Is Mary's Queenship Biblical? [Ecumenical]

CatholicAnswers-The Rock ^ | not given | Edward P. Sri

[Salvation]

Is Mary's Queenship Biblical?

By Edward P. Sri

Mary’s title as "Queen of Heaven and Earth" is a great scandal to many non-Catholic Christians. After all, the Bible doesn’t mention anything about there being a queen in God’s kingdom. All this royal attention Catholics give to Mary—whether it’s singing "Hail, holy queen enthroned above" or portraying Mary in statues and paintings with a crown on her head—seems to many non-Catholics to detract from the royalty of Christ, who alone is King of Kings. Besides, how could Mary be a queen, since she is not the wife of the Jesus but only his mother?

One biblical theme sheds light on these questions and serves as a key for unlocking the mystery of Mary’s queenship: the Old Testament tradition of the "queen mother" in the Davidic kingdom.

In the monarchy of King David, as well as in other ancient kingdoms of the Near East, the mother of the ruling king held an important office in the royal court and played a key part in the process of dynastic succession. In fact, the king’s mother ruled as queen, not his wife.

The great pre-eminence of the king’s mother may seem odd from our modern Western perspective, in which we think of a queen as being the wife of a king. However, recall that most ancient Near-Eastern kings practiced polygamy. King Solomon had seven hundred wives (1 Kgs. 11:3)—imagine the chaos in the royal court if all seven hundred were awarded the queenship! But since each king had only one mother, one can see the practical wisdom in bestowing the queenship upon her.

A number of Old Testament passages reflect the important role of the queen mother in the Davidic kingdom. For example, almost every time the narrative of 1 and 2 Kings introduces a new monarch in Judah, it mentions the king’s mother as well, showing the mother’s intimate involvement in her royal son’s reign. Similarly, the queen mother is listed among the members of the royal court whom king Jehoiachin surrendered to the king of Babylon in 2 Kings 24:12.

Her royal office is also described by the prophet Jeremiah, who tells how the queen mother possessed a throne and a crown, symbolic of her position of authority in the kingdom: "Say to the king and the queen mother: ‘Take a lowly seat, for your beautiful crown has come down from your head. . . . Lift up your eyes and see those who come from the north. Where is the flock that was given you, your beautiful flock?’" (Jer. 13:18, 20). It is significant that God directed this oracle about the upcoming fall of Judah to both the king and his mother. Addressing both king and queen mother, Jeremiah portrays her as sharing in her son’s rule over the kingdom.

Probably the clearest example of the queen mother’s role is that of Bathsheba, wife of David and mother of Solomon. Scholars have noted the excellence of Bathsheba’s position in the kingdom once she became queen mother during Solomon’s rule. Compare the humble attitude of Bathsheba as spouse of King David (1 Kgs. 1:16–17, 31) with her majestic dignity as mother of the next king, Solomon (1 Kgs. 2:19–20). As spouse of the king, Bathsheba bows with her face to the ground and does obeisance to her husband, David, upon entering his royal chamber. In striking contrast, after her son Solomon assumed the throne and she became queen mother, Bathsheba receives a glorious reception upon meeting with her royal 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 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’" (1 Kgs. 2:19–20).

This account reveals the sovereign prerogatives of the queen mother. Note how the king rises and bows as she enters. Bathsheba’s seat at the king’s right hand has the greatest significance. In the Bible, the right hand is the place of ultimate honor. This is seen in particular in the messianic Psalm 110 ("Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool"). In fact, many New Testament passages refer to the right-hand imagery of Psalm 110 to show Christ’s divinity and his reign with the Father over the whole universe (e.g., Hebrews 1:13). Thus, the queen mother sitting at the king’s right hand symbolizes her sharing in the king’s royal authority and illustrates how she holds the most important position in the kingdom, second only to the king.

This passage regarding Bathsheba also shows how the queen mother served as an advocate for the people, carrying petitions to the king. In 1 Kings 2:17, Adonijah asks Bathsheba to take a petition for him to King Solomon. He says to her: "Pray ask King Solomon—he will not refuse you—to give me Abishag the Shunammite as my wife" (1 Kgs. 2:17). It is clear that Adonijah recognizes the queen mother’s position of influence over the king, so he confidently turns to Bathsheba as an intercessor for his request.

