I titled this installment “Marian Dogma” because it is directed more at the Roman beliefs, and less at the Eastern and Anglo-Catholic beliefs. The Roman beliefs are far more problematic than the East and Anglo-Catholics. To state my position up front: I find most of the dogmatic beliefs of Mary in the Roman Church to be a distraction at the very least, an error at the most, and at least one to be a serious error and perhaps sinful. In these beliefs there is truth mingled with error and excess, and as seekers of truth we should disentangle these things as best we can. Today, we will briefly touch on the four main Marian Dogmas of the Roman Church.

Mary as the Mother of God, or Theotokos (the God-Bearer)

Mary as perpetually virgin. Semper Virgo.

Mary assumed up to heaven. The Assumption of Mary.

Mary as immaculately conceived. The Immaculate Conception.

Mary as Theotokos is true and I take no issue with it. Mary as perpetually virgin could be true, and I do not believe it is wrong to hold this belief, but it is wrong to require this belief. Mary’s assumption into heaven could be true, and I do not believe it is wrong to hold this belief, but it is wrong to require this belief. And Mary as immaculately conceived is either totally false or most likely false, and is absolutely wrong to require this belief of Christians.

The Theotokos

This phrase was born out of the early Church and her battles for sound Christology. The Council of Ephesus (431 AD) and the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) affirm Mary as the God-Bearer. They did this to make a statement about Jesus’ divinity.

If you talk to Muslims they are repulsed at the idea that our God passed through a woman’s vaginal canal. The idea of God become man is repulsive to various ancient Greek philosophies as well. And so the incarnation is a scandal to many now and it was in the ancient world, too. But Scripture teaches that Jesus is Yahweh God. He is fully God and fully man. Not that he was a man who became a god, like Mormons believe. But that he was the one true God who became man. And so we can say that Mary is the God-bearer. That she is the Theotokos. This title was not a statement about Mary so much as it was a statement about Jesus. I, along with most other Christians, whether they be Protestant, Roman, and Eastern, would all affirm this. No problems here. Jesus is God. Mary was the Mother of Jesus who is God.

Nestorianism was the main Christological heresies of the early Church which emphasized the disunity of Christ’s divine and human nature. Almost as if Jesus was inspired by the Word of God, rather than being the Word of God. That there was the person of Jesus in his humanity and the divine Word which dwelled in him. So, they would not say things like “God suffered” or “God was crucified.” Christians have almost universally rejected this and emphasized what is called the hypostatic union. That Christ’s human and divine natures are united together in one person.

From the Council of Ephesus, the third ecumenical council, Cyril to Nestorius: “This is the account of the true faith everywhere professed. So shall we find that the holy fathers believed. So have they dared to call the holy virgin, mother of God, not as though the nature of the Word or his godhead received the origin of their being from the holy virgin, but because there was born from her his holy body rationally ensouled, with which the Word was hypostatically united and is said to have been begotten in the flesh. These things I write out of love in Christ exhorting you as a brother and calling upon you before Christ and the elect angels, to hold and teach these things with us, in order to preserve the peace of the churches and that the priests of God may remain in an unbroken bond of concord and love.” (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum03.htm)

This was further affirmed later in the Council of Chalcedon in 451, the 4th ecumenical council.

The Christological definitions and clarifications of these councils are sometimes hard to grasp. They appropriate philosophical language to put boundary markers around orthodox interpretation of Scripture. It is a way of preserving the truth of the mystery of the Incarnation rather than explaining it in all its details. Because it is inherently mysterious, it is hard to grasp. But it is true and helpful language, and I am all for the language used in these early years of the Church as ways of expressing and putting boundary markers around the mystery of the God-Man event. Language like the Trinity is not explicitly in the Bible, but it affirms what the Bible teaches. Language like the God-bearer is not explicitly in Scripture, but it affirms what the Bible teaches. Two thumbs up from me, as long as we realize the purpose of the name is a statement about Christ the God-Man.

The only thing I would add to this are some tentative thoughts that I would welcome engagement with. And I offer them as a way of bringing the title Theotokos to its fullest sense. All Christians are God-bearers in a similar way to Mary. We have the Holy Spirit in us. We have God in us. We are temples of the Holy Spirit. So, the honor given to Mary in bearing the Son, can also be given to Christians in bearing the Spirit. Jesus says, “Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:” (John 16:7-8) In some ways, Jesus is affirming another perhaps even greater glory of Himself to us in sending us the Spirit. Jesus says a similar thing to Thomas, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:29) We have not seen, but believe. So, we are blessed like Mary. We have the Spirit in us, like Mary had the Son in her.

