Controversy is a term well-known to the Church. Whether it be over sacraments, bureaucracy, or pagan misconceptions of Christ, tensions have often been hard-strung. Given that the Church consists of humans influenced by a plethora of sources other than God, it would be a fool's gambit to believe that unity would be effortless.1 And this disjoint of unity is not a post-antiquity invention. In fact, it can be seen in the Bible with two of the most prominent Apostles.2 Furthermore, the Church even held a council in Jerusalem to settle the dispute about the need for circumcising Gentiles.3 It should not be surprising then if the further in time we go from Christ's sacrifice, the more fractured we become with different traditions formulating different spiritual conceptions that when pitted against each other act as a divisive wall. Beliefs about the Eucharist, Baptism, and Scripture all serve as good examples. However, of all the controversies, by far, none have been so splitting as the Marian controversy. If a party of non-Roman Catholics and Roman Catholics are in a room, discussions can be peaceful until the topic of Mary is considered. At that point, both sides are thrown into a venomous craze. Tempers fly, insults are hurled, and the devil has won. This article will be the first in a series of articles that discuss the Marian controversy from multiple angles and will examine the biblical cases made for and against Mariology.
The Marian controversy centers around Jesus' mother and comes about over disagreements concerning various dogmas, beliefs, and practices involved with her. In short, the entire controversy can be summed up as a difference in opinion about how intertwined our lives as Christians should be with Mary. Roman Catholics believe that Mary is heavily involved in our lives, and non-Roman Catholics dissent from this opinion. But really, the disagreement goes much deeper than that as shall be explained in depth.
To start, the Bible is sparse in its inclusion of Mary. In total, approximately less than 180 words are spoken by or about Mary. Compare this with the thousands of words related to Paul and especially Jesus, and the difference becomes pronounced. However, just because the number of words is small, this does not take away from any importance Mary has. It simply means that the amount of direct biblical consideration of Mary is limited. That being said, the best place to start is at the point where Mary is first mentioned.
Of the gospels, only two include the nativity: Matthew and Luke. Matthew's version of the nativity is rather simplified offering only an outline of the events that transpired. Luke's account on the other hand is considerably more involved as it includes many of the conversations with Mary. It is Luke's account where we shall begin.
Much disagreement has ensued over the greeting the angel Gabriel gave when he appeared to Mary. Depending on the translation, Gabriel remarked, "Hail Mary, full of grace! The Lord is with you.”4 Roman Catholics focus on the use of "full of grace" to support the dogma that Mary was sinless.
"... God is free to give his grace to whomever he chooses. He knew from all eternity that Mary would say yes to being the mother of his Son, so when she was conceived God gave Mary an abundant gift of grace. In Luke 1:28...[t]he Greek word that is translated 'full of grace' refers to having grace as an enduring, complete quality of a person."5
The Greek word translated as "full of grace" in this verse is kecharitomene, and Roman Catholics take this word to mean that Mary was held from any type of sin, mostly on the basis that this verse is the only one to use this unique Greek word. However, Roman Catholics admit that this word does not directly translate to "full of grace," and that the translation of this verse is, to a certain extent, ambiguous.
"[T]ranslation is more art than science... 'Full of grace' is literally 'pleres charitos,' and that wording is used in reference to Jesus... and to St. Stephen... In Luke 1:28, the word that the angel uses is kecharitomene. So it’s not literally 'full of grace,' but its root word is the Greek verb 'to give grace' (charitoo)... It is thus difficult to translate because it is a unique use of the word. It has been translated by various scholars as 'full of grace', 'graced one,' 'one who has been made graced,' 'highly graced,' and 'highly favored.' In the last instance the translator is using the concept that to be graced by God is to find favor with God. It would appear that any translation should use the word 'grace,' because that is the root word... Because of the familiarity people have with the Hail Mary prayer and the connotation that Protestant translators use 'highly favored' to deny Catholic dogmas, the Lectionary for use at Mass still uses the phrase 'Hail, full of grace!' But neither is technically an incorrect translation."6
Non-Roman Catholic opinion holds that the word kecharitomene should be translated as "highly favored" as can be seen in a wide range of Bible translations. Furthermore, there are also questions about how this word came to mean "full of grace" if the Greek does not directly entail that. It would seem that the Latin Vulgate (the Latin translation of the Bible provided by Jerome) is the original source for this phrasing7,8, which is to some degree problematic. This is because this translation has been proven to contain an error that has influenced Mariology over the years. In Genesis 3:15, Jerome incorrectly translated the verse to read "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and your seed, and her seed, and she shall bruise your head, and you shall strike her heel.”10 The problem with this translation is that original Hebrew manuscripts show the use of masculine pronouns, not feminine. This has caused many in Roman Catholic leadership to make incorrect statements concerning Mary using this verse.
"The Fathers and ecclesiastical writers, enlightened by instruction from on high, taught that the divine prophecy: I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed, clearly and plainly foretold how there was to be a merciful Redeemer for mankind, namely, the only-begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ. They also taught how the prophecy pointed to His Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, and how it clearly expressed at the same time their common enmity toward the devil. Just as Christ, the Mediator between God and men, by taking our nature, cancelled the decree of condemnation against us, triumphantly nailing it to the Cross, so too the most holy Virgin, intimately and indissolubly united to Christ, became with Him the everlasting enemy of the venomous serpent, and thus shared with her Son His victory over the serpent, crushing as she did the serpent’s head with her virginal foot.”10
Because of this, it is quite possible that Jerome's translation of kecharitomene as "full of grace" is biased and should be reconsidered. Lastly, even if Luke 1:28 does entail "full of grace," it does not clarify the extent of this grace and does not expressly show that Mary was free from any sin, especially original sin. All it directly shows is that Mary was "highly graced" or "highly favored" by God, which is something that cannot with be argued as Mary was chosen by God to deliver His only Son into the world. However, God's choice to use Mary in an important way does not signify her perfection.