A few Old Testament prophecies incorporate the queen mother tradition when telling of the future Messiah. One example is Isaiah 7:14, which originated during a time of dynastic crisis in Judah when Syria and Israel were threatening Jerusalem and plotting to overthrow King Ahaz. God offers Ahaz a sign that the kingdom will continue: "Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Emmanuel" (Isa. 7:13–14).

On one level, this passage points to the next king (Hezekiah) as a pledge that the Davidic dynasty will continue despite the threats of invading armies. At the same time, the royal son who is to be named "Emmanuel" points to the future messianic king (cf., Isa. 9:6–7, 11:1–2). This is why the New Testament says Jesus fulfills this prophecy from Isaiah (Matt. 1:23).

For our purposes we should note how this prophecy links the mother to her royal son. Since the oracle is addressed specifically to the Davidic household and concerns the continuation of the dynasty, the young woman bearing forth the royal son would be understood as a queen mother. This has implications for our understanding of Mary. Since the mother of the king always ruled as queen mother, we should expect to find the mother of the messianic king playing the role of the true queen mother in the everlasting Kingdom of God.

With this Old Testament background, we can now more clearly see how the New Testament portrays Mary in light of the queen mother tradition.

The Gospel of Matthew has often been called the "Gospel of the Kingdom." Matthew emphasizes that Jesus is "the Son of David," who is the true King of the Jews establishing the "Kingdom of Heaven." With all this kingly imagery, it should not be surprising to find queen mother themes as well.

Right away, Matthew shows explicitly how the infant Jesus is the "Emmanuel" child as prophesied in Isaiah 7:14 (Matt. 1:23). As we saw above, this prophecy links the royal messianic child with his queen mother. Further, Matthew singles out the intimate relationship between the mother and her royal son by using the phrase "the child and his mother" five times in the first two chapters, recalling the close association between queen mother and royal son as described in the Books of Kings. Just as the queen mother was constantly mentioned alongside the Judean kings in 1 and 2 Kings, so Mary is frequently mentioned alongside her royal son, Jesus, in Matthew’s infancy narrative (Matt. 1:18; 2:11, 13, 14, 20, 21).

We find Mary portrayed against the background of Davidic kingdom motifs in Luke’s Gospel as well, especially in his accounts of the Annunciation and Visitation. First, the angel Gabriel is said to appear to a virgin betrothed to a man "of the house of David" (1:27). Then the angel tells Mary, "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end" (Luke 1:31–33).

Hear the strong Davidic overtones describing Mary and her royal son: a woman from the house of David giving birth to a son who will be the new king whose reign will never end. With echoes from the queen mother tradition of the Davidic kingdom and the mother-son prophecy of Isaiah 7:14, we can conclude that Mary is being given the vocation of queen mother.

Mary’s royal office is made even more explicit in Luke’s account of the Visitation. Elizabeth greets Mary with the title "the mother of my Lord" (Luke 1:43). This title is charged with great queenly significance. In the royal court language of the ancient NearEast, the title "Mother of my Lord" was used to address the queen mother of the reigning king (who himself was addressed as "my Lord"; cf., 2 Sam. 24:21). Thus with this title Elizabeth is recognizing the great dignity of Mary’s role as the royal mother of the king, Jesus.

Finally, Mary’s queenship can be seen in the great vision described in Revelation 12: "And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery" (Rev. 12:1–2). Who is this newborn child? He is described as the messianic king exercising his dominion. In verse 5, the author of Revelation chose the messianic Psalm 2 to describe how this child will "rule all the nations with a rod of iron" (Rev. 12:5, Ps. 2:9). This royal son is taken up to heaven to sit on a throne (Rev. 12:5), and he ushers in the kingdom of God by defeating the devil: "Now the kingdom of our God has come, for the accuser has been throne down" (12:10). Certainly, this newborn child is the royal Messiah, King Jesus.