Mary’s God-bearing anticipated the God-bearing of all Christians.

Semper Virgo

All Christians affirm that Mary was a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to Christ. But did she remain a virgin her whole life? I think one can go either way on this one. And there’s a lot that could be said about it, as much of it comes from a larger body of typological interpretations involving Mary which we will discuss later. I don’t believe she was perpetually a virgin, but I don’t think it’s wrong to believe she was perpetually virgin either as it has a strong historical pedigree and can reasonably be read in harmony with the Scriptures.

This belief has a long history in the Church, going all the way back to at least Augustine and Jerome as far as I know, and maybe further back. Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, and John Wesley also believed in her perpetual virginity. So, it’s been held and defended by prominent Protestants of every main sub-tradition as well.

The Second Council of Constantinople, the fifth ecumenical council in 553, declared Mary “Ever-Virgin.”

The Lateran Council of 649 condemned anyone who denied her perpetual virginity. This condemnation was reaffirmed by Rome in 1555 and 1603. (Pope Paul IV in the Apostolic Constitution Cum quorumdam (1555), confirmed by Pope Clement VIII in 1603 in the Brief Dominici Gregis). This is where Rome exceeds her limits. While it is possible, we are never explicitly told this in Scripture, though there are all kinds of ways to infer it from Scripture. But to condemn someone for not holding this view is an excess, and I would say uncharitable.

Protestants are quick to remember that the Bible says Jesus had brothers. However, this can be a Hebrew idiom for describing a close relative. Lot is described multiple times as Abraham’s brother (Genesis 13:8; 14:14,16), but in other places he is described as his nephew (Genesis 11:27; 12:5; 14:12). Lot was Abraham’s nephew. He wasn’t his brother. So, it is possible that the brothers of Jesus were possibly cousins or sons from a previous marriage by Joseph, since tradition has it that Joseph was an older man, a widower when he married Mary.

Sometimes Matthew 1:24-25 is used as a proof-text to say that Joseph had sexual intercourse with Mary after the birth of Christ. “When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.” This could definitely mean that Joseph knew Mary sexually after her birth of Jesus. This is what I believe. It is a natural reading of the text. However, it doesn’t necessitate this belief. It can harmonize with her perpetual virginity. Everything hinges on the word “until,” which doesn’t always indicate a terminus.

For example, 1 Corinthians 15:25 describes the reign of Christ: “For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.” This doesn’t mean that Christ stops reigning once he has accomplished victory over all His enemies. In the Great Commission, Jesus ends by saying, “Behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” Most translations usually don’t say “until,” but it is the same greek word, heos, which is used in Matthew 1:25 about Joseph and Mary. This doesn’t mean Jesus is not going to be with us after the end of the age. So, when it says Joseph knew her not until she had given birth, it doesn’t necessarily mean a terminus to his knowing her not.

Lastly, we see that it appears Jesus gives his mother into the care of the disciple whom Jesus loved (who is likely Lazaraus, but traditionally viewed as John) while at the cross.

“Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.” (John 19:25-27)

This is a strange thing to do if Mary had other sons who could have taken care of her. But if she had no other children to care for her, then it makes this passage a bit more intelligible. Perhaps she had other children and they died. Perhaps she had other children and they moved far away. Perhaps she had other children and they became carnal and degenerate and so would not have desired to care for their mother. Or perhaps she simply had no other children. We don’t know, but it is a passage which suggests the possibility of perpetual virginity.

The perpetual virginity of Mary was tenaciously defended by many of the prominent early Church fathers, and this is significant to me. My conclusion is that it is possible, it has a long history, basically as long as the Church has existed, and it can be reasonably harmonized with Scripture. I see no reason to call this an error or for Protestants to dogmatize their position and condemn anyone who disagrees with their beliefs on this issue. The Bible is inconclusive on this point. And we would do well to follow John Calvin’s advice on this when he says, “Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.”

The Assumption of Mary

One of the earliest testimonies about the assumption of Mary comes from St. Epiphanius in the 4th century. He says, “Like the bodies of the saints, however, she has been held in honor for her character and understanding. And if I should say anything more in her praise, she is like Elijah, who was virgin from his mother’s womb, always remained so, and was taken up, but has not seen death.” (Panarion 79) He mentions later that he does not know if she died and was taken up or whether she was taken up while still alive. That she did not see death was his personal opinion. To this day, this is debated, whether she was assumed into heaven after or before she died. But what Epiphanius is relaying is that she was taken up into heaven like Elijah.

