecies combined with OT knowledge gives complete support to the churches teachings. The Kingdom of David would last forever is one and in that Kingship he (David) had a Queen Mother, a Minister (Prime minister like position like Peter in the early church), ans other heads of state like what the Apostle, bishops and deacons became. The OT even predicts the Offering of Jesus (pure offering) to the Father in a sacrificial service (the Mass) like the Jewish service. If you separate the OT from the NT then you end up with many Protestant beliefs. As for the Assumption, Jesus also was a perfect Jew and obeyed all the laws and one main law was Honor your Mother and Father. Jesus did this even after he rose. While Jesus had the power to take back up his own life which He did when He rose He also had the power to give to His mother her life back after her death. This is what a loving son would do and it is what Jesus did. Not too hard to believe but I can see where some people would have a problem with it. Other might have more support for this but it is all I need to believe it. (Jesus’s love for his Mother)
God bless you on your Journey, as everyday is a journey for us all.
“And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, ‘Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?’” ~ Luke 1:42-43
“Lord” means God
JESUS & MARY ARE BOTH JEWISH RIGHT?
Jewish Tradition the Mother of the King is the Queen never the wife for kings can have hundreds of wives but only one mother. (read Solomon & Bathsheva).
Mary as a Queen of Heaven - intercedes for us.
You don’t go directly to the king, the Queen always act as the intercessor in people’s behalf.
For more please watch my You Tube video on:
“Mary’s Womb is God’s Tabernacle Made Sinless & Immaculate”
Thank you and God Bless!
An excellent article, really clear and logical. It has answered a lot of questions and I feel I could explain it to people aswell.
When Jesus calls Mary “woman” from the cross and appoints John as her “son,” He is crowning her to the intercessory roll of “Queen of Heaven and Earth.”
After read Dr Sri’s article (I have met him and heard him speak, and have great respect for him), I have the following comments.
The first point is that I am pretty well up on the prominent, contemporary protestant theologians’ responses to the Catholic teaching on Mary, and I can’t recall hearing anything about the matter of the wife vs the mother of the king being the queen. I found this “she’s not his wife, after all” argument extremely weak and irrelevant, even before having the benefit of Dr Sri’s article.
Next, I don’t see explained in the article why we should expect the traditions and expectations of human royalty carry over to the kingdom of God and heaven. Jesus’ kingship is nothing like earthly kingship. “King of kings” is even inadequate to capture the extent and glory of His position and authority. Seemingly most of Jesus’ teachings in the gospels have to do with describing the kingdom of heaven as something radically different than the notions of kingdom that people held. The word kingdom being used to describe Christ’s reign is inadequate. Like saying the streets of heaven are paved in gold - gold doesn’t even begin to go far enough to describe the beauty and preciousness, and there aren’t any streets, but those are the best words that we have available to try to capture the meaning. Gold means extravagant beauty. Kingdom means great power and authority. We don’t take the detailed attributes of the thing we know as gold and apply it to the attributes of heaven. Why would we apply to the Kingship of Christ any of the the nuts-and-bolts attributes of a kingship as implemented by human beings? Dr. Sri does not seem to me to explain this.
Respectfully searching for truth,
The point to remember is that Jesus came to restore the Kingdom of Israel, or put another way, the Kingdom of David. This is how His kingship is the same as the David’s. Given that, the major attributes of David’s Kingdom in the OT will be carried into the restored kingdom. That is why it is very important to understand the role of the Queen (mother) in the OT and how that same office and title extends to the mother of the new and everlasting king, Jesus.
Does this help?
Thanks. This is not entirely unhelpful. But I am not seeing how it follows that “Given that, the major attributes of David’s Kingdom in the OT will be carried into the restored kingdom”. I don’t think that Dr Sri’s article gives any definitive basis in scripture for expecting any attributes of any other kingdom to carry over to Christ’s Kingdom, other than the general attributes of preeminent power and authority.
Also, I am not so sure about how far we can take Jesus’ coming to restore the Kingdom of Israel/David. Did Jesus not usher in the new Israel, become the new Temple, the new Jerusalem? Not a restoration of the old one as much as the advent of the new, perfected one. Going from a human king to a devine King is not just a restoration, it’s a supercession. Did not many of Jesus’ followers get it wrong when they assumed that Jesus would “save” them there and then by freeing them from the Romans, like a good OT king would have, physically protect the nation of Israel? Were they not perplexed and disappointed that Jesus died willngly rather than doing what the ideal OT king would have done for them? There is so much of Jesus’ Kingship that radically departs from David’s. To restore David’s kingship may include sitting on a throne on Earth, commanding the army, etc. Jesus did none of that, and it freaked out the OT experts of the day, right? So, there is much about David’s OT kingdom that did not carry forward. What’s the basis for including some attributes but not others?
A scriptural argument can be based on the New Testament (using Luke, John, and Apocalypse for example), in that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ King of His Church.
Michelle Arnold wrote in 2005, thread (Ask an Apologist) Re: Can Mary’s coronation be defended with Scripture? Post #2
“The mother of a monarch is herself a monarch, although often derivatively from the husband and child. This was true in the ancient world and it is even true in today’s world. For example, Queen Elizabeth II of England’s mother was known as the Queen Mother because she was the wife of King George VI and the mother of Queen Elizabeth. The Queen Mother was crowned alongside her husband when he succeeded to the throne and retained all of the marks of honor due a queen (including the courtesy address “Your Majesty”) when her daughter succeeded to the throne.”
Not convincing to some that reject the Magisterium, but significant for those that do, is this Signum Magnum, where Pope Paul II states that all Christians must hold that Blessed Virgin Mary continues to fulfill from heaven her maternal function as the cooperator in the birth and development of divine life in the individual souls of redeemed. This statement could be taken as a draft of dogma for Co-Redemptress, Mediatrix, and Advocate.
[FONT=Arial]Read the article. Post your thoughts. That’s the deal, okay?[/FONT]
Does the Bible actually call Mary “Queen”? No, I don’t think so.
Does the Bible proclaim her as “Queen”? Yes!
Jesus from His Cross:
 "When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”  Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. "
Love and prayers,