In this light it is clear who this woman is who gave birth to the messiah: It is Mary. Some people have interpreted this woman in Revelation 12 as merely a symbol either for the Old Testament people of Israel or for the New Testament Church and therefore have concluded that the woman cannot be an individual (i.e., Mary). However, this "either-or" proposition is foreign to the biblical worldview, in which individuals often symbolically represent collective groups. For instance, Adam represented all humanity (Rom. 5:19), and Jacob stood for all of Israel (Ps. 44:4). Given this biblical notion called "corporate personality," the woman in Revelation 12 should be understood as both an individual (Mary) and a symbol for the people of God.

But for our purposes, once we see that this woman is Mary, the mother of Jesus, it is important to note how she is portrayed as queen in this passage. Her royal office is hinted at by the imagery of the sun, moon, and twelve stars, which recalls the Old Testament story of Joseph’s dream in which the sun, moon, and stars bow down before him, symbolizing his future authority (Gen. 37:9–11). Her queenship is made even clearer by the crown of twelve stars on her head. Just like the queen mother in Jeremiah 13:18, here Mary is wearing a crown, symbolizing her royal office in the kingdom of heaven. In sum, Revelation 12 portrays Mary as the new queen mother in the Kingdom of God, sharing in her son’s rule over the universe.

We have seen how the Old Testament queen mother tradition serves as an important background for understanding Mary’s royal office. Indeed, the New Testament portrays Mary as the queen mother par excellence. Thus, prayers, hymns, and art giving honor to Mary’s queenship are most fitting biblical responses for Christians. In honoring her as queen mother we do not take anything away from Christ’s glory, but rather we exalt him even more by recognizing the great work he has done in her and through her.

Understanding Mary as queen mother sheds light on her important intercessory role in the Christian life. Just like the queen mother of the Davidic kingdom, Mary serves as advocate for the people in the Kingdom of God today. Thus, we should approach our queen mother with confidence, knowing that she carries our petitions to her royal son and that he responds to her as Solomon did to Bathsheba: "I will never refuse you."

---

Edward P. Sri is assistant professor of Religious Studies at Benedictine College in Atchison, Kansas. He holds a Licentiate in Sacred Theology from the Angelicum in Rome, where he is currently a doctoral candidate.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Yes, but they are not Catholic, nor catholic in their faith.

Then you're the first I've met to make up their own definition of the word "catholic". Not a single dictionary defines it the way you do, and most protestant - and even orthodox (you know, the oldest Christian churches) - use the word "catholic" as an adjective for universal.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

The problem is that we already know what the metaphor means when someone is said to be eating a man’s flesh: Look at Psalms 27:2.

I see. There can be but one use of a metaphor? In that case please explain John 6:60-63 where Jesus explains the metaphor to his grumbling disciples. And it is not the metaphor you claim.

[raygunfan]

YOU:

Evidently they have not heard of typology. There is much forshadowing of the New Testament to be found in the New Testament.

McGuire, have you ever heard of it before? Check into it.

ME:

this is exactly right...the typology concept is key...and quite often, our protestant brethern will use it, and combine that with allowing scripture to interpret scripture...fine again, the problem is when the typology and scripture interpreting scripture simply, squarely, and elegantly point to the utter catholicity of the issue, then our separated brethern either deny the straightforward meaning...or reinterpret it, like hermeneutic gymnists trying to stick a landing....

[Uri’el-2012]

1. Context meaning metaphorical - Jesus is calling himself Bread of life, as compared to other Heavenly-provided bread (manna) which did not provide the same kind of life. Thus Jesus is speaking metaphorically.

Another Metaphorical understanding might be that Yah'shua
is the Word of G-d and it is to be eaten each day for life,
not unlike manna.

Ezekiel says that the Word tastes like honey. (Eze 3:3)

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Uri’el-2012]

Miriam's role was not her characteristics or value,
but her bloodlines to King David,
having no brothers and
the exception started by
the daughters of Zelophehad.