In the early middle ages (6th century). Gregory of Tours relays this story to us. “The Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, she rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones.” (Book of Miracles, 1:4).

Besides these examples, there is not much in the early fathers about Mary’s assumption, from what I gather. However, typological examples used by the fathers from the OT have been employed to supplement modern arguments for the doctrine. The Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament contained the Word of God (the two tablets of stone) inside it, along with some of the manna the Israelites received in their wilderness wanderings, and the rod of Aaron. All of these things represent Christ who is the Word of God, who is the heavenly manna, who like Aaron’s rod becomes the serpent who devours all other serpents, who becomes the serpent raised up for our salvation similar to the bronze serpent Moses raises up in the wilderness (Numbers 21). Aaron’s rod symbolizes his high priesthood, and Christ is now our new High Priest of a better order. Now, these typologies can go all over the place. And they are there for us to learn from and we have to be careful and discerning in understanding them. But if these things inside the Ark are types of Christ, which I believe they are, then the Ark itself is fittingly a type of Mary, who carried the Word of God inside of her. Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. The Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament is eventually carried up into Jerusalem and placed in Solomon’s Temple. The Assumption of Mary is the New Covenant version of this. Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant is carried up into the Heavenly Jerusalem. These are some of the Biblical reasons behind this belief.

Another reason. The early church usually kept and reserved relics from saints after they had died. Mostly bones. And with Mary, there are no relics.

Furthermore, in the OT we have examples of other saints being assumed into heaven. Enoch and Elijah were taken up to heaven. And so it is argued that Mary, being a great saint, or the greatest saint that ever lived according to some, would also receive this honor.

Of course, this is not explicitly given in Scripture anywhere, and so it cannot be a necessary belief for Christians. I wouldn’t say it’s wrong to believe it, but it is wrong to dogmatize it like Rome has. I don’t believe she was assumed into heaven, but I’m not going to categorically deny it either. I leave it as a possibility.

John says the world could not contain the amount of books needed to record everything Jesus did. Jesus worked in history, and not everything that He did was recorded in what eventually became canonical Scripture. This, along with a strong nexus of types, patterns, and imagery in all of Scripture certainly gives us the possibility of these things happening. And they may be true, but one cannot make them dogma or curse those who do not hold to them. Anglo-Catholics have a phrase regarding these pious opinions, “All may, none must, some will.” Meaning all may believe them. None must believe them. Some will believe them. I think this is a much more healthy and nuanced approach than the insane statements from Rome and the rabidly hostile positions taken by some Protestants. In short, “all may, none must, some will” is I think the correct position to take on semper virgo and Mary’s assumption.

So, let’s move on to the Papist insanity regarding this doctrine.

In 1950, Pope Pius XII made this opinion dogma in his Encyclical Munificentissimus Deus.

He writes, “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…It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”

This is typical of Rome. This unhinged megalomania which believes they have they power to make these speculations dogma and to call curses on those who disagree with them. This kind of thing is insanity and itself is sinful. You can’t do this. Rome needs to repent of this requirement and adopt the Anglo-Catholic approach of “All may, some will, none must” if we are to be charitable to the whole Church and make any steps toward reunification *and purity* of the body of Christ.

With this doctrine, for me, the issue is not the belief or the teaching. The issue is once again authority. Rome does not have this authority. And any Christian animated by true agape love would never say these kinds of things. It is putrid filth to make these kinds of pronouncements, to curse our brothers in the faith over something so speculative.

The Immaculate Conception

The immaculate conception is often confused with the birth of Christ. But what it means is that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin in her mother’s womb. This is tied up with the Western conception of original sin which has its roots in Augustine. That all who are born from Adam not only share in the consequences of his sin, but also share in his guilt. The Eastern conception generally rejects this, as far as I can tell, and says we only share in the consequences of Adam’s sin, that being death. Of course, it’s way more complicated than all of this, but I’m trying to be brief. For Rome, a problem arises in Jesus inheriting the guilt of Adam’s sin from Mary. And to resolve this apparent problem, they dogmatized the idea that Mary was free from all the effects of original sin from her conception in the womb. I do hold to the Augustinian, and I would argue biblical teaching, of original sin in its Western form, but I reject totally the idea of the immaculate conception of Mary and her sinlessness throughout her life. Though her immaculate conception and her sinlessness are actually two different things, I will be treating them as a singular idea.

