It is a pity that Protestants, generally, do not honour Mary as they ought to.  The most obvious reason for this is that they are nervous about honouring her too much (or in inappropriate ways), as the Roman Catholic Church does.

So what should we make of the doctrine of the assumption of Mary?

Some notes from this article, by Andrew Goddard:

The belief that Mary was taken up, body and soul, to be with Christ in heaven, has its roots in legends that began to circulate in the church during the first several centuries of its existence.

According to the  2004 Anglican-Roman Catholic (ARCIC) statement on Mary:

‘Belief in her assumption was grounded in the promise of the resurrection of the dead and the recognition of Mary’s dignity as Theotókos and ‘Ever Virgin’, coupled with the conviction that she who had borne Life should be associated to her Son’s victory over death, and with the glorification of his Body, the Church.’

This belief was widely held, though not officially approved, by the 8th century.

Among the Reformers, Zwingli continued to keep the Feast of the Assumption in Zurich.

The dogma was officially defined by Pope Pius XII, and in 1950 he declared:

‘By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

‘Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.’

Texts cited to support the doctrine are mainly these:

Psalm 132… Its verse 8—“‘Arise, Lord, and come to your resting place, you and the ark of your might”—was often cited in Christian tradition with the ark as a type of Mary in defences of the assumption of Mary to be with her ascended son.

Psalm 45:10–17… This has been read as, in the words of Pius XII in his encyclical pronouncing the dogma, describing Mary “as the Queen entering triumphantly into the royal halls of heaven and sitting at the right hand of the divine Redeemer”.

The Old Testament reading of Isaiah 61.10, 11 also could take on new meanings in the context of belief in the assumption: “I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my whole being shall exult in my God; for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation, he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels”.

Combined with the above texts and figural/typological hermeneutic, the New Testament lesson of Revelation 11.19–12.6, 10 opening with “Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant” would be seen as further confirmation of Mary’s heavenly presence, now alongside “her child…snatched up to God and to his throne”.

Although Song of Solomon 2.1–7… is not as prominent as other texts from the Song in traditional attempts to defend the doctrine from Scripture (the 1950 papal encyclical refers to Song 3.6, 4.8 and 6.9) one can see that the words “Let him lead me to the banquet hall, and let his banner over me be love” could also easily take on new meanings once read with the woman of the Song as a type of Mary if one believes the assumption.

Three areas of objection to this doctrine commonly raised by evangelicals are:

(a) it lacks biblical support (the doctrine cannot be read ‘out of’ the texts cited above; only ‘into’ them;

(b) it is a relatively late development;

(c) it detracts from the doctrine of Christ.

As for the suggestion that Enoch and Elijah provide biblical precedents, they do not represent any general pattern that particularly holy people were taken up, body and soul, into heaven.

Moreover, in the New Testament it is Christ, and not Mary, who is the pioneer of how things will be when the saints are raised at the last day (Rom 8:18-25; 1 Cor 15:5:1-5).

It is true that:

‘Mary’s assumption presupposes a number of things that are indeed a part of our common Christian confession: the reality of heaven; the communion of saints; the overcoming of death; the resurrection of the flesh; the certain triumph of Jesus Christ over sin, hell, and the grave; belief in the literal, visible return of Christ in glory; the goodness of creation; and the unity of soul and body for all eternity.’

But none of this requires belief in the Assumption of Mary.

In conclusion:

‘There is nothing in Scripture to suggest that the pattern and outcome of Mary’s departure from this life was any different from that of any other faithful follower of her son. To claim there is theological rationale for distinguishing her journey from ours is, furthermore, to make a biblically unwarranted distinction which risks detracting from the unique work of the Saviour she bore. It is through Jesus’ full humanity that our human nature has been redeemed and entered into glory and it is Jesus who in his person as truly God and truly human now intercedes for us at the Father’s right hand.’