There are five things that are important here:

1. Miriam is a daughter who has no brothers
and is descended from King David.

2. Joseph is descended from King David.
But he is from a line prohibited to inherit.

3. The inheritance exception granted for the daughters of Zelophehad
(These were daughters who had no brothers)
is in effect (Numbers 26, 27, 36; Joshua 17; 1 Chronicles 7).

4. If a woman who has no brothers marries a man of the same tribe
She can inherit forever.

5. Joseph and Miriam are married (each descended from King David)
thus providing Miriam with permanent inheritance
of the Kingship of David for her to pass on to her son Yah'shua (Messiahship).

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Oh no, we’ve been told there is only one allowed interpretation of the metaphor, and that “eating bread” can only mean causing suffering...

Unfortunately, you and I are wrong in the eyes of the “Church”! About par for the course for me, though - I’ve already been called an illegitimate demon spawn by our “Catholic brothers”, so what’s the harm in telling you and me that we are clearly wrong and there is only one allowed meaning of “eating bread”?

[Uri’el-2012]

Oh no, we’ve been told there is only one allowed interpretation of the metaphor, and that “eating bread” can only mean causing suffering...

Unfortunately, you and I are wrong in the eyes of the “Church”! About par for the course for me, though - I’ve already been called an illegitimate demon spawn by our “Catholic brothers”, so what’s the harm in telling you and me that we are clearly wrong and there is only one allowed meaning of “eating bread”?

Yah'shua was, among other things, a Jewish Rabbi.
Metaphors were used widely in teaching spiritual thought.

He preached against the established "ekklesia"
who impugned the Holy Word of Elohim and
in favor of man made traditions.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Yah'shua was, among other things, a Jewish Rabbi. Metaphors were used widely in teaching spiritual thought.

Hah! Next you're going to tell us that when Jesus performed the last supper He meant for us to regard it as a symbolic event, not the literal transubstantiation of bread and wine?

I'm with you brother; Jesus taught by parable, using metaphors to convey the message. To deny that is to deny who He was, and what His message really was.

And to deny the rabbinical concept that a single metaphor can convey more than one meaning is just as wrong-headed; indeed, the better the parable and example the more different messages and interpretations to gain fundamental spiritual truths it conveys!

A wise rabbi can use one story or example to explain multiple spiritual truths, each valid and whole as presented. There isn't just a "single" correct answer...

[Uri’el-2012]

Hah! Next you're going to tell us that when Jesus performed the last supper He meant for us to regard it as a symbolic event, not the literal transubstantiation of bread and wine?

No; I each year celebrate Pesach as He did
and as He commanded us to do in remembrance of Him.

NAsbU Luke 22:19 And when He had taken some bread and given thanks,
He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given
for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[boatbums]

Very well said. Also, Bathsheba is a poor moral example of Mary, as Bathsheba was married to another man when she first had sex with David. She got pregnant and David had her husband sent to the front lines in battle, assuring he would be killed. David then married her and the baby died causing David much grief and remorse.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“You assume a metaphor can only have one meaning.”

Nope. I am NOT assuming a metaphor can have only one meaning. It is known, however, what the metaphoric meaning of John 6 would have to be - if it were a metaphor.

“A closer metaphor is to consider the words of Jesus in John 4, or earlier in chapter 6.”

No. That is not the way the metaphor was used in Hebrew or Aramaic or any other semitic language. “Closer” is not the same thing as “exact”. This, as a metaphor, is exact.

“If the metaphor is explained in John 6, you need not go to Psalms to define it.”

It isn’t a metaphor in John 6 nor did anyone take it as a metaphor, nor did Jesus either explain it as one or defend it as one.

[Mr Rogers]

Taking a metaphor used for one thing and applying it to a completely different situation leads to foolishness.