The Immaculate Conception was defined by Pope Pius IX on December 8  1854 in his encyclical Ineffabilis Deus.

“Wherefore, in humility and fasting, we unceasingly offered our private prayers as well as the public prayers of the Church to God the Father through his Son, that he would deign to direct and strengthen our mind by the power of the Holy Spirit. In like manner did we implore the help of the entire heavenly host as we ardently invoked the Paraclete. Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: ‘We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.’

Hence, if anyone shall dare — which God forbid! — to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.”

I included the longer preface because it is charismatic in a sense. They are saying that they sought the Holy Spirit through prayers and fasting. And He revealed this doctrine to them and moved them to make this dogmatic announcement. I point this out because I do believe the Holy Spirit does give us guidance and speaks to us now. That he gives us particular direction and leads us into all truth, but not in a way which deviates from the infallible truths found in Scripture. And so I am going on record showing that a charismatic is calling out a form of charismaticism (these dogmatic decrees from Rome) as being in error.

I also include this statement from Rome to show how foolish and vicious Rome is in their teachings. To say that anyone who thinks otherwise on this issue has “sufferred shipwreck in the faith” is wildly uncharitable, false, and sinful. This is in some ways lording it over the flock like the Gentiles. We are given authority to make strong judgments against heretics and the immoral, but this is unnecessary overreach. It reveals deep issues within the Roman leadership and their denomination generally.

So how could Rome believe this? Don’t they know that the Bible says, “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23) And that ““If any man says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him.” (1 John 1:8) They do. And they are quick to point out that “all” doesn’t always mean all. In Romans 3:23 even Protestants agree that all doesn’t include Jesus. So, they include Mary as not actually having committed any sin, but also still needing a savior from sin. And that Christ’s death and resurrection retroactively saved her from the guilt and consequences of sin, and sustained her throughout her life from committing any sins. They point to verses like Jude 24-25: “Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you without blemish before the presence of his glory with rejoicing, to the only God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and for ever.” Jude indicates that Christ is able to keep us from falling (presumably into sin) and to present us without blemish.

A Catholic Answers article says it this way, “Six hundred years ago, the great Franciscan theologian Duns Scotus explained that falling into sin could be likened to a man approaching unaware a deep ditch. If he falls into the ditch, he needs someone to lower a rope and save him. But if someone were to warn him of the danger ahead, preventing the man from falling into the ditch at all, he would be saved from falling in the first place. Likewise, Mary was saved from sin by receiving the grace to be preserved from it. But she was still saved.”

This, in some ways, is similar to the doctrine of perfectionism taught in some areas of the Protestant Methodist tradition. It isn’t the same, but you see a similar strain of thought. The possibility of a Christian successfully avoiding all sin. Rome teaches a similar thing, but brings that avoidance of sin all the way back to the moment of conception.

But the point I am trying to make in attempting to accurately represent this Roman dogmas is to remind Protestants that Rome believes Mary needed to be saved from sin, like all men, and that she never actually committed any sin, and was preserved from all its effects even from the womb.

But even at the time of Pope Pius IX encyclical, there was disagreement among prominent Roman clergy. Philip Schaff notes in his Creeds of Christendom that The Archbishop of Paris, Sibour, warned Pius IX that the Immaculate Conception “could be proved neither from the Scriptures nor from tradition.” There were other bishops who were in a minority who also agreed with Sibour. But, in typical Roman fashion, Sibour eventually went along with it by being present at the declaration and then eventually affirming it in his own diocese. Authority is more important than truth in the Roman construct.

I have seen some Eastern churches say that she was preserved from mortal sins, but not venial sins. I’ve seen others say that she had the ability to sin, but chose not to. So, there are differences even among the One True Church™ of the East. Anglo Catholics do not require belief in the immaculate conception, and from what I can tell reject it. Although, I think some of them hold to Mary’s sinlessness. So, the Anglo-Catholic and Eastern traditions are more reasonable here.

My concern is how these things manifest in reality. And the way they manifest in the Roman Church, I believe, are repugnant and ought to be discarded with enthusiasm. Thrown into the fire. Pope Pius IX saw the evils of modernity and wished to combat it through Mary. This is such a misguided instinct, and I would argue a bad fruit of holding these doctrines so highly. Listen to the way he speaks.

