Defining The Queen Status of Mary
Mother of Jesus Messieh

Copyright 2004 All Rights Reserved
May Not Be Posted On Any Other Web Site Without Permission

By Dr. G. Reckart

Did God prophesy he would come to earth in the seed of David?  Was the seed of David royal in his genealogy down to Mary? Was the virgin birth prophesied? Was Mary the virgin prophesied of the seed of David?  Was she of royal seed?  Was she born a princess of the house of David, and a daughter of Zion? Was the flesh of Jesus the seed of David? Did God give Jesus the flesh of David without Mary? Did Jesus inherit the throne of David through the flesh lineage of his mother?  Why was Mary chosen to be the mother of the Messieh and not just any virgin girl in Israel?  Could God have used any virgin female in Israel to be the mother of Messieh?  Was Mary just an incubator of a Divine seed put into her, and she contributed nothing to the flesh body of Jesus?  Was the flesh of Jesus totally Divine and had no human substance? Was it the predestination purpose of God to give Jesus the throne of David without Mary?  Did God give the throne of David to Jesus without his being of the seed of David according to the flesh through Mary? Did Mary pass on to Jesus through her own flesh the royal seed of David, and thus Jesus was qualified to inheirt the throne of David? Is it true that Jesus could be given the throne of David by God and he had no need to be of the royal seed of David?  And last of all, if Jesus was BORN KING, what does that make his mother?  

Is it a fact that only queens can "birth" a male who is king at birth?  We are not talking of just any king here.  We are talking about Jesus the KING of kings!  Was he born king?  If he was a king by virtue of his birth, what is his mother? It has been my confession and doctrine since at least 1987 (My Christmas study written then), that Mary was the unrecognized queen of Israel in the same manner, Jesus was the unrecognized King!  It has been my doctrine all these years that Revelation 12 is the picture of Mary birthing Jesus, and on her head is the queen's crown of the Kingdom of Israel.  

Some claim the woman in Revelation 12 is the church who birthed Jesus and then Jesus turns and takes the Church as his bride, pure incest for a son to have his own mother.  But yet some insist the woman is the Church.  Some claim the woman is the nation Israel but was it prophesied a married spouse would birth Jesus or a virgin? Did Israel as a nation birth a real human body in Bethlehem? If Israel did birth Jesus through Mary, how, unless Mary represented all Israel some how? Does this theory not prove Mary's royal queenship? A real flesh and blood virgin birthed Jesus, the man child.  I will take this to my grave.  Mary gave birth to the man child, the Son of God, the Messieh, and she was a queen of the seed of David when she did it.  God told Mary he was going to take her royal seed rights and give the throne of David to Jesus.  She did not protest and accepted this divine order.

If Mary would have been recognized as the Queen of Israel as we see in Revelation 12, what would have been her titles?  Why would there be any different royal titles given to a queen of Israel then would have been given to a king?

Her royal titles before espousal to Joseph would have been:  Princess of the royal house of David; Princess of the tribe of Judah; Princess of Jerusalem (the capitol of Judah; David's seed ruled from Jerusalem); and Princess of Israel.  

When her father Heli died, she would have inherited the throne of David and her titles would have been:  Her Majesty Queen of the royal house of David; Her Majesty Queen of the tribe of Judah; Her Majesty Queen of the city of Jerusalem; and Her Majesty Queen of Israel.  

When she was espoused to Joseph and then married her title would have been:  Her Majesty Queen consort of the house of David; Her Majesty Queen consort of the tribe of Judah; Her majesty Queen consort of the city of Jerusalem; and Her Majesty Queen consort of Israel.

These titles are the same ones born by other earthy queens, the only difference is the nation or kingdom of which they are queens.

