I'll do a little bit of setup before I get to the point.
Occasionally when I talk to protestants about whether or not Mary should be venerated as Catholics do, I usually point to the places in the Bible where we have some reason to see that God did give us an example of the position that she'd possess.
I never try to give a positive defence of traditional views about Mary from the Bible alone, since at the end its ultimately a matter of tradition and doctrinal authority. What I can do to someone who asserts Sola Scriptura, is that I can defend some aspects of it, this usually amounts to little more than defending that Mary is the Mother of God. I can also point to biblical passages that lend credence to traditional teachings.
In the Old Testament for instance you have Solomon seated in power, with his mother Bathsheba seated at his right hand as mediator.
1 Kings 2:19-21 (ESV)
19 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. 20 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.” 21 She said, “Let Abishag the Shunammite be given to Adonijah your brother as his wife.”
Song of Solomon 3:11 (ESV)
Go out, O daughters of Zion,
and look upon King Solomon,
with the crown with which his mother crowned him
on the day of his wedding,
on the day of the gladness of his heart.
Since a lot of Christology is given in the OT by it having analogies that preshadow it, and especially Solomon is given as a parallel, I don't think its unreasonable to see the role of Bathsheba as intercessor and mediator between the king of Solomon, as possible indicating the relationship Mary would have between Christ and man. We do see similarities: she's crowned queen along with her son, Solomon didn't say no to Bathsheba just as Jesus never says no to Mary, people bring requests to Solomon and she succours them, etc...
The objection then is that Christ, since he's all-knowing, wouldn't have any need of an intercessor. King Solomon might, in that he couldn't personally consider all of the problems of state on his own, and Bathsheba could handle the things he couldn't, and bring particular issues to him. To Christ, Mary is completely superfluous, and perhaps even detracts a bit, since instead of praying to her to intercede for us with Him we could pray to Him on our own.
However a person who makes this objection doesn't make it consistently enough: To Christ, the Bible is completely superfluous; if he wanted he could just impart divinely inspired all the knowledge needed into the head of everyone walking around. To Christ, theology of any stripe is unnecessary, again he could simple have Christianity one large mystical experience. To Christ, prayers aren't needed, he already knows our hearts and what we want. The particular way He's chosen to teach us about the Kingdom of God, all go above and beyond what's needed and has much more to do with what is appropriate.
These are all only done by us because we have reasons to suspect that they are either things he's commanded (pray, worship), respect (the bible is authoritative), or something that we need since we aren't given mystical experiences (natural reasoning based studies of theology). Presumable all these things ultimate serve to glorify God more, if perhaps by distancing us from Him we're more aware of His kingly stature and our own lowliness in comparison.
If Christ has installed Mary as someone who in Heaven get special grace to mediate for us on our behalf, I don't think anyone can object to it on the ground because its not really needed.
If you take it consistently to the end point our own salvation isn't needed.
Occasionally when I talk to protestants about whether or not Mary should be venerated as Catholics do, I usually point to the places in the Bible where we have some reason to see that God did give us an example of the position that she'd possess.
I never try to give a positive defence of traditional views about Mary from the Bible alone, since at the end its ultimately a matter of tradition and doctrinal authority. What I can do to someone who asserts Sola Scriptura, is that I can defend some aspects of it, this usually amounts to little more than defending that Mary is the Mother of God. I can also point to biblical passages that lend credence to traditional teachings.
In the Old Testament for instance you have Solomon seated in power, with his mother Bathsheba seated at his right hand as mediator.
1 Kings 2:19-21 (ESV)
19 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. 20 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.” 21 She said, “Let Abishag the Shunammite be given to Adonijah your brother as his wife.”
Song of Solomon 3:11 (ESV)
Go out, O daughters of Zion,
and look upon King Solomon,
with the crown with which his mother crowned him
on the day of his wedding,
on the day of the gladness of his heart.
Since a lot of Christology is given in the OT by it having analogies that preshadow it, and especially Solomon is given as a parallel, I don't think its unreasonable to see the role of Bathsheba as intercessor and mediator between the king of Solomon, as possible indicating the relationship Mary would have between Christ and man. We do see similarities: she's crowned queen along with her son, Solomon didn't say no to Bathsheba just as Jesus never says no to Mary, people bring requests to Solomon and she succours them, etc...
The objection then is that Christ, since he's all-knowing, wouldn't have any need of an intercessor. King Solomon might, in that he couldn't personally consider all of the problems of state on his own, and Bathsheba could handle the things he couldn't, and bring particular issues to him. To Christ, Mary is completely superfluous, and perhaps even detracts a bit, since instead of praying to her to intercede for us with Him we could pray to Him on our own.
However a person who makes this objection doesn't make it consistently enough: To Christ, the Bible is completely superfluous; if he wanted he could just impart divinely inspired all the knowledge needed into the head of everyone walking around. To Christ, theology of any stripe is unnecessary, again he could simple have Christianity one large mystical experience. To Christ, prayers aren't needed, he already knows our hearts and what we want. The particular way He's chosen to teach us about the Kingdom of God, all go above and beyond what's needed and has much more to do with what is appropriate.
These are all only done by us because we have reasons to suspect that they are either things he's commanded (pray, worship), respect (the bible is authoritative), or something that we need since we aren't given mystical experiences (natural reasoning based studies of theology). Presumable all these things ultimate serve to glorify God more, if perhaps by distancing us from Him we're more aware of His kingly stature and our own lowliness in comparison.
If Christ has installed Mary as someone who in Heaven get special grace to mediate for us on our behalf, I don't think anyone can object to it on the ground because its not really needed.
If you take it consistently to the end point our own salvation isn't needed.
Comment