![]() ![]() |
|
It is a curious fact that some seem to have a major problem with the Virgin Mary. It is a problem that goes far beyond theological reason and debate. In some quarters there seems to be a major antipathy, almost hatred, directed at one of the key figures in the story of redemption. In fact a few protestant apologists write of the Mother of the Redeemer almost as if she were the enemy of God. How can this unhealthy state of affairs have come about? Perhaps it has something to do with the misogynistic tendencies that were evident in many of the Reformers, although most actually maintained Marian doctrines that would surprise their modern-day followers. There is also a great deal of ignorance among modern-day protestants as to the Scriptural and other ancient support for most of the Marian doctrines. It is the fundamentalist move away from Mary that has been the recent aberation. Yet even many Protestant Christians who are not so extreme still believe that Catholic and Orthodox doctrines on the Virgin Mary are unscriptural and are inventions of the Medieval Church, being unknown to the early Christians. How true is this? To find out, we must examine the doctrines about the Virgin Mary which Evangelical Protestants claim to be unscriptural
|
|
|
4. Mary Queen of HeavenAnother doctrine many Protestants object to is that Mary is the Queen of Heaven. So what Biblical justification is there for this? Rev 12: 1-5: A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven; an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron sceptre. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. Here is a Bible passage that shows Mary crowned in heaven. She wears a heavenly crown of twelve stars. A crown plainly denotes Queenship. How much more clearly could Mary's honour be illustrated? BUT THERE ARE OTHER INTERPRETATIONS OF THIS PASSAGE. THE WOMAN MAY NOT BE MARY. I once read this passage to a group of born-again fundamentalists who had not been pre-prepared with an acceptable Protestant "interpretation". Their reaction? A shocked "but that's Mary!" It was quite obvious to all of them. However Protestant Bible scholars, realising the implications of recognising the figure here to be Mary often simply just deny it. For some reason fundamentalist Protestants looking for a female image in Revelation, prefer the scarlet woman of Revelation 17. Revelation 12 makes them squirm, and they strain to find another interpretation. The main two are: 1. The Woman in this Passage represents the Church. The twelve stars are the twelve Apostles. 2. The Woman represents Israel. The stars are the twelve tribes. BOTH INTERPRETATIONS SUFFER FROM SEVERAL MAJOR FLAWS. 1st. If the Woman is taken to represent the Church, then we face the immediate paradox of the Church giving birth to Jesus! This is clearly nonsense. 2nd If the Woman is taken as Israel, we have an exalted Israel. Yet Israel was not exalted at the time of Jesus's birth. Most of Israel was astray. 3rd. Neither interpretation is a simple, literal reading of the text. If Protestant scholars have agreed on one thing it is that we must look for the clear, obvious interpretation of a bible text. Who is the woman who gave birth to Jesus? Jesus's Mother. Simple. 4th. Both alternative interpretations are contextually wrong. For all the other figures in this passage represent individuals, not ideas or classes of people. The Child is clearly Jesus, the Dragon is clearly Satan, each star swept out of the sky is one of the rebel angels who followed Satan. Later in the passage, we find Michael and his angels, and also the Beast - the Antichrist. The Woman is the only figure in the passage who, according to some, is not the individual stated in the text, but a collective representation. 5th. Conversely, when Israel, Christians or the Church appear elsewhere in Revelation, they do not appear as personifications. They appear in literal form, as groups of individuals. See Rev 7.4: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel; Rev 7.9: ..a great multitude that no-one could count...; Rev 12.17: ..the rest of her offspring - those who obey God's commandments.... Even where the Church appears as the Bride of Christ, and a female personification would be expected, we do not get one. Instead of appearing as a woman, the Church appears as a City - the new Jerusalem. Rev 21: 9-10. 6th. If there is any doubt as to what a symbolic personage in Revelation might represent, or if a veiled meaning is intended, that meaning is immediately explained in the text. The Lamb is defined as the Lord of Lords, the Dragon is Satan. The Heads of the Beast are Kings. However no such explanation is given with respect to the Woman, underlining that the obvious meaning is the one that is intended. 7th. If we look at the reference to the Sun, Moon and Stars in this passage, we can compare it with Joseph's dream in Genesis, which so angered his brothers. In the dream the Sun, Moon and Stars represented his father, Isaac, his mother, and his eleven brothers. Together with Joseph, this gives us the total of 12 stars which appear in the Revelation vision. Since Joseph and his brothers were the forebears of Israel, the Sun, Moon and stars can indeed be taken to represent Israel. BUT in Revelation the Sun, Moon and Stars are not the subjects of the Vision. They instead form the adornments of the woman. This indicates that although the Woman is linked with Israel, she is quite clearly NOT Israel. 8th. The Woman of Revelation 12 is introduced as a great sign in Heaven. Where else in the bible can we see a Woman announced as a great sign. Look at Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son." We can see that this is exactly the same sign as in Revelation 12, confirming that the Woman in both occurences is Mary. THE ONE WHO FITS PERFECTLY It is possible that there are subsidiary meanings to the figure of the Woman - as there are to some other figures in Revelation. But the obvious primary meaning - that the woman giving birth to Jesus is actually Jesus's mother - must be accepted. The only reason that Protestant scholars fight so hard against it, is that it conflicts with their deep-seated anti-Mary bias. Subsidiary meanings then fit in and harmonise. Mary, although Mother of Jesus is also part of the church and Mother of all Christians (Rev 12:17). Hence the 12 stars representing the twelve apostles. Mary is also true Daughter of Israel and of the royal line of David. The twelve stars therefore also represent the twelve tribes of Israel. Mary thus forms a key transition, and link, between Israel and the Church. Neither of the Protestant interpretations fully links the parenthood of Jesus, the parenthood of Christians, the twelve Apostles and the twelve tribes. Only Mary fulfils all the requirements of this passage. DOES THE BIBLE ENDORSE THE CONCEPT OF A HEAVENLY CROWN? 