If there had been a queen of Israel at this time and she was not Mary, this woman would have held all these titles. But because of Catholic hatred, many Protestants deny to Mary what they would give to another woman.  Take for instance the Queen of England.  She is granted these same titles and she is never railed upon or looked upon as a freak or as a woman unworthy of these dignities.  But let these same rules of queenship apply to Mary the mother of Jesus, and some go insane!  Some have said, you are Catholic for saying these things.  They accuse the Catholic teaches these same things about Mary and that makes you a Catholic!  Well!  The Catholics teach Mary was a virgin also, so what am I to do about that, claim she was a whore like the Jews, or claim she was not a virgin?  The Catholics teach Jesus lived, died, and was resurrected, so what am I to do about that, claim I cannot believe or accept it because the papacy believes this? There is a hair-line difference between insanity and genius. Why is it we must deny the truth, because it just so happens the Catholics got something right?  I will not deny Mary, the Lord's mother, her proper titles as a daughter of David and queen of Israel when she birthed Jesus as king? 

When Mary birthed her first child her titles would have been:  Her Majesty Queen mother of the royal house of David; Her Majesty Queen Mother of the tribe of Judah; Her majesty Queen Mother of the city of Jerusalem; and Her Majesty Queen Mother of Israel.  

When Joseph died her titles would be:  Her Majesty Queen dowager (widow) of the house of David; Her Majesty Queen dowager (widow) of the tribe of Judah; Her Majesty Queen dowager (widow) of Jerusalem; and Her Majesty Queen dowager (widow) of Israel.

All of these "WOULD" have been her royal titles as the mother of Messieh of David's seed had she been recognized officially by the nation of Israel.  

Elizabeth honored Mary and gave great respect because the mother of the LORD was in her house.  Elizabeth's statements leave us with the impression how much the mother of Messieh was to be respected and honored. Honor of Mary as Queen mother of Messieh is no more worship or veneration then honor of David or Abraham in the same lineage.  The accusation of "Mary worship" because of this honor shows a person's insanity.

Mary was not recognized by the nation and for that matter, they did not recognize Jesus as the King either!  So, she and her son were deprived of these acclamations.  No one can call Jesus King of the house of David and disconnect this Kingship from his mother in her royal lineage as a birth-queen.  To do so, strips away from Jesus his honor and right to even be called King of Israel.

Jesus could not claim or possess any royal inheritance to the house of David, the tribe of Judah, and the nation of Israel THROUGH THE FLESH, that his mother did not have herself.  Mary gave to Jesus his lineage in the house of David; his lineage in the tribe of Judah; and his own identity as an Israelite.  In Jewish law, Jewishness of a child comes from the mother not the father.

If Jesus was not of the royal house of David according to the flesh, then he was not the Messieh of Israel.

If the flesh of Jesus did not come through the flesh seedline of Mary, then Jesus was not a real man of human flesh.  This is that Docetic doctrine.

The Messieh must come through the physical seedline of David and have the seed of David's flesh in his flesh.

How could Jesus get flesh from Joseph who was not the biological father of his flesh?  

If Jesus obtained the throne of Israel from Joseph, then he is King by adoption and not by royal seedline through the flesh birth.

This would make God a liar in Psalms 132:11.  

Some think that since the Apostles did not use the term "queen" in relationship to Mary, this proves any claim that Jesus was of the seedline of David through Mary is not Apostlic Doctrine.  Queenship need not be directly mentioned as it is not with many wives of the Kings of Israel.  It is understood that a King's wife is a queen.  It doesn't have to be asserted, thought to be, might be, SHE IS!  Genealogy alone speaks to a person's royal status. Genealogy can tell us what a person is.  Even so the Apostle's doctrine shows us by genealogy and by the birth, that Jesus was born a King. This is the testimony of his mother's own royal status.  The testimony is true even if some think it is not true.   

Matthew wrote about the birth of Jesus to start off his Apostolic testimony.  Was Matthew an Apostle?  Was what he wrote the doctrine of Matthew the Apostle? How then is Matthew's Gospel not Apostle's Doctrine? He wrote the things they believed to be true and held by the followers of Christ to be the Tuth. Matthew wrote his Gospel perhaps between 45 and 60AD.  We do not know the exact date but this we do know, whatever date he wrote it the Church believed for doctrine what he wrote or he wrote things the Church did not believe.  I choose to believe he wrote things the Church believed and this makes his Gospel not only Apostle's Doctrine, it makes his Gospel a truthful record of what was believed by the early Apostolic Church.   Matthew wrote his Gospel at least before Luke wrote.  