“The foundation of all Our confidence, as you know well, Venerable Brethren, is found in the Blessed Virgin Mary. For, God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.” (Ubi Primum, On the Immaculate Conception, Pope BI. Pius IX – 1849)

What in the world? If you want to successfully combat the evils of modernism, why don’t you try obeying Christ and His Apostles by excommunicating the divorced and remarried? Why don’t you try sending your wicked annulments back to hell? Why don’t you try actually excommunicating homosexual and pederast priests? Why don’t you try excommunicating bishops who are friends with the world and enemies of God? Why don’t you repent of your megalomania and sectarianism? Why don’t you repent of your extra-biblical dogmas and requirements? The lack of wisdom is insane here. The Roman Catholic Church is run by a bunch of ding dongs. I hope Muslims burn the Vatican to the ground, or God burns their wicked hearts to the ground and brings forth fruits worthy of repentance.

And Papists can say all day that they don’t worship Mary, but this kind of repugnant language, enshrined in their Papal encyclicals, highly suggests it. If it walks like duck and all that. Just because you say you aren’t worshiping someone doesn’t mean you are not.

Christ and Mary in Scripture and Tradition

When we examine Scripture, we see that Christ certainly didn’t speak of his mother the way we have seen Papists speak of her. It’s an entirely different tone.

John 2: “On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Now both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. And when they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.” Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.””

Notice Jesus disconnects the concerns of Mary from Himself. “What does your concern have to do with Me?” Whatever was going on here, it seems to indicate Jesus is at odds with his mother. But to her credit, Mary turn around and say, “Whatever He says to you, do it.”

Now, many of the early fathers certainly spoke highly of Mary and affirmed some form of sinlessness in her life, though the idea of her being immaculately conceived seems to be entirely absent. It appears this highly elevated view of Mary, suggesting or explicitly defending her sinlessness, was a majority opinion. But we have fathers who, while honoring her, did not believe she was sinless.

John Chrysostom, an early father of the 4th and 5th centuries, believed Mary was committing the sin of vanity or unbelief here in John 2, the wedding at Cana.

“For she desired both to do them a favor, and through her Son to render herself more conspicuous; perhaps too she had some human feelings, like His brethren, when they said, Show yourself to the world (John 7:4), desiring to gain credit from His miracles. Therefore He answered somewhat vehemently, saying, “Woman, what have I to do with you? My hour is not yet come.“

Chrysostom suggests that perhaps Mary was wanting to make herself great through her son’s miracle – the sin of vanity. And then he connects this with the sins of his brothers in John 7, when they were encouraging him to show himself publicly to the world in Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles.

“After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for He did not want to walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill Him. Now the Jews’ Feast of Tabernacles was at hand. His brothers therefore said to Him, “Depart from here and go into Judea, that Your disciples also may see the works that You are doing. For no one does anything in secret while he himself seeks to be known openly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.” For even His brothers did not believe in Him.”

It isn’t clear what his brothers were doing here, but in their unbelief they were wanting Jesus to publicly manifest his powers. Chrysostom believes Mary was doing something similar, which means Mary had some kind of deficiency in faith.

While Jesus is preaching against the Pharisees and the unbelieving Jews of that generation, this happens:

“While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” (Luke 11:27-28)

This doesn’t mean that the womb wasn’t blessed, but it does show that Jesus prizes obedience to his Word more than veneration of Mary. The priority is in actuality reversed in the Papist teachings and practice. Jesus doesn’t say, “You’re right! She is blessed because she has heard the word of God and observed it perfectly.” No, he is putting the person of his mother in a lesser rank than those who hear and obey the word of God. If Jesus was a Papist he would have responded differently. He would have held his mother up as the perfect example of hearing and obeying, but He didn’t. Papists can try to harmonize this all they want, but I don’t find their attempts convincing.

In the Gospel of Matthew we see that Jesus does a similar thing.

“While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:46-50)

The main thrust of this passage, and the parallel passage in Mark 3, is like so many others in the Bible. It shows us that our true family are those who obey God, rather than our blood relatives. It is significant that Jesus uses his own mother and brothers to make this point. This suggests, though doesn’t absolutely show, that his family were being disobedient in some way at this point. But even if it doesn’t show us this, a Papist would never use Mary in contrast with a true follower of God. Jesus does. Again, I’m sure Papists have some tortured way of attempting to harmonize this with their tradition. I ain’t buying.

