Mary - Queen Of Heaven

[Stephen]

God promised David his throne (i.e. his kingdom) would last for ever (2Sam 7:11-16). At the Annunciation the Angel says to Mary that her son (Jesus) “will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” (Lk 1:32-33). Jesus kingdom is the Davidic kingdom and has the characteristics of the Davidic kingdom. One of these characteristics is the role of king’s mother.

#1 In a monarchical system a woman may have the title Queen for one of three reasons.
i) The woman is a ruler in her own right. For example the Queen of Sheba (see 1Kg 10)

ii). The woman is the wife of the reigning king. In the book of Esther, King Ahasuerus had many concubines, but gave one of them the honour of being designated Queen, first Vashti, but then Esther.

iii). The woman is the mother of the reigning king. In the kingdom of David the king might have multiple wives, so the practice was to give the title Queen Mother to the mother of the king. This was instituted by Solomon the son of David.

We see this first established by Solomon when he greets Bathsheba who comes to ask a favour. He pays her homage and sits her on a throne at his right hand (a position of honour) (1Kg 2:19)

After Solomon the kingdom splits into the Northern kingdom (Israel) and the Southern kingdom (Judah). After this there were 20 kings in Israel before the deportation to Assyria. For none of these is the mother of the king mentioned.

There were 19 kings in Judah after Solomon before they were deported to Babylon. In 17 of these the king’s mother is given, usually after introducing the king, with the words “his mother’s name was ……”. This in itself shows that the king’s mother was a significant figure.

The mother of the king was referred to as the queen mother (1Kg15:13 (& 2Chr 15:16), 2Kg 10:13, Jer 13:18, Jer 29:2.). Note the Hebrew is gebirah – queen. The KJV just says queen but more modern translations say queen mother as she is the mother of the king.

#2 This role of queen mother was an established role in the kingdom.
“He also removed Maacah his mother from being queen mother because she had an abominable image made for Asherah” (1Kg 15:13)

#3 The queen mother sat on a throne at the right of her son
“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 [throne] brought for the king's mother; and she sat on his right.”(1Kg 2:19)

#4 The queen mother had authority.
Firstly she sat on the right of the king which is the position of authority.

Athalia was the mother of Ahazier the sixth king of Judah. After her son was killed, she killed all the royal family (except one baby who was hidden from her) and assumed power in her own right. She ruled as Queen for six years until she was killed and her grandson Joash installed as king at the age of seven. She would not have been able to do that if she was not in a recognised position of authority to start with.

We can also see the important position of the queen mother in Jeremiah 13:18-20
“Say to the king and the queen mother: ‘Take a lowly seat, for your beautiful crown has come down from your head. The cities of the Negeb are shut up, with none to open them; all Judah is taken into exile, wholly taken into exile. "Lift up your eyes and see those who come from the north. Where is the flock that was given you, your beautiful flock?’”

Three points to note here.
i) Jeremiah is told to address both the king and queen mother. They are both to be punished by God.

ii) Both the king and queen mother are to come down from their thrones and to lose their crowns. They are both royalty in the kingdom.

iii) God says to them: “Where is the flock that was given you, your beautiful flock?”
They are both responsible for the flock, the sheep – i.e. the people that God entrusted to them. God had given the queen mother responsibilities for the people, not just the king. That does not mean that the queen mother was equal in authority to the king. The authority she had was derived from and under the king. She was still subject to him.

#5 Jesus is the true Davidic king with an eternal kingdom. That kingdom is based in Heaven.
“Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom does not belong to this world.’” (Jn 18:36)

“Then I saw the heavens opened, and there was a white horse; its rider was (called) “Faithful and True.” He judges and wages war in righteousness…….. He has a name written on his cloak and on his thigh, “King of kings and Lord of lords.” (Rev 19:11-16)

#6 Mary is the mother of Jesus As the mother of the King of Heaven, Mary has the right to the title Queen of Heaven.

We also read in Revelation:
"A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." (Rev 12:1).

This can taken to be a reference to Mary – “and she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron” (Rev 12:5), which is Jesus.
She has on her head a crown – as do queens.

 

[BruceLeiter]

God promised David his throne (i.e. his kingdom) would last for ever (2Sam 7:11-16). At the Annunciation the Angel says to Mary that her son (Jesus) “will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” (Lk 1:32-33). Jesus kingdom is the Davidic kingdom and has the characteristics of the Davidic kingdom. One of these characteristics is the role of king’s mother.