2 Tim 4:8 - Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me that day..... James 1:12 - Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life. 1 Peter 5:4 - And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away. Rev. 2:10 ."..Be faithful even unto death and I will give you the crown of life." A CROWN YES. BUT WHERE DOES MARY'S QUEENSHIP COME FROM? As we have seen, a crown indicates kingship. Jesus promises crowns of Glory, Life and Righteousness to all who persevere and endure with him to the end. This is certainly the case with Mary. And looking to Timothy, we read: 2 Timothy 2:12 - If we endure, we will also reign with Him... This is a promise made to all who endure to the end with Christ, as Mary did. They will have a share in Jesus's Kingship. And Mary's Queenship has still more bases in Scripture. She was the "God-bearer", and as such has a unique relationship with God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. As the first to say "Yes" to God's plan, she is also the First Christian. She is also Mother of the Church. for as Brethren of Jesus, Christians are Children of Mary. OLD TESTAMENT QUEENSHIP - MARY PREFIGURED When we look into the Old Testament, we find even more support for the Queenship of Mary. Jesus is the Messianic King. This Messianic Kingship is pre-figured in the ancient and Godly Kingship of David and Solomon. At the time of the historic Israel, next to the throne of the King was a second throne. Many would assume that the second throne belonged to the wife of the King, but in Israel it belonged to the mother of the king. In Aramaic the word "Gebirah" means Queen Mother. Gebirah was the official title of the Queen Mother, and was a position of authority and honour. Her roles were advisor to the king, and advocate of the people; anyone who had a petition or sought an audience with the King did so through her. This was so when Adonijah cunningly sought a high-ranking bride from Solomon: 1 Kings 2: 17-21: So he continued, "Please ask King Solomon - he will not refuse you - to give me Abishag the Shunammite as my wife. "Very well," Bathsheba replied, "I will speak to the king for you." When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king's mother, and she sat down at his right hand. The special status of the Queen Mother remained throughout the time that the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah endured: Jeremiah 13:18: Say to the king and to the queen mother, "Come down from your thrones for your glorious crowns will fall from your heads." The cities of the Negev will be shut up and there will be no-one to open them. All Judah will be carried into exile, carried completely away. The Gebirah was a trusted advisor to the King: Proverbs 31.1: The sayings of King Lemuel - an oracle his mother taught him: " Verses 2 to 9 continue with specific advice on being a good ruler. See also 1 Kings 15.13 and 2 Kings 10:13; 12:1; 14:2; 15.33; 22.1 In Scriptural terms therefore, just as Jesus's Messianic Kingship is prefigured in the role of King of Israel, so Mary's role is prefigured in that of the Gebirah. The existence of this rare and unusual institution in Israel and Judah is providential. It reflects and prefigures the Messianic order. Mary is Heavenly Queen Mother, because her son Jesus is the Heavenly King. BUT SURELY "QUEEN OF HEAVEN" WAS A PAGAN TITLE, USED OF ISIS AND ISHTAR. IT'S USE MUST BE UNCHRISTIAN. This is a thoroughly bogus argument. There are a great many Pagan titles, and most make use of common forms of words. "King of Kings" was a title used by many Pagan Gods. So was "Son of God" and "Lord". Jupiter was titled King of Heaven. Many anti-Christian theorists argue that Jesus took the style and powers of Helios, the pagan Sun God. Others suggest that Dionysus, who was born of a virgin, raised from the dead, and gave his followers bread and wine, was transformed into the biblical jesus by Early Christians. You will not have to look far in a major bookshop or library to find arguments of this sort. Countless books are in existence that equate Jesus with any number of pagan deities from Krisna and Buddha to Shamanistic spirits. The number grows almost daily. Protestants would instantly condemn these books and the arguments they contain as thoroughly dishonest, and as crude attempts to tarnish Jesus by false association. It is unfortunate that some then go on to use these self-same dishonest tactics to try to malign Mary. There is, however, as we have seen, an abundance of biblical proof that Mary's Queenship is both proper, and scripturally based |
|
|
7. Ever VirginThe traditional belief of all the Ancient churches is that the Virgin Mary remained a virgin all her life. "For neither did Mary, who is to be honoured and praised above all others, marry anyone, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever and immaculate virgin." (Didimus the Blind, The Trinity. 381 AD) Many Protestants choose to argue with this, quoting the following text: Matt 1.24-25: And being aroused from sleep, Joseph did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife, and did not know her until she bore her son, the Firstborn. And he called his name Jesus. There are two
points here. 1. The word "until", sometimes
taken to imply that Joseph "knew" Mary after the birth of
Jesus; and 2. "Firstborn", sometimes taken
to imply other children. Matt 28.20: "..and surely I am with you always, until the end of the age." John 21.22: Jesus answered. "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?" 2 Sam 6.23: "no son was born to Michol, the daughter of Saul until her dying day." In all these examples, the word "until" does not mean that Jesus will cease to be with us after the end of the age, that John was intended to die should he still be alive when Jesus returned, or that Michol had a son after death. The word "until" shows that the writer is concerned primarily to inform us what happens before a specific event - not after. For the rest, let us allow a very unexpected defender of Marian doctrine to answer the points: There
have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage
[Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of
God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly
this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened
afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and
to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was
God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt
with her nor had he shared her company... And besides this, Our Lord
Jesus Christ is called the first born. This is not because there was
a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard
to precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether
or not there was any question of the second."
