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.

[Mr Rogers]

“...wouldn’t you say she’s worthy of honor, love and respect?”

Works for me.

“Let all, therefore, try to approach with greater trust the throne of grace and mercy of our Queen and Mother, and beg for strength in adversity, light in darkness, consolation in sorrow; above all let them strive to free themselves from the slavery of sin and offer an unceasing homage, filled with filial loyalty, to their Queenly Mother. Let her churches be thronged by the faithful, her feast-days honored; may the beads of the Rosary be in the hands of all; may Christians gather, in small numbers and large, to sing her praises in churches, in homes, in hospitals, in prisons. May Mary’s name be held in highest reverence, a name sweeter than honey and more precious than jewels; may none utter blasphemous words, the sign of a defiled soul, against that name graced with such dignity and revered for its motherly goodness; let no one be so bold as to speak a syllable which lacks the respect due to her name. 49. All, according to their state, should strive to bring alive the wondrous virtues of our heavenly Queen and most loving Mother through constant effort of mind and manner. Thus will it come about that all Christians, in honoring and imitating their sublime Queen and Mother, will realize they are truly brothers...”?

Idolatry. No room for compromise.

[Alex Murphy]

Catholic and Protestant biblical scholars agree that there are NO parables in John. None. Google it.

Which Protestant biblical scholars?

[D-fendr]

Concerning the real presence in the Eucharist: When would you say the Church first started the error; and, when was it corrected?

[Mr Rogers]

“Christ wouldn’t have wanted to lose a soul over a metaphor.”

He did it all the time - that is why he spoke in parables.

Lets look a bit at John...

“18So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” 19Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” 21But he was speaking about the temple of his body. 22When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.” - John 2

They didn’t understand, and he didn’t explain - not even to his closest disciples.

“10Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” 11The woman said to him, “Sir, you have nothing to draw water with, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water? 12 Are you greater than our father Jacob? He gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did his sons and his livestock.” 13Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” - John 4

What was his explanation of living water?

“35He was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. 36But the testimony that I have is greater than that of John.” - John 5

From this we learn that John the Baptist was literally a flashlight. The accident was a man, but the substance was a shining lamp. Literal.

“35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” - John 6

From this we learn that we can cut our food bills, if we only believe. Literally.

“38Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” 39Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” - John 7

Need I go on? John is filled with speech such as this.

[Melian]

Well, I did a Google search for “parables in John 6” and the first page had this site:
http://www.wcg.org/lit/bible/gospels/parable2.htm

The author here has a table listing parables. John is not on the table.

He does however insist John has Jesus using “metaphor”, but not parables.

Shall I keep searching? Keep in mind that was in the first 10 hits on Google. Try it. Bible scholars agree there are no parables in John. Parables contain a “character” or “object” used to make a point in a story. Christ always explained what He really meant at the end of the parable. There are no parables in John. Now, all we can discuss is whether or not Christ is speaking metaphorically. He repeats His message 12 times, and 4 times graphically. In what parable does He repeat the same message over and over? When did He ever speak metaphorically without clarifying for the Apostles what He wanted them to understand?

He would not do that to them. He wanted them to understand completely and He always corrected them when they misunderstood. Christ was speaking literally in John 6. He wanted us to continuously eat His miraculous flesh in order to have life until the end of time. The feast of Passover is a foreshadowing meant to help the Jews recognize the truth of what Christ said here. He told them, “My flesh is REAL food and my blood is REAL drink.” Why on earth would He ever say such a thing-— unless He meant just that? In John 6:56 and John 15:10, we have the ONLY two instances where Christ told us HOW to remain in Him: we must obey the commandments and receive Him frequently in the Eucharist.

Why would Christ say to the grumbling disciples, who had seen him do amazing miracles and were now rocked to the core by this strange teaching, “Does this offend you?”

This is the ONLY time his disciples left because of one of His teachings. Think of what wonders they had seen Him do? Would they now leave Him over a metaphor?

Why does Paul say, “For anyone who eats and drinks without RECOGNIZING the BODY of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself” in 1Cor 11:28? Why would he say that if this is all just a metaphor? Would Paul issue such a serious warning over a mere symbol?

Why are the followers eyes opened after celebrating the Eucharist? Why does Judas rush off to betray Jesus immediately after receiving the first Eucharistic meal? Why is Christ foretold to be a priest according to the style of Melchizedek?

It’s just too many coincidences. Too many threads. I don’t think anyone can say that it’s ridiculous for Catholics to believe this. We have more proof He wasn’t speaking metaphorically than those who say He was. Take an objective look. Investigate why Catholics believe this. It’s not hooey. It’s what Christ said, and meant.

(Sorry about the caps. I’m not shouting. I just don’t know how to underline on FR.) God bless you.