#1 In a monarchical system a woman may have the title Queen for one of three reasons.
i) The woman is a ruler in her own right. For example the Queen of Sheba (see 1Kg 10)

ii). The woman is the wife of the reigning king. In the book of Esther, King Ahasuerus had many concubines, but gave one of them the honour of being designated Queen, first Vashti, but then Esther.

iii). The woman is the mother of the reigning king. In the kingdom of David the king might have multiple wives, so the practice was to give the title Queen Mother to the mother of the king. This was instituted by Solomon the son of David.

We see this first established by Solomon when he greets Bathsheba who comes to ask a favour. He pays her homage and sits her on a throne at his right hand (a position of honour) (1Kg 2:19)

After Solomon the kingdom splits into the Northern kingdom (Israel) and the Southern kingdom (Judah). After this there were 20 kings in Israel before the deportation to Assyria. For none of these is the mother of the king mentioned.

There were 19 kings in Judah after Solomon before they were deported to Babylon. In 17 of these the king’s mother is given, usually after introducing the king, with the words “his mother’s name was ……”. This in itself shows that the king’s mother was a significant figure.

The mother of the king was referred to as the queen mother (1Kg15:13 (& 2Chr 15:16), 2Kg 10:13, Jer 13:18, Jer 29:2.). Note the Hebrew is gebirah – queen. The KJV just says queen but more modern translations say queen mother as she is the mother of the king.

#2 This role of queen mother was an established role in the kingdom.
“He also removed Maacah his mother from being queen mother because she had an abominable image made for Asherah” (1Kg 15:13)

#3 The queen mother sat on a throne at the right of her son
“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 [throne] brought for the king's mother; and she sat on his right.”(1Kg 2:19)

#4 The queen mother had authority.
Firstly she sat on the right of the king which is the position of authority.

Athalia was the mother of Ahazier the sixth king of Judah. After her son was killed, she killed all the royal family (except one baby who was hidden from her) and assumed power in her own right. She ruled as Queen for six years until she was killed and her grandson Joash installed as king at the age of seven. She would not have been able to do that if she was not in a recognised position of authority to start with.

We can also see the important position of the queen mother in Jeremiah 13:18-20
“Say to the king and the queen mother: ‘Take a lowly seat, for your beautiful crown has come down from your head. The cities of the Negeb are shut up, with none to open them; all Judah is taken into exile, wholly taken into exile. "Lift up your eyes and see those who come from the north. Where is the flock that was given you, your beautiful flock?’”

Three points to note here.
i) Jeremiah is told to address both the king and queen mother. They are both to be punished by God.

ii) Both the king and queen mother are to come down from their thrones and to lose their crowns. They are both royalty in the kingdom.

iii) God says to them: “Where is the flock that was given you, your beautiful flock?”
They are both responsible for the flock, the sheep – i.e. the people that God entrusted to them. God had given the queen mother responsibilities for the people, not just the king. That does not mean that the queen mother was equal in authority to the king. The authority she had was derived from and under the king. She was still subject to him.

#5 Jesus is the true Davidic king with an eternal kingdom. That kingdom is based in Heaven.
“Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom does not belong to this world.’” (Jn 18:36)

“Then I saw the heavens opened, and there was a white horse; its rider was (called) “Faithful and True.” He judges and wages war in righteousness…….. He has a name written on his cloak and on his thigh, “King of kings and Lord of lords.” (Rev 19:11-16)

#6 Mary is the mother of Jesus As the mother of the King of Heaven, Mary has the right to the title Queen of Heaven.

We also read in Revelation:
"A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." (Rev 12:1).

This can taken to be a reference to Mary – “and she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron” (Rev 12:5), which is Jesus.
She has on her head a crown – as do queens.

#6 does not follow from the other statements, because God originally want Israel to have a king:

1Sa 8:6 But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the LORD.
1Sa 8:7 And the LORD said to Samuel, “Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them.
1Sa 8:8 According to all the deeds that they have done, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you.
1Sa 8:9 Now then, obey their voice; only you shall solemnly warn them and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.”