BUT WHAT ABOUT JESUS' BROTHERS MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE? There are several gospel references to Jesus having "brothers and sisters". This is the most specific: Matthew 13:55. "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers, James, Joses, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren't all his sisters with us?" One traditional response is that these may have been children of Joseph from an earlier marriage. Joseph is traditionally held to be much older than Mary. Another important factor here is that the language used in the Palestine of Jesus's time was Aramaic. In the Aramaic language used at that time, there was no word in existence to denote cousin. The Jews therefore had to use the word brother where they meant to describe any close male relative. This is so even today in many languages and cultures, particularly where there is an extended family system. The loose term "brother" or "sister" is used to cover the children of ones uncles and aunts as well as those of ones own parents. WHAT PROOF IS THERE OF THIS? Gen 14:14 "And when Abram heard that his Brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan." The "brother" referred to here is Lot. Lot was the son of Aran, Abram's own dead brother (Gen 11:26-28). He was therefore Abram's Nephew, even though the text refers to him as a "brother". BUT THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS WRITTEN IN GREEK, WHICH DOES HAVE A WORD FOR COUSIN. This is a bit of a red-herring for two reasons. Firstly, there is evidence from the Early Church Fathers that the Book of Matthew, at least, was originally written in Aramaic, and so was translated into Greek. Secondly, we know that the people of Palestine in Jesus's time spoke in Aramaic, and it is therefore in Aramaic in which the oral stories which were later written down to form the Gospels, were transmitted. So it is likely that the Aramaic word "brother", meaning not only sibling, but any kinsman, was translated into the Greek word "brother", which has the tighter meaning of sibling only. This is clearly what has happened in Genesis 14.14 above. SO WHO WERE THESE "BROTHERS OF JESUS?" A.
While James and Joses are mentioned as Jesus's brothers
in Matthew 13:55, it is made clear in Mathew 27:56 and Mark 15:40
that their mother was another Mary. This "other Mary" at the Cross, is revealed in John 19:25 to be the wife of Cleophas. Mary of Cleophas is therefore revealed as the mother of two of Jesus's so-called "brothers", James and Joses. B. In John 19:25, the original Greek states. "But by he cross of Jesus were the Mother of Him AND the sister of the Mother of Him, Mary the wife of Cleopas AND Mary the Magdalene." The precise positioning of the ANDs makes it clear that Mary the Wife of Cleopas, is also referred to as the Virgin Mary's sister. Since we know no-one has two daughters and calls them BOTH Mary, we know that sister here does not mean sister. The same would apply to "brother" with reference to Jesus. C. In the introduction to the Book of Jude, Jude introduces himself as: Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and a brother of James. If Jude/Judas were truly the brother of Jesus, why wouldn't he say so? He identifies himself in his letter as brother of James, but significantly as servant of Jesus. To have identified himself as Jesus's blood brother would have added enormous weight to his epistle, but he doesn't so identify himself here. We know the reason, because James and Joseph have already been revealed to be sons of the other Mary in Matthew 27 and Mark 15. Judas then must also be a son of this other Mary. Mary wife of Cleophas. So another of Jesus's so-called "brothers" is eliminated. D. James "Brother of Jesus" is referred to as one of the APOSTLES by Paul in Galatians 1:19. . We know that neither of the Apostles named James was actually a Son of Mary. So James, "brother of Jesus" cannot be a Son of Mary. He is actually James, Son of Alphaeus (thought to be another form of Cleophas)! James is a kinsman of Jesus, but not a sibling. A few
more points:
|