Now Luke clarifies and positions all of his writings based upon "having had perfect understanding of all things."  He prefaces this statement with these words: "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us."  

Is Luke saying all that he is about to write is or is not things believed by the early Church or is or is not Apostle's Doctrine? Would he dare write something THEY DID NOT BELEIVE?  If they believed them, would these not be true and doctrine? Why would he lie and say "believed among us?" Would he dare believe something not Apostle's Doctine? The word doctrine simply means "teaching(s)."  Did Matthew and Luke write things that were not being taught?  Why then are they in the New Testament if they are not to be believed and taught?

The claim the Apostles never mentioned the royal status of Mary is false.  The claim the Matthew and Luke genealogy of Jesus from his mother Mary as queen is not in the Bible and is not Apostles teaching is false. Her royal status is mentioned exactly in the historical record just where it belongs.  Once Jesus Messieh steps forth all others must decrease in focus and recognition.  This happened in the case of Mary and she is not given any more attention because she played no role in the Kingdom of God other then Queen mother of Jesus. If she was not a Queen mother then he was not born a King-son! There need not be any more written about Mary and her royal lineage.  She need not be called a Queen by the Apostles to be one.  But, Revelation 12 shows to the honest heart what she was and this is in the very REVELATION OF JESUS MESSIEH.  This will stand!  Those who deny it will try to find some other "implied" theory who this woman was in Revelation who gave birth to the man child. What will they say?  They will say their implied theory is true because it can be no other way, it must be, it's that way because I see it that way, it should be, and so forth.  Why fight the obvious truth, Mary birthed the man child.

Although the Scriptures do not say it, many "imply" Mary is a Sister to the other women and men in the Church. In a sense, Mary is our spiritual grandmother and we are her seed by "adoption" into the Kingdom of her son.  If we are in Christ, how are we "not" in the seed of Abraham, the family of Christ, and not spiritually  by adoption related to Mary?  All in Christ are therefore the remnant of her seed in Christ. Some will imply she is a Sister to them by Church membership and salvation, but they refuse to accept the doctrine of the Apostles that Jesus was of the royal house of David through his mother Mary, and this makes Mary a Queen mother.  We are her seed through Jesus her son.  It is impossible to be in Jesus, in his Kingdom, and have no spiritual connection to Mary as the former Queen of Israel. Such claims would rip out our inheritance in the seed of David and the seed of Abraham.

Mary's and our inheritance in the seedline of David and Abraham remains Biblical fact.

Jesus had no flesh except what his mother gave him. This flesh seedline of Jesus came from David or he is not the Messieh of Israel. To say Jesus inherited Kingship through Joseph, his adopted father, is just plain silly. HOw could Jesus be born a king if his father was a living king and would have retained this until HE DIED!  Jesus could not have been born King if Joseph was the unrecognized king and still living. This would teach Jesus was a King by adoption not at BIRTH, BUT AFTER JOSEPH DIED.  Does the Word of God back up this "implied" theory? This would teach Mary was nothing but an incubator of Divine seed, the Divine seed of which didn't even have birthright royalty!  Think of it like this: If David was a king, he could transfer royalty to his offspring at birth. The Kingship of Jesus is the SAME kingship of David. There is no difference in kingship. Same throne, same kingship. How did Jesus inherit this kingship if not by birth through Mary? That issue must be settled. If Mary did not birth a King, then the Bible is a lie.  If Mary was not a Queen she could not "birth" a King.