The pattern of the kingship in Israel and later Judah is, therefore, not the pattern that follows through with Mary, who is never described even remotely as the Queen Mother. Your logic is flawed.

 

[prism]

Daniel 2:21 ESV
He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding;

 

[Stephen]

#6 does not follow from the other statements, because God originally want Israel to have a king:

1Sa 8:6 But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the LORD.
1Sa 8:7 And the LORD said to Samuel, “Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them.
1Sa 8:8 According to all the deeds that they have done, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you.
1Sa 8:9 Now then, obey their voice; only you shall solemnly warn them and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.”

The pattern of the kingship in Israel and later Judah is, therefore, not the pattern that follows through with Mary, who is never described even remotely as the Queen Mother. Your logic is flawed.

It is not my logic that is flawed but your ignoring the word of God.

God may not have wanted a king at that time because they weren't following him but their own desires. Hew knew they would not consult him but choose a bad king. When they were shown what their own choice was bad God gave them His sort of king - David, "a man after his own heart" (1 Sam 13:14). So God gave David the throne and promised David "your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever." (2 Sam 7:16).

Hence as I posted before:
At the Annunciation the Angel says to Mary that her son (Jesus) “will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” (Lk 1:32-33). Jesus kingdom is the Davidic kingdom and has the characteristics of the Davidic kingdom.

The apart from all the other scriptures I gave you ignore this from Revelation:
"A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." (Rev 12:1).
This can taken to be a reference to Mary – “and she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron” (Rev 12:5), which is Jesus.
She has on her head a crown – as do queens.

Add to that Psalm 45 which is seen as a prophecy of the Messiah’s reign and is addressed to the king and line 9 says: "at you right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir". We have seen that in the Davidic kingdom the queen sits, or stands, at the king’s right hand (1Kg 2:19).
Also in Rev 12:1 the woman is clothed with the sun (i.e golden coloured) just as the queen here is clothed in gold of Ophir.

There is another interesting line a little later inverse 17:
"I will cause your name to be celebrated in all generations; therefore the peoples will praise you for ever and ever."
Compare that to Lk 1:48 when Mary said: "For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed."

 

[BruceLeiter]

It is not my logic that is flawed but your ignoring the word of God.

God may not have wanted a king at that time because they weren't following him but their own desires. Hew knew they would not consult him but choose a bad king. When they were shown what their own choice was bad God gave them His sort of king - David, "a man after his own heart" (1 Sam 13:14). So God gave David the throne and promised David "your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever." (2 Sam 7:16).

Hence as I posted before:
At the Annunciation the Angel says to Mary that her son (Jesus) “will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” (Lk 1:32-33). Jesus kingdom is the Davidic kingdom and has the characteristics of the Davidic kingdom.

The apart from all the other scriptures I gave you ignore this from Revelation:
"A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." (Rev 12:1).
This can taken to be a reference to Mary – “and she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron” (Rev 12:5), which is Jesus.
She has on her head a crown – as do queens.

Add to that Psalm 45 which is seen as a prophecy of the Messiah’s reign and is addressed to the king and line 9 says: "at you right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir". We have seen that in the Davidic kingdom the queen sits, or stands, at the king’s right hand (1Kg 2:19).
Also in Rev 12:1 the woman is clothed with the sun (i.e golden coloured) just as the queen here is clothed in gold of Ophir.

There is another interesting line a little later inverse 17:
"I will cause your name to be celebrated in all generations; therefore the peoples will praise you for ever and ever."
Compare that to Lk 1:48 when Mary said: "For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed."

God didn't want the people to have a king because:
1Sa 8:7 And the LORD said to Samuel, “Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them.
1Sa 8:8 According to all the deeds that they have done, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you.
1Sa 8:9 Now then, obey their voice; only you shall solemnly warn them and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.”

Since the kingdom was established, the people wanted to be like all the other nations around them and therefore rejected God as their King. God would have sent the Messiah anyway, whether or not the kings ruled. He would have been their King, Prophet, and Priest anyway, regardless of the line of kings. Since they were ruling, especially David, God gave him a descendant, Jesus, but they rejected him too, just as they did the Father. Mary is not mentioned at all as any queen, as you seem to think. Please don't read into the verses what isn't really there.