In Mark, this event is followed by his own family, or own people, or his friends (the translation isn’t clear) shutting down his ministry because they thought he was insane. “Then he went home, and the crowd gathered again, so that they could not even eat. And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.” (Mark 3:20-21) The text does not tell us Mary was among these people, but she could have been. And in other places Jesus says, ““Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.” (Luke 9:58 and Matthew 8:20) Both of these statements precede statements about leaving blood relatives behind to follow Christ. “Let the dead bury their dead.” If anything, were we to engage in some kind of reading between the lines speculation, it would appear that Jesus had a falling out with his family, including Mary. Wouldn’t he have a place to lay his head at his mother’s home? Surely, pure spotless Mary would always have her home available for her son to lay his head down!

But returning to our passages in Matthew and Mark of Mary interrupting his teachings.

Tertullian says, “He was justly indignant, that persons so very near to Him stood without, while strangers were within hanging on His words, especially as they wanted to call Him away from the solemn work He had in hand. He did not so much deny as disavow them. And therefore, when to the previous question, Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? He added the answer None but they who hear my words and do them, He transferred the names of blood-relationship to others, whom He judged to be more closely related to Him by reason of their faith (Against Marcion, Book 4, Ch. 19).

Chrysostom ties this event to the way Jesus spoke to Mary at Cana, “And therefore He answered thus in this place (at Cana in John 2), and again elsewhere, Who is My mother, and who are My brethren? Matthew 12:48, because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped Him…And so this was a reason why He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, Woman, what have I to do with you? instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much more for the salvation of her soul, and for the doing good to the many, for which He took upon Him the flesh.” (Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 21)

In Luke 2, after Simeon had blessed God, and blessed Joseph and Mary, we read this. “Then Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary His mother, “Behold, this Child is destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign which will be spoken against (yes, a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” (vv.34-35)

Notice, speaking directly to Mary he says that a sword will pierce even Mary’s soul. Hilary of Poitiers (4th century bishop), in his Homily on Psalm 119, connects this passage to Christ’s judgment on all men for their idle words and includes Mary here. He adds, “If that Virgin who bore God is to come into the severity of the judgment will any one dare desire to be judged by God?” He makes reference to the purification undergone by fire in 1 Corinthians 3:12-13, and includes Mary in whatever that judgment is.

Cyril of Alexandria offers speculation about Mary while she was at the cross. He believed she had some insufficient faith in what Christ was doing.

“For, doubtless, some such train of thought as this passed through her mind: ‘I conceived Him That is mocked upon the Cross. He said, indeed, that He was the true Son of Almighty God, but it may be that He was deceived; He may have erred when He said: I am the Life. How did His crucifixion come to pass? And how was He entangled in the snares of His murderers? How was it that He did not prevail over the conspiracy of His persecutors against Him? And why does He not come down from the Cross, though He bade Lazarus return to life, and struck all Judaea with amazement by His miracles?” The woman, as is likely, not exactly understanding the mystery, wandered astray into some such train of thought.” (Commentary on John, Book 12)

Paul says that whatever is not of faith is sin. (Romans 14:23) So, here an early father is speculating that Mary had sinned as late as Christ’s crucifixion.

Lastly, Jesus says, “Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” (Matthew 11:11) John was born after Mary, and so this would have been an opportune moment for Jesus to say that Mary was the greatest of those born of women. But he didn’t. He gives that honor to John. And he is making a wild statement about the kingdom, which I take to mean the new covenant era, and that the least in our era, the era of the kingdom would be even greater than John the Baptist. And so we can take that to mean the least in the kingdom, the least in the Church are greater than Mary. And if this is the case, which it is, then we have real opportunity to show honor, and veneration, and love to those who are even greater than Mary by honoring, venerating, and loving our brothers and sisters, and least of these (which I take to mean ministers, but I suppose you could take it to mean materially poor), who are right in front of us. Who talk back to us, unlike a departed saint in heaven. Who disagree with us, unlike a statue. Who cause us to exercise patience, unlike a painting. Who cause us to be long-suffering. There are living icons of God walking about among us who are placed in front of us for a reason and for our benefit, so that we can serve them, and manifest the kingdom really and truly on earth as it is in heaven. We will get into this more when discussing prayers to the saints.