[Mr Rogers]

I don’t know. I’ve had folks kind enough to give me a lot of quotes from various church fathers, but they all look like they are talking about it spiritually, not in a physical sense.

Lest one think the alternative is to think Protestants believe it is just crackers and grape juice (ack!), this is from the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith:

“The outward elements in this ordinance, when correctly set apart for the use ordained by Christ, bear such a strong relation to the Lord crucified, that they are sometimes truly, but figuratively, called by the name of the things they represent, namely, the body and blood of Christ. [1] However, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine as they were before. [2]...Worthy recipients, when outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, [1] also receive them inwardly by faith, truly and in fact, not as flesh and body but spiritually. In so doing they feed upon Christ crucified, and receive all the benefits of his death. [2] The body and blood of Christ are not present physically, but spiritually by the faith of believers in the ordinance, just as the elements themselves are to their outward senses. [3]”

The term transubstantiation, I’ve read, dates to around 1000 AD.

[D-fendr]

You don’t see evidence of belief in real presence in Acts or Paul or he early Church Fathers?

[Melian]

What Bible are you using? Where is verse 61 “Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, ‘Does this offend you?’ “

You’ve got to read the original Greek to be fair, Mr. Rogers. Why on Earth would Christ say that unless He meant, “Gee, does the literal meaning of these words about eating human flesh offend you? Oh, it does? Okay. Buh-bye. And how about you, my Apostles, do my strange words offend you or will you make that leap of faith I am asking of you?”

Jesus says the words he has just spoken are spirit and life: meaning the words about gnawing his flesh continuously in a miraculous way.

[Alex Murphy]

The problem with your responses, Melian, is twofold. First, you're already retreating from the grand statement that "....Protestant biblical scholars agree that there are NO parables in John." You're down to offering a single scholar as evidence now (and admitting that this one scholar acknowledges the use of metaphor). But more importantly, the first half of that statement - Protestant biblical scholars agree - directly contradicts your prior assertion made on August 22, in which you wrote "There are well over 20,000 Protestant denominations. Where is the unity there?...The essential nature of Protestantism is to attempt to bring renewal through division and fragmentation (protest)."

How is it possible for Protestant biblical scholars to agree that there are NO parables in John, when there is no unity among 20,000+ Protestant denominations?

[Also pinging wagglebee because I see that he injected the "no parables" argument first, only he didn't make it as grand a statement.]

[Melian]

Oh, and I forgot to mention this: I believe Christ said these things while in the synagogue! Would he ever say anything untrue or unclear while in a place He considered so holy and important?

John 6 is the longest teaching recorded in the Gospels. This was to emphasize its importance in relationship to all the other teachings. These things don’t happen by chance with the Holy Spirit.

How can your heart not sing with the wonder and majesty of the way everything hangs together in this teaching? The words are so simple, so fraught with prophesy, so compelling— so like Christ himself. Does that not resonate?

He showed them. He told them. He let them walk away. He turned, sadly, to His apostles and asked if they would believe him the way He was asking them to believe. All but one said yes... and everything they ever did or wrote supports that they believed.

Etchings in the catacombs showed the very earliest Christians believed and practiced the Eucharist. All the early Church writings support it. Old Testament prophesy and history supports it. Exodus 12 decrees on the night of Passover that a spotless lamb must be slain- but not just slain- EATEN. Christ must not just be slain in sacrifice for us; He must be EATEN.

It is gorgeous.

[Melian]

No, I said I Googled it and only bothered to see that a Protestant bible scholar who believes this showed up in the first ten hits on Google. I didn’t search further. Google it yourself and see how many you can find.

Maybe it’s possible for Protestant scholars to agree there are no parables in John’s Gospels because it’s true— and so obvious that they feel they might as well admit it. Jesus is not using a parable in John 6 to teach.

When wagglebee mentioned that today to me, it hit me like a ton of bricks. I’d never noticed that before! I went and looked at John and it’s true! It was very exciting for me. Googling it and seeing how easy it was to find a Protestant scholar who agreed was an eye-opener. I guess that’s what led me to make a grand statement. It’s such a beautiful fact for me.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply. It seems the 17th century Baptists were trying at least. :)

In your view, were Christians were making the error as early as St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians:

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

[wagglebee]

My original statement was somewhat broad because obviously none of us have read the conclusions of all Biblical scholars. However, it has long been my understanding, and I have seen it in works of both Catholic and Protestant scholars, that there are no parables in the Gospel of St. John.

Nevertheless, if you are aware of any scholarly works that suggest that there are parables in John, I would certainly be interested in reading them.

[Quester]

Oh, and I forgot to mention this: I believe Christ said these things while in the synagogue! Would he ever say anything untrue or unclear while in a place He considered so holy and important?