 

[Stephen]

God didn't want the people to have a king because:
1Sa 8:7 And the LORD said to Samuel, “Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them.
1Sa 8:8 According to all the deeds that they have done, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you.
1Sa 8:9 Now then, obey their voice; only you shall solemnly warn them and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.”

Since the kingdom was established, the people wanted to be like all the other nations around them and therefore rejected God as their King. God would have sent the Messiah anyway, whether or not the kings ruled. He would have been their King, Prophet, and Priest anyway, regardless of the line of kings. Since they were ruling, especially David, God gave him a descendant, Jesus, but they rejected him too, just as they did the Father. Mary is not mentioned at all as any queen, as you seem to think. Please don't read into the verses what isn't really there.

You are just repeating your failed argument so I'll repeat my reply.
Perhaps you could try and answer it this time.

God may not have wanted a king at that time because they weren't following him but their own desires. Hew knew they would not consult him but choose a bad king. When they were shown what their own choice was bad God gave them His sort of king - David, "a man after his own heart" (1 Sam 13:14). So God gave David the throne and promised David "your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever." (2 Sam 7:16).

Hence as I posted before:
At the Annunciation the Angel says to Mary that her son (Jesus) “will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” (Lk 1:32-33). Jesus kingdom is the Davidic kingdom and has the characteristics of the Davidic kingdom.

The apart from all the other scriptures I gave you ignore this from Revelation:
"A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." (Rev 12:1).
This can taken to be a reference to Mary – “and she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron” (Rev 12:5), which is Jesus.
She has on her head a crown – as do queens.

Add to that Psalm 45 which is seen as a prophecy of the Messiah’s reign and is addressed to the king and line 9 says: "at you right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir". We have seen that in the Davidic kingdom the queen sits, or stands, at the king’s right hand (1Kg 2:19).
Also in Rev 12:1 the woman is clothed with the sun (i.e golden coloured) just as the queen here is clothed in gold of Ophir.

There is another interesting line a little later inverse 17:
"I will cause your name to be celebrated in all generations; therefore the peoples will praise you for ever and ever."
Compare that to Lk 1:48 when Mary said: "For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed."

 

[BruceLeiter]

You are just repeating your failed argument so I'll repeat my reply.
Perhaps you could try and answer it this time.

God may not have wanted a king at that time because they weren't following him but their own desires. Hew knew they would not consult him but choose a bad king. When they were shown what their own choice was bad God gave them His sort of king - David, "a man after his own heart" (1 Sam 13:14). So God gave David the throne and promised David "your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever." (2 Sam 7:16).

Hence as I posted before:
At the Annunciation the Angel says to Mary that her son (Jesus) “will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” (Lk 1:32-33). Jesus kingdom is the Davidic kingdom and has the characteristics of the Davidic kingdom.

The apart from all the other scriptures I gave you ignore this from Revelation:
"A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." (Rev 12:1).
This can taken to be a reference to Mary – “and she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron” (Rev 12:5), which is Jesus.
She has on her head a crown – as do queens.

Add to that Psalm 45 which is seen as a prophecy of the Messiah’s reign and is addressed to the king and line 9 says: "at you right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir". We have seen that in the Davidic kingdom the queen sits, or stands, at the king’s right hand (1Kg 2:19).
Also in Rev 12:1 the woman is clothed with the sun (i.e golden coloured) just as the queen here is clothed in gold of Ophir.

There is another interesting line a little later inverse 17:
"I will cause your name to be celebrated in all generations; therefore the peoples will praise you for ever and ever."
Compare that to Lk 1:48 when Mary said: "For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed."

In Revelation 12, you say, "This can be taken to be a reference to Mary." It can also be taken more likely as the Old Testament people of God symbolized as the woman. Was Mary clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet with a crown of twelve stars when she gave birth to Jesus in that stable? No.

Your attempts to stretch Scripture to try to fit it into the Popes' failed attempts to perhaps justify their theology that they have added to the Bible without justification would be laughable if I didn't know that you are serious. Psalm 45 just praises God for his eternal kingdom represented imperfectly but definitely in Israel's kingdom.

You say that Psalm 45 "is seen as a prophecy of the Messiah's reign." It's seen by whom, Catholics as a justification for their added, separate tradition? The Popes should've stayed with Scripture alone; then, there wouldn't have been a need for the Reformation.