The problem with so many is they are illerate and have not studied so they fail to grasp simple things. Take Saul. He was not born a king. His mother did not birth a king. He was nothing when he was born into the tribe of Benjamin. He was chosen and appointed to be a king many years AFTER HIS BIRTH. Once he had this title and office he can now be a king father. Any child born to him has royalty by BIRTH. Saul's wife was not born queen. She obtained that title when her husband was crowned. She can be a queen consort (no children by the king); a queen mother (births a child to the king), and a queen dowager (a widow of a king). Saul's wife was all of these. There is a difference in being birthed a king by a queen mother and being birthed by a non-queen and then later ascending to a throne by appointment.  Jesus was not appointed King, he was born King. I am not sure why this is such a hard thing to grasp. It can be denied, but all denials are themselves false. They are not true. I know my stuff here. My wife's grandmother was from England and her surname was Jones. She was a 20X removed or more cousin to the royal house of Jones which blood is now in the present Queen of England. I had lots of talks about the throne of England with her when she was alive. Plus, I do study and generally know my stuff (grin).

Take the current house of Windsor ruling in England. Queen Elizabeth's mother and father were of the royal seed. Her father was Albert Arthur Frederick George. His father was Edward Albert Christian George V. You will remember that George V abdicated the throne to marry Wallis Simpson. The next in line was his brother Albert Arthur Frederick George who became George VI. The same day he was corronated King, his wife Elizabeth Angela Marguerite BOWES-LYON , was corronated queen. She is called the queen consort from 1936-1952 and the queen mother after 1952. Two daughters that day in 1936 were corronated: Elizabeth the current queen and her sister Margaret Rose, who were princesses. When King George VI died (Feb 6. 1952), Queen Elizabeth or queen mother as she was called, stepped aside because she had no royalty to reign. The first born, Elizabeth, ascended the throne on June 2, 1952. This oldest daughter Elizabeth ascended to the throne since they had no sons only two daughters exactly as in the case of Heli in Luke (Mary and her sister Mary who married Cleophas). Elizabeth is the queen now. She was called queen, not by consort but by royal line. She is not queen by marriage, but by royal line. She was not appointed or selected queen, but by royal line. To her flowed the royal line of her father. Therefore, when she birthed Prince Charles, heir apparent, she became queen mother. A queen who has no children is not a queen mother. She is just a queen and if she is not queen by royal birthright, only by marriage, she cannot step to the throne upon the death of her husband king. Mary was queen apparent when her father was still living. When he died she became queen. When she married Joseph she was queen consort. And when she birthed a child she was a queen mother. She is queen mother only over her own children. She is not queen mother over the kingdom or empire although she will be respected by the title of her children by her subjects.

This demonstrates the title of queen, how it is obtained, what it means, how it is understood, and its honor. All kings together with their queens (sovereigns) are to be honored according to the Word of God (1Pet 2:17). One who dishonors a queen and the King finds out about it is sbject to death (Esther 7:8). While modern people seldom know the honor of queens, the English people have great respect for Queen Elizabeth and anyone who says this honor is a form of god-worship is nuts. She is called honorably Her Majesty (HM) Queen Elizabeth with no intent of worship whatsoever. Why is it that any of this showed to Mary the mother of our King must be considered goddess-worship just to show hate for the Catholic Church and her false doctrines?

At issue here is Mary's rightful place in Bible Prophecy and her role in the passage of the throne of David to Jesus. When Heli died, and there were only two daughters in the royal family. As in the case of Victoria who had to step aside in 1952, even so Heli's wife had to step aside and the throne descended to Mary by birthright. She was not appointed or selected. It was a birthright. What makes this so difficult for so many is the fact that Rome had ruled Israel from about 50BC and had already granted kingship over Israel to Herod the great. Anyone who claimed kingship by any method was in danger of death. The killing of the firstborn is not just a fairy tale without significance. Mary was the unrecognized princess queen apparent over Israel when her father Heli died. She was still the unrecognized queen of Israel. This is the whole purpose for the Apostles to place in their doctrine the genealogy of Jesus. Anyone who says the Gospels of Matthew and Luke do not contain Apostles Doctrine is nuts. Herod had all the genealogical scrolls in Jerusalem burned so no one could claim kingship via the Davidic line. In fact, history claims Herod tried to insert himself into the Davidic line by false genealogical tables.  Why would he do this if he did not want to claim kingship by royal seedline?