[vladimir998]

You wrote: "Then you're the first I've met to make up their own definition of the word "catholic"." No. The word "catholic" - as just a Greek word in secular or religious usage - means "universal". No Protestant holds a universal faith - hence the specific use of the word Protestant which denotes the very fact that no Protestant holds to a universal faith. "Not a single dictionary defines it the way you do,..." What? No dictionary defines "catholic" as "universal". In post #, I wrote: "Yes, but they are not Catholic, nor catholic in their faith. They do not have the universal faith." So, clearly I believe "catholic" means "universal". Well, let's see what your own Merriam Webster states about the definition of the word "catholic": Main Entry: cath·o·lic Pronunciation: \ˈkath-lik, ˈka-thə-\ Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English catholik, from Middle French & Late Latin; Middle French catholique, from Late Latin catholicus, from Greek katholikos universal, general, from katholou in general, from kata by + holos whole — more at cata-, safe Date: 14th century 1 a often capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the church universal b often capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the ancient undivided Christian church or a church claiming historical continuity from it c capitalized : roman catholic 2 : comprehensive, universal; especially : broad in sympathies, tastes, or interests Wow, the Merriam Webster dictionary, the very dictionary you cited agrees entirely with the definition I posted: "...from Greek katholikos universal, general... 1 a often capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the church universal" "and most protestant - and even orthodox (you know, the oldest Christian churches) - use the word "catholic" as an adjective for universal." How Protestants do much of anything in immaterial since they are neither orthodox nor historical. The Orthodox use the term catholic as both an adjective and as part of proper noun - just as Catholics do.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“I see. There can be but one use of a metaphor?”

No. But this one is known. Do you know of any other way, for instance, of explaining, “What’s eating you?”?

“In that case please explain John 6:60-63 where Jesus explains the metaphor to his grumbling disciples.”

1) Jesus doesn’t explain the “metaphor” because He wasn’t using one. 2) There is nothing in verses 60-63 that even hints He is explaining His earlier statements as if they were a metaphor.

“And it is not the metaphor you claim.”

I never claimed He used a metaphor. That’s the whole point. Are you even paying attention to what you read or write?

In John 6:60-63 Jesus is not explaining so that the Disciples will understand something they previously did not get. Jesus is explaining to strengthen their faith in what is true, but beyond their human comprehension. That’s why Jesus never says, “Oh, I was using a figure of speech!” Instead He basically tells them to choose to believe...or not.

It’s much like what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians:

For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles......For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.

(1 Corinthians 1:22-23,25)

Some people simply don’t believe in Jesus enough to believe He can truly work the miracle of the Eucharist.

You might find this interesting:

http://wordonfire.org/WOF-Radio/Sermons/2009/Sermon-447-bread-of-life-18th-sunday-ordinary-time.aspx

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Taking a metaphor used for one thing and applying it to a completely different situation leads to foolishness.”

So don’t do it. I don’t claim Jesus is using a metaphor when He speaks of the Eucharist in John 6. You do. I take Jesus at His word - just as His followers did - and He never tells us to do otherwise.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

No Protestant holds a universal faith - hence the specific use of the word Protestant which denotes the very fact that no Protestant holds to a universal faith.

What? Are you serious with this dribble? Belief in the Trinity, the power of salvation? The Apostle's Creed? Those are universal Christian beliefs. You elevate your dogma to be above the teachings of Christ and in doing so insult Protestants and Orthodox worldwide.

You know that Luther did not protest against the theology espoused in the Nicene or Apostle's Creeds, but against the corruption of the Roman Catholic church. It was a protest against the men - fallible, fallen men. It was not a rejection of the Trinity, of the saving power of Christ, of the teachings of Christ. It was against the earthly powers replacing the role of Christ.

Great "christian" example you set here... Is it your nature to insult fellow believers in Christ and deny them as part of the body of Christ? That Christians cannot hold one another accountable? That all are equal, some are more equal than others?

[PugetSoundSoldier]

No. But this one is known. Do you know of any other way, for instance, of explaining, “What’s eating you?”?

But that is a non-sequitur; it is a completely irrelevant point. There is a saying "you are the wind beneath my wings", does that mean you are an ethereal flow of air? No, it means you hold me up.

Calling you my foundation would be the same thing. You hold me up. But are you then a foundation of air? No, they're usually stone! Huh - two metaphors with the same meaning but completely different imagery!

Explain then, the presence of verses 6:60-63. Why did Jesus add this after some of his disciples grumbled?