Again, in all these passages, you have no clear references to Mary, as there are none in the Bible apart from the ones we already have. For example, Mark says that Mary and Jesus' brothers went to take charge of or "arrest" (verse 21) Jesus because of his ministry:
Mar 3:20 Then he went home, and the crowd gathered again, so that they could not even eat.
Mar 3:21 And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.”
Mar 3:31 And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him.
Mar 3:32 And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.”
Mar 3:33 And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?”
Mar 3:34 And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers!
Mar 3:35 For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.”

Jesus balled his mother and brothers out basically for their overprotective actions toward him in trying to keep him from his ministry. She doesn't sound like a "Queen of Heaven" at that point.

 

[Stephen]

In Revelation 12, you say, "This can be taken to be a reference to Mary." It can also be taken more likely as the Old Testament people of God symbolized as the woman.

It's the other way round - a woman (Mary) symbolising the Old Testament people and The Church.

We can see that she is primarily Mary because:
a) woman is identified as giving birth to a son, “a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod”– reference to Psalm 2:9 & Rev 11:15. Moreover “Her child was caught up to God and his throne” so the child is clearly Jesus.
b) there are three characters in Rev 12:1-6 - The woman, Satan (the dragon) and Jesus (the child).
The latter two are clearly individuals so it makes no sense that the first is just some collective symbol.

Was Mary clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet with a crown of twelve stars when she gave birth to Jesus in that stable? No.

The twelve stars, the sun and moon represent Israel. The twelve stars can also represent the twelve apostles, just as the 24 elders in Rev 4:4 represent the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve apostles.

Revelation is a book full of symbolism.

Your attempts to stretch Scripture to try to fit it into the Popes' failed attempts to perhaps justify their theology that they have added to the Bible without justification would be laughable if I didn't know that you are serious. Psalm 45 just praises God for his eternal kingdom represented imperfectly but definitely in Israel's kingdom.

You say that Psalm 45 "is seen as a prophecy of the Messiah's reign." It's seen by whom, Catholics as a justification for their added, separate tradition? The Popes should've stayed with Scripture alone; then, there wouldn't have been a need for the Reformation.

Here are some quotes from Protestant Commentaries.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible:
"This psalm is touching the King Jesus, his kingdom and government."
"The psalmist, ver. (3–5), joyfully foretells the progress and success of the Messiah."

Nelson Study Bible:
"Psalm 45 is a royal psalm—a royal wedding song that celebrates human marriage in such a grand manner that the New Testament writers applied it to the great King Jesus as well"
"Like many other psalms, this one not only portrays the joy of human marriage, but also describes prophetically the glorious reign of Jesus"

The Apologetics Study Bible for Students:
"This royal psalm focuses on the wedding of the king. As with all the royal psalms, the apostles saw that they ultimately spoke of Jesus the Messiah; he is the only King who loves righteousness and hates wickedness"

Again, in all these passages, you have no clear references to Mary, as there are none in the Bible apart from the ones we already have. For example, Mark says that Mary and Jesus' brothers went to take charge of or "arrest" (verse 21) Jesus because of his ministry:
Mar 3:20 Then he went home, and the crowd gathered again, so that they could not even eat.
Mar 3:21 And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.”
Mar 3:31 And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him.
Mar 3:32 And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.”
Mar 3:33 And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?”
Mar 3:34 And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers!
Mar 3:35 For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.”

Jesus balled his mother and brothers out basically for their overprotective actions toward him in trying to keep him from his ministry. She doesn't sound like a "Queen of Heaven" at that point.

No Jesus didn't ball out his mother. Apart from the fact that scripture doesn't say that, it would have been highly disrespectful of Jesus. Remember the Law - “Honour your father and your mother".

And it doesn't say that Jesus' Mother and brothers tried to arrest him. For someone who believes in scripture alone you keep making up scripture.

 

[BruceLeiter]

It's the other way round - a woman (Mary) symbolising the Old Testament people and The Church.

We can see that she is primarily Mary because:
a) woman is identified as giving birth to a son, “a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod”– reference to Psalm 2:9 & Rev 11:15. Moreover “Her child was caught up to God and his throne” so the child is clearly Jesus.
b) there are three characters in Rev 12:1-6 - The woman, Satan (the dragon) and Jesus (the child).
The latter two are clearly individuals so it makes no sense that the first is just some collective symbol.