The place of Mary is distorted obviously by the Catholic Church. Were it not for the worship of Mary no one would object to the obvious truth. Everyone is fighting about Mary worship and none of them have proved Mary DID NOT HAVE a royal right to the throne and to birth a king. NOT ONE OT THEM! They bring up silly questions about Saul and others selected or appointed king all to their own shame of showing ignorance in this and how being born in royal seedline grants inheritance to the throne.  The worship of Mary and Jesus together as mother and child came through adoption of the mother-child image of Simeramis and Tammuz, and the other mother-child idols throughout the world. Alexander Hisplop documents this.

As I said a long time ago. This is not a salvational issue, unless the Davidic kingship of Jesus is denied to come from his mother. If this is denied, then the Biblical Messiehship is immediately recanted, and a person has denied Jesus Messieh has come in the flesh. This is that antichrist. That Jesus got his royal flesh from Mary cannot be denied except upon the penalty of damnation. If a person denies Mary was a queen and refuse to give her that honor but still believe Jesus inherited the throne of David through her flesh, I do not believe they would go to hell. On the other hand, if God shows it to a person and they deny the Truth of it, and then launch personal attacks to destroy like I have experienced the past few years, that person will die lost.

Mary was the unrecognized Queen of Israel when Jesus was born.  That is settled and Revelation 12 gives us all the proof we need that this fact was not only an Apostle's Doctrine, God himself revealed it to be true.

Mary gave up the throne rights "after" Jesus was born when Joseph took her as his wife. When did Joseph take her as his wife and consumate the union? AFTER JESUS WAS BORN! According to Luke they were still espoused when they went to Bethlehem (Luke 2:5).  Matthew says Joseph took her as his wife (Matt 1:24-25) and then shows the moment she did become his wife and that is when he knew her (consumated the marriage). The moment he knew her as his wife and the marriage was consumated she could no longer represent the Davidic Messianic line. There is no husband/wife relationship until the union is consumated and one flesh in the eyes of God is acknowledged. Jesus was born King of Israel before Mary and Joseph had a consumated marriage as husband and wife.  The espousal lasts until the marriage is consumated.

The seedline of Joseph was cursed and when her narriage into that line was consumated she could not bring forth another seed of the true lineage of David. From that time on Jesus was King of Israel, and became head of the Church.  Mary is just a sister in the Church to all saints.  John, who was given custody of her by Jesus at the Cross called her "elect lady" (2John 1:1).  She is not the queen of the Church, she is not the head of the Church, she is not queen of heaven: her son Jesus is the head and King. Mary is to us "like: a spiritual grandmother through her son.  He adopted us and brought us into the family, as his adopted children, and making us heirs with him, and this makes his mother a spiritual grandmother in the same way we have that great legacy of prior great men and women in the genealogy as our spiritual fathers. I know some men will go nuts now, do backflips and go off screaming with chicken little the sky is falling.  Again, this is not a salvational issue unless this makes a person so mad they lose their mind and go to cursing and blaspheming the truth.

I love Mary, she is blessed "above" all women. Mary was the greatest woman who ever lived. She is to be admired by all Apostolic women. She should be an example to all Apostolic women. Yet she is hated more than any other woman who ever lived. When the Jews wrote their Toldoth Jeshu  as the flood out of the devil's mouth and inserted all their lies about her and Jesus, God inspired men to write that we receive no other Gospel.  The Gospel we have received includes Mary's royal status in the seed of David. This is a finished work of God and all railers and blasphemers would do well to repent before they damn their souls.  Why are there railers and blasphemers against Mary's queenship?  It is because they hate her and cover up their hate by pretending they are against the Catholic church. Their who rejection of our Lord's mother is to make a statement against the Catholic church. But true Apostolics will restore the honor and respect God had for the mother of the Messieh.


I indeed love that elect Lady,
Pastor Reckart