The teaching from John 6 was done on the other side of the mountain ... (from where He had fed the 5,000).

And it may be true (I've never checked) that no parable of Jesus is recorded in St. John, ... but there is substantial allegory taught there ...

"I am the Light of the world."

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

"I am the Gate to the sheepfold."

"I am the Vine, ye are the branches."

[Melian]

Thank you for clarifying that point for me. I appreciate it.

[Mr Rogers]

" In your view, were Christians were making the error as early as St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians:

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."

No.

Having heard sermons on this passage many times over the last 35 years, perhaps the easiest way is to quote a sermon. This is from John MacArthur, whose sermons are available online in transcript form. If I wanted to do the same from the church I attend, I'd need to remember the name of the sermon and give you a link to a 7MB file to listen to...

"...Let's see number three, the preparation for the Lord's supper. And we'll look quickly at this. The preparation for the Lord's supper, verse 27, "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord anaxios or unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." He says, "Look, it's serious, it's important. If you treat this uncommon thing commonly, you become liable, that's the word guilty, for the body and blood of the Lord." If you come to this table wrongly, you're guilty of it.

What do you mean unworthily, John? Well, I'll tell how you can come unworthily. The Corinthians did it. You can come...here's...here's the way you can treat the table of the Lord unworthily. Number one, by ignoring it rather than obeying it, by just not doing it. You're saying it's irrelevant, it doesn't matter, it's unimportant. Is that right? No, it's wrong. That's unworthy of you and unworthy of Him. Second, you can treat the table unworthily by making it a performance rather than something meaningful, by just doing it rather than understanding it.

I'll tell you another way you can pervert the table and come unworthily is by making it into a saving thing rather than a communing thing...by thinking that it saves you to do it rather than understanding that it only causes you to make a fresh commitment and a fresh communion with Christ.

Another way that you can come unworthily is by treating it as a ceremony rather than as a personal experience. And another way you that you can come unworthily is by treating it lightly rather than treating it seriously. If you come to this table with any bitterness toward another Christian in any way, shape or form, with any unconfessed sin, living in any kind of sin that you will not repent of and turn from, if you come with any less than the loftiest thought about God, Christ and the Holy Spirit and the Word of God, if you come with anything less than total love for the brothers and sisters in the body of Christ, you come to this table unworthily.

And you say, "What's the result?" Look, you are liable for the body and blood of the Lord. You say, "John, what do you mean I'm liable for the body and blood of the Lord?" You contact guilt in reference to Christ. You literally are treating Him in an unworthy manner and you become guilty of that kind of ill treatment. You are treating the totality of Christ's life and death unworthily and you'll get guilt from that. In other words, God says you're guilty of that. You become culpable, liable, guilty. For example, a man who tramples the flag doesn't just trample the flag, he insults his country. He becomes guilty of dishonoring a nation. And somebody who tramples with the feet of indifference or sinfulness, the body and blood as represented in the elements of communion, is guilty of dishonoring, mocking, treating with indifference and hypocrisy the very person of Jesus Christ. How you treat this table, beloved, is how you are treating Jesus. That's what he's saying.

And that tells me that it's a very real encounter with Christ here. In fact, it's so real that failure to acknowledge the reality and seriousness of it brings about judgment...."

From "The Celebration of the Lord's Supper Part 2" available here:

http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/1847

[D-fendr]

Thank you. But I was referring to “not discerning the Lord’s body.”

[Mr Rogers]

From the excerpt:

“For example, a man who tramples the flag doesn’t just trample the flag, he insults his country. He becomes guilty of dishonoring a nation. And somebody who tramples with the feet of indifference or sinfulness, the body and blood as represented in the elements of communion, is guilty of dishonoring, mocking, treating with indifference and hypocrisy the very person of Jesus Christ. How you treat this table, beloved, is how you are treating Jesus. That’s what he’s saying.”

There is no reason to say it is physical. Does the cup become, physically, “the New Covenant”?

“20And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”

[D-fendr]

I see dishonoring, indifference, sinfulness... but I don’t see any reference to “not discerning the body” here. What would Paul’s “not discerning the body” mean in your view?

[Mr Rogers]

“But I was referring to “not discerning the Lord’s body.””

Why do you assume this must mean the Lord’s Physical Body? Why would this earlier quote “For example, a man who tramples the flag doesn’t just trample the flag, he insults his country. He becomes guilty of dishonoring a nation. And somebody who tramples with the feet of indifference or sinfulness, the body and blood as represented in the elements of communion, is guilty of dishonoring, mocking, treating with indifference and hypocrisy the very person of Jesus Christ. How you treat this table, beloved, is how you are treating Jesus. That’s what he’s saying.” not apply?