The twelve stars, the sun and moon represent Israel. The twelve stars can also represent the twelve apostles, just as the 24 elders in Rev 4:4 represent the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve apostles.

Revelation is a book full of symbolism.


Here are some quotes from Protestant Commentaries.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible:
"This psalm is touching the King Jesus, his kingdom and government."
"The psalmist, ver. (3–5), joyfully foretells the progress and success of the Messiah."

Nelson Study Bible:
"Psalm 45 is a royal psalm—a royal wedding song that celebrates human marriage in such a grand manner that the New Testament writers applied it to the great King Jesus as well"
"Like many other psalms, this one not only portrays the joy of human marriage, but also describes prophetically the glorious reign of Jesus"

The Apologetics Study Bible for Students:
"This royal psalm focuses on the wedding of the king. As with all the royal psalms, the apostles saw that they ultimately spoke of Jesus the Messiah; he is the only King who loves righteousness and hates wickedness"



No Jesus didn't ball out his mother. Apart from the fact that scripture doesn't say that, it would have been highly disrespectful of Jesus. Remember the Law - “Honour your father and your mother".

And it doesn't say that Jesus' Mother and brothers tried to arrest him. For someone who believes in scripture alone you keep making up scripture.

1) Again, you're reading into the Revelation 12 passage your attempt to justify praying to Mary, which began in the 1500s, not in the Bible.
2) It does "make sense" that the first one is a collective symbol. Why not? Mary is not mentioned or referred to in the whole chapter. It's your addition, which is called eisegesis, reading into the text symbolism that it doesn't explain, which it does with Satan.
3) We agree that Revelation is full of symbolism, and we have to be careful to avoid pride when we interpret it.
4) Jesus was clearly rebuking his mother and brothers for coming to take him home, wasn't he? They weren't obeying God's will in doing such a task to "arrest" him and interrupt his ministry, which is the word Mark uses in 3:21 translated "seize."

 

[Stephen]

1) Again, you're reading into the Revelation 12 passage your attempt to justify praying to Mary, which began in the 1500s, not in the Bible.

Devotion to Mary began in the early centuries after Jesus' death.

2) It does "make sense" that the first one is a collective symbol. Why not? Mary is not mentioned or referred to in the whole chapter. It's your addition, which is called eisegesis, reading into the text symbolism that it doesn't explain, which it does with Satan.

Satan is clearly identifies as the dragon
Jesus is clearly identified as the child "who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron.” a reference to psalm 2:9
Mary is clearly identified as the woman who brought forth that male child.

Mary is part of the old covenant and the new covenant. As such she represents them both in this scenario. It's called fusion imagery or polyvalent symbolism.

3) We agree that Revelation is full of symbolism, and we have to be careful to avoid pride when we interpret it.

Yes, we can agree on that

4) Jesus was clearly rebuking his mother and brothers for coming to take him home, wasn't he? They weren't obeying God's will in doing such a task to "arrest" him and interrupt his ministry, which is the word Mark uses in 3:21 translated "seize."

It doesn't say Jesus rebuked his mother .It doesn't even say he spoke to her.
You made that up

 

[BruceLeiter]

Devotion to Mary began in the early centuries after Jesus' death.


Satan is clearly identifies as the dragon
Jesus is clearly identified as the child "who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron.” a reference to psalm 2:9
Mary is clearly identified as the woman who brought forth that male child.

Mary is part of the old covenant and the new covenant. As such she represents them both in this scenario. It's called fusion imagery or polyvalent symbolism.


Yes, we can agree on that

It doesn't say Jesus rebuked his mother .It doesn't even say he spoke to her.
You made that up

Well, what do you say about what Jesus said in response to their arrival to seize or arrest or take charge of Jesus? He was disagreeing with their actions at the very least.

 

[Stephen]

Well, what do you say about what Jesus said in response to their arrival to seize or arrest or take charge of Jesus? He was disagreeing with their actions at the very least.

I disagree that there was anything negative about Jesus' words

First of all the Greek word translated as family or friends in MK 3:21 means, according to Strong 3844 "beside, near, from, in the presence of, with, by". The footnote in the NIV says "associates".