The Biblical witness of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John sound much different when speaking of Mary than Papists do. Tertullian, Chrysostom, Hilary of Poitiers, and Cyril of Alexandria sound much different, even explicitly contrary to Roman dogma regarding Mary. When considering all of these things, I think it is safer to assume that Mary, while a great saint, and given a great honor, was like us in that she had her doubts, her sins, and she grew in sanctification and understanding just like all of us.

Honoring the Blessed Virgin

Mary says that all generations will call her blessed. And we should. She is blessed. We should honor her. And there are many things in Scripture which can be typologically said of her. That she is the second Eve. That unlike Eve she submitted to God. “Let it be done to me according to your will.” That she is the anti-type of the ark of the covenant. She had the word of God inside of her, the heavenly manna, and the rod of Aaron. The Spirit of God overshadowed the tabernacle, the presence of God was over the Ark of the Covenant, just as the Spirit of God overshadowed Mary. We see the Spirit forming the body of Christ in Mary at the beginning of Luke and then the Spirit forming the body of Christ at the beginning of Acts, where Mary is mentioned as being among the Apostles in the upper room. And in the Apocalypse of John we see there seems to be some blending of the Church and Israel with Mary. That Mary, in some sense, embodies these things. Immediately after John sees the Ark of the Covenant in God’s Temple in Heaven, he sees this Church/Mary figure. “Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth.” I think this is primarily about the Church, or Israel, but the close narratival connection with Mary is, I think, very strong. I think the typological connections here are unmistakable. And if we are to grant this, if Mary is a New Testament type of the Church, which finds its fullest expression in the anti-type of the Christian Church it actually militates against her sinlessness because the Church is sinful and the Church grows in sanctification and faith and knowledge. Which I think was the case with Mary, and is the case with all types in Scripture. Types are flawed. Types are sinful.

It’s understandable that these things have been historically resisted by some Protestants. That typology and multiple senses of Scripture have been avoided, and the rigid, unimaginative, historical-grammatical approach is solely adopted as the only method of reading Scripture. Because typology and symbolism in Scripture has been abused it is thrown out as something bad. But the abuse of a thing does not mean the thing is bad. Typology always comes with an aura of mystery, and so while Rome has sought to bind men’s consciences with things that are inherently mysterious like the person of Mary, Protestants have also bound men’s consciences with other things that are inherently mysterious like the doctrine of predestination. And so we have to hold the things that we know to be clear and true with firmness and to the death and hold things that are mysterious with a loose grip recognizing them as secondary and tertiary doctrines. Doctrines which may be sweet, like the Canons of Dort or the typologies of Mary, must be held loosely and with a posture of charity toward our brothers in the faith who all share in the solid bond of mere Christianity.

And so we can honor Mary, we ought to honor her. We can do so by singing the Magnificat. Her song of praise to the Lord from Luke chapter 1. In the same way we honor Martin Luther by singing A Mighty Fortress is Our God. We are joining them in our praise to God. I think we can make statues and paintings of her, much like we make statues and paintings of men like George Washington or Abraham Lincoln as way of honoring them. Protestants don’t object to the Lincoln Memorial in DC, and I think it’s a Puritanical excess to object to statues of Mary and other saints. But, most other practices of giving honor to Mary through prayer or processions, or bowing to statues, or extra-biblical speculation is rightly avoided by Protestants. I think catholic minded Protestants like Lutherans have a sober view of these things, and we can look to conservative Lutherans as a healthy way of approaching them. Unlike Papists and Eastern Orthodox who seem to be drunk on excessive extra-biblical speculation. I think we can honor Mary in a healthy way.

But as a counter-balance, when we look at the letters of Paul and the other Apostles we don’t see the kind of excessive veneration that Rome and the East give to Mary. It’s simply absent. We don’t see it in Acts either. Mary is in the upper room with the disciples in Acts 1 and then we don’t hear about her again for the rest the New Testament, with the exception of Revelation 12. The letters of Paul and Peter and John do not sound like letters and encyclicals written by Roman Popes and theologians. They aren’t asking Mary to pray for the congregations they are writing to. They are not constantly pairing Mary in the economy of Salvation as a mediatrix. They simply don’t mention her and those letters read much more like Protestant writings, with a laser focus on God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And so when it comes to the ethos of Rome and the ethos of Protestants, I am definitely on the side of Protestants, particularly Lutherans, when it comes to these things. Lutherans have figured this out. Lutherans can lead the way here.