I never claimed He used a metaphor. That’s the whole point. Are you even paying attention to what you read or write?

Which means you deny the words of Christ Himself. Explain John 6:60-63. You cannot if you hold to your opinions...

Some people simply don’t believe in Jesus enough to believe He can truly work the miracle of the Eucharist.

So we can DNA test the eucharist and find it as human flesh? Is that your contention?

[PugetSoundSoldier]

No. But this one is known. Do you know of any other way, for instance, of explaining, “What’s eating you?”?

But that is a non-sequitur; it is a completely irrelevant point. There is a saying "you are the wind beneath my wings", does that mean you are an ethereal flow of air? No, it means you hold me up.

Calling you my foundation would be the same thing. You hold me up. But are you then a foundation of air? No, they're usually stone! Huh - two metaphors with the same meaning but completely different imagery!

Explain then, the presence of verses 6:60-63. Why did Jesus add this after some of his disciples grumbled?

I never claimed He used a metaphor. That’s the whole point. Are you even paying attention to what you read or write?

Which means you deny the words of Christ Himself. Explain John 6:60-63. You cannot if you hold to your opinions...

Some people simply don’t believe in Jesus enough to believe He can truly work the miracle of the Eucharist.

So we can DNA test the eucharist and find it as human flesh? Is that your contention?

[Bigg Red]

Very informative. Thanks for the ping — and for all you do.

Ave Maria!

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“What? Are you serious with this dribble? Belief in the Trinity, the power of salvation? The Apostle’s Creed? Those are universal Christian beliefs.”

They are doctrines. They are parts of the faith, not the faith itself. Ask Protestants if sins are washed away in baptism. What kind of answer will you get from most? What you will get, is NOT part of the universal faith. What you will get is simply a product of the 16th century and has nothing to do with orthodox, UNIVERSAL, Christianity. Period.

“You elevate your dogma to be above the teachings of Christ and in doing so insult Protestants and Orthodox worldwide.”

No. First, no insult I could make toward Protestants could be worse than their own sect. Protestants do not deserve to be insulted. Their sect does. I also make no insult toward the Orthodox and they would agree with me in principle about what I am saying. What we would disagree on is exactly who has the Catholic faith.

“You know that Luther did not protest against the theology espoused in the Nicene or Apostle’s Creeds, but against the corruption of the Roman Catholic church.”

No. Luther not only protested against corruption - quite frankly many people in his day did so - he also protested against Christian doctrine. He denied the sacraments, for instance, even though they were undoubtedly part of the ancient, and UNIVERSAL, Christian faith.

“It was a protest against the men - fallible, fallen men.”

No. It was a service to the Devil. Again, many people protested against corruption in Luther’s day. Luther, however, was both a schismatic and heretic. He did not merely protest corruption, but fomented new types of it. He violated his vows, encouraged princes to steal and ruin church property and seize control of diocese, etc.

“It was not a rejection of the Trinity, of the saving power of Christ, of the teachings of Christ.”

It was a rejection of the Church, the sacraments, the scriptures that he didn’t like (Deuterocanonicals, parts of the New Testament, etc.), the power and authority of the pope, purgation, etc.

“It was against the earthly powers replacing the role of Christ.”

No. The Church’s authority in spiritual matters is clearly NOT an earthly power - that is, if you believe Jesus. (Matthew 16:19)

“Great “christian” example you set here... Is it your nature to insult fellow believers in Christ and deny them as part of the body of Christ?”

I have no logical reason to assume a person who adheres to heretical doctrines, and who is a member of a sect, is part of the body of Christ. Is that insulting to you? Some people are hurt when told the truth. Apparently you are. I have no aim of insulting you, but I will not wallow in indifferentism or relativism just to make you feel comfy.

“That Christians cannot hold one another accountable?”

How ironic. You want Christians to hold one another accountable and yet you feel insulted when I tell you the truth? Perhaps you need to think more than feel.

“That all are equal, some are more equal than others?”

I see no reason to believe all people are equal in all things and all ways. Is a pagan the same, truly the same, as a baptized faithful Christian? One is justified before God, the other not. How equal does that sound to you?