Secondly Matthews version of the event in Mk 3:31-34 (Mt 126-50) does not have the equivalent of Mk 3:21 so Matthew appears not to have considered it significant.

However moving on the Mk 3:31-34 there is nothing in the text to suggest that he was disagreeing with Mary. Let's consider what was happened
1. Jesus was teaching a crowd of people in a house, probably sitting as Rabbi's did when the preached.
2. Someone calls out that his mother and "brothers" were outside looking for him.
3. Jesus sees this as a teaching opportunity and as he stands up to go to the door he teaches them that those that do the will of God are his mother and "brothers".

I have put the word "brothers" in quotes because the word translated brothers (adelphoi), according to Strong's Lexicon, although it primarily refers to a male sibling "its usage extends beyond biological relationships to denote spiritual kinship among believers, reflecting the familial bond within the Christian community. It is also used metaphorically to describe close relationships, such as fellow countrymen or members of a religious community." So those that do the will of God are part of his family.

 

[BruceLeiter]

I disagree that there was anything negative about Jesus' words

First of all the Greek word translated as family or friends in MK 3:21 means, according to Strong 3844 "beside, near, from, in the presence of, with, by". The footnote in the NIV says "associates".

Secondly Matthews version of the event in Mk 3:31-34 (Mt 126-50) does not have the equivalent of Mk 3:21 so Matthew appears not to have considered it significant.

However moving on the Mk 3:31-34 there is nothing in the text to suggest that he was disagreeing with Mary. Let's consider what was happened
1. Jesus was teaching a crowd of people in a house, probably sitting as Rabbi's did when the preached.
2. Someone calls out that his mother and "brothers" were outside looking for him.
3. Jesus sees this as a teaching opportunity and as he stands up to go to the door he teaches them that those that do the will of God are his mother and "brothers".

I have put the word "brothers" in quotes because the word translated brothers (adelphoi), according to Strong's Lexicon, although it primarily refers to a male sibling "its usage extends beyond biological relationships to denote spiritual kinship among believers, reflecting the familial bond within the Christian community. It is also used metaphorically to describe close relationships, such as fellow countrymen or members of a religious community." So those that do the will of God are part of his family.

Maybe, Matthew didn't include verse 21 because it didn't fit his purpose in writing to Jewish Christians. Inspired Mark thought it was important because he wrote to Roman believers who had many doubts while under persecution in Rome. Mary and her sons' unbeliefs or doubts in going to take Jesus home would be a comfort to the Roman Christians.

Jesus is obviously saying that teaching believers in his crowd was more important to him than obedience to his mother and brothers.

Just admit it. You interpret the Bible through the lenses of the Popes, not through the lens of the Bible itself, in order to justify your church's extra-biblical teachings.

 

[Stephen]

Maybe, Matthew didn't include verse 21 because it didn't fit his purpose in writing to Jewish Christians. Inspired Mark thought it was important because he wrote to Roman believers who had many doubts while under persecution in Rome.

Maybe? Just pure speculation.

Mary and her sons' unbeliefs or doubts in going to take Jesus home would be a comfort to the Roman Christians.

More speculataion

Jesus is obviously saying that teaching believers in his crowd was more important to him than obedience to his mother and brothers.

He isn't obviously doing anything of the sort. That's just your invention

Just admit it. You interpret the Bible through the lenses of the Popes, not through the lens of the Bible itself, in order to justify your church's extra-biblical teachings.

Just admit it. You interpret the Bible through your personal lens of anti-Catholicism in order to justify your false teaching.

 

[BruceLeiter]

Maybe? Just pure speculation.


More speculataion

He isn't obviously doing anything of the sort. That's just your invention


Just admit it. You interpret the Bible through your personal lens of anti-Catholicism in order to justify your false teaching.

No, I interpret the Bible from its own viewpoint. You seem to be projecting on me your own pro-Catholic bias. However, why do you dismiss verse 21 so easily? It's in God's inspired Word.

You said earlier that "devotion to Mary" started in the early church. Why and how did it start?

However, praying to her officially began with one of the saints and then a pope in the 1500s. Where in the Bible did they get the justification for such a practice?

 

[Stephen]

No, I interpret the Bible from its own viewpoint.

You don't. You just make stuff up

You seem to be projecting on me your own pro-Catholic bias. However, why do you dismiss verse 21 so easily? It's in God's inspired Word.

I didn't dismiss it. I pointed out that Mathews gospel, which some claim was based on Mark's gospel, omitted it.

And I addressed it. I pointed out that:

First of all the Greek word translated as family or friends in MK 3:21 means, according to Strong 3844 "beside, near, from, in the presence of, with, by". The footnote in the NIV says "associates".

Why didn't Mark say "his mother and his brothers" if that's what they were.

Since you like "maybe", here is one for you.
Maybe those associates were going to seize Jesus, and Mary and Jesus "brothers" heard of this and went to warn Jesus. The Bible does not say they arrived at the door intending to seize Jesus. Your claims that they intended to seize him and he dissed his own mother are not in the Bible.

You said earlier that "devotion to Mary" started in the early church. Why and how did it start?

However, praying to her officially began with one of the saints and then a pope in the 1500s. Where in the Bible did they get the justification for such a practice?

This thread is about Mary Queen of Heaven.
We seem to be wandering off.
Do you have any more on the topic.

 

[BruceLeiter]

You don't. You just make stuff up


I didn't dismiss it. I pointed out that Mathews gospel, which some claim was based on Mark's gospel, omitted it.

And I addressed it. I pointed out that:

First of all the Greek word translated as family or friends in MK 3:21 means, according to Strong 3844 "beside, near, from, in the presence of, with, by". The footnote in the NIV says "associates".

Why didn't Mark say "his mother and his brothers" if that's what they were.

Since you like "maybe", here is one for you.
Maybe those associates were going to seize Jesus, and Mary and Jesus "brothers" heard of this and went to warn Jesus. The Bible does not say they arrived at the door intending to seize Jesus. Your claims that they intended to seize him and he dissed his own mother are not in the Bible.



This thread is about Mary Queen of Heaven.
We seem to be wandering off.
Do you have any more on the topic.

@Stephen, Matthew omits details and includes others, as all four gospel writers do, because he writes to a different audience from a different viewpoint compared to the other three writers. We can't always tell what those differences are, but his emphases for his Jewish Christian audience are clear.

Nowhere else in the gospels are the "associates" of Jesus besides the twelve referred to, so your interpretation of and some of the translations of verse 21 are on very shaky ground. And a few verses later, his mother and brothers show up, indicating that the "associates" were indeed his mother and brothers, as the text clearly says in verse 31.

"Mary, Queen of Heaven" is the thread title; that's why I quote this passage from Mark. Jesus distances himself from Mary and his brothers, even though family is extremely important in those days, and they are trying to interrupt his ministry and control him by "sending for and calling him" instead of joining the group (verse 31).

Mary was wrong, and Jesus corrected her and his brothers.

 

[Stephen]

@Stephen, Matthew omits details and includes others, as all four gospel writers do, because he writes to a different audience from a different viewpoint compared to the other three writers. We can't always tell what those differences are, but his emphases for his Jewish Christian audience are clear.

In your personal and fallible opinion

Nowhere else in the gospels are the "associates" of Jesus besides the twelve referred to, so your interpretation of and some of the translations of verse 21 are on very shaky ground. And a few verses later, his mother and brothers show up, indicating that the "associates" were indeed his mother and brothers, as the text clearly says in verse 31.

In your personal and fallible interpretation.

I have already replies to this claim

"Mary, Queen of Heaven" is the thread title; that's why I quote this passage from Mark. Jesus distances himself from Mary and his brothers, even though family is extremely important in those days, and they are trying to interrupt his ministry and control him by "sending for and calling him" instead of joining the group (verse 31).

In your personal and fallible interpretation.

I have already replies to this claim

Mary was wrong, and Jesus corrected her and his brothers.

In your personal and fallible interpretation.

I have already replies to this claim

I asked if you have anything more on this topic. Obviously you don't since you just regurgitate the same opinions.
Unless you have some new points to make I see no point in continuing this.

 

[BruceLeiter]

In your personal and fallible opinion



In your personal and fallible interpretation.

I have already replies to this claim


In your personal and fallible interpretation.

I have already replies to this claim


In your personal and fallible interpretation.

I have already replies to this claim

I asked if you have anything more on this topic. Obviously you don't since you just regurgitate the same opinions.
Unless you have some new points to make I see no point in continuing this.

Okay. We can agree to disagree.