The next two passages to discuss go hand-in-hand with the Roman Catholic perception of Mary as the mother of the Church. To Roman Catholics, the first passage, the wedding feast at Cana in John 2, demonstrates Mary's ability as an intercessor for the Church with Christ. Her intervention at Cana followed by Jesus' compliance with her request exemplifies her role as mother.
"Had the Blessed Mother not intervened, it’s possible that her divine Son Jesus would’ve have intervened directly and had the wine miraculously replaced... As it is, Mary did intervene, as both Jesus’ Mother and most faithful disciple, giving us words of wisdom that ring down the corridors of salvation history: 'Do whatever he tells you'...."11
Moreover, this passage was also famously used by Pope John Paul II in his Redemptoris Mater to argue for Mary's intercession with the Church.
"At Cana in Galilee there is shown only one concrete aspect of human need, apparently a small one of little importance ('They have no wine'). But it has a symbolic value: this coming to the aid of human needs means, at the same time, bringing those needs within the radius of Christ's messianic mission and salvific power. Thus there is a mediation: Mary places herself between her Son and mankind in the reality of their wants, needs and sufferings. She puts herself 'in the middle,' that is to say she acts as a mediatrix not as an outsider, but in her position as mother. She knows that as such she can point out to her Son the needs of mankind, and in fact, she 'has the right' to do so. Her mediation is thus in the nature of intercession: Mary "intercedes" for mankind."12
Thus, Mary in expressing the need for wine at the banquet exhibits her role as intercessor for the Church. This means that for the Church when we have needs, we can ask Mary for her intercession with Jesus, and due to His obligation to His mother, Jesus will answer our prayers. Additionally, the second passage, which concerns Jesus' statement to His mother and John on the cross, to Roman Catholics, confirms Mary's role as mother of the Church. When Jesus said to Mary, "Woman here is your son" and to John, "Here is your mother," He assigned the role of spiritual mother of the Church to Mary.
"... Jesus puts his mother in the care of his apostle John. And even though John is not a son of Mary, Jesus refers to John as her son and Mary as John’s mother. Mary is thus seen as the spiritual mother of all disciples.”13
Interestingly, Gregory the Great (II) saw these two passages from a completely different point of view. To Gregory, these two passages show Jesus' acknowledgment of His nature.
"... at the marriage, when the Virgin Mother said that wine was wanting, He replied, 'Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come.' For it was not that the Lord of the angels was subject to the hour, having, among all things which He had created, made hours and times; but, because the Virgin Mother, when wine was wanting, wished a miracle to be done by Him, it was at once answered her, 'Woman, what have I to do with thee?' As if to say plainly, That I can do a miracle comes to me of my Father, not of my Mother. For He who of the nature of His Father did miracles had it of His mother that He could die. Whence also, when He was on the cross, in dying He acknowledged His mother, whom He commended to the disciple, saying, 'Behold thy mother.' He says, then, 'Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come.'—That is, 'In the miracle, which I have not of thy nature, I do not acknowledge thee. When the hour of death shall come, I shall acknowledge thee as my mother, since I have it of thee that I can die.”14
Gregory believed that Jesus' response to Mary at Cana shows His acknowledgment that His ability to perform miracles came from the nature of His Father and not of His mother. Moreover, Jesus' recognition of Mary while on the cross shows his acknowledgment that His ability to die came from the nature of His mother and not of His Father. This perception opens up a serious conversation about the nature Christ inherited from His mother. It is well known that death is the ultimate consequence of sin. Therefore, it seems plausible that Jesus' ability to die comes about from His mother's sinful nature. Of course, this does not entail that Christ had a sinful nature, only that He inherited the consequence of His mother.
Likewise, the opinion of John Chrysostom on the wedding feast has been used by many non-Roman Catholics to demonstrate the early Church's denial that Mary had any special intercessory role with Christ.
"Now Christ was not subject to the necessity of seasons, but rather settled their order, since He is their Creator; and therefore He saith in this place, 'Mine hour is not yet come.' And His meaning is, that as yet He was not manifest to the many, nor had He even His whole company of disciples; Andrew followed Him, and next to him Philip, but no one else. And moreover, none of these, not even His mother nor His brethren, knew Him as they ought; for after His many miracles, the Evangelist says of His brethren, 'For neither did His brethren believe in Him.' And those at the wedding did not know Him either, for in their need they would certainly have come to and entreated Him. Therefore He saith, 'Mine hour is not yet come'; that is, 'I am not yet known to the company, nor are they even aware that the wine has failed; let them first be sensible of this. I ought not to have been told it from thee; thou art My mother, and renderest the miracle suspicious. They who wanted the wine should have come and besought Me, not that I need this, but that they might with an entire assent accept the miracle. For one who knows that he is in need, is very grateful when he obtains assistance; but one who has not a sense of his need, will never have a plain and clear sense of the benefit.”15
Chrysostom believed that it was unduly of Mary to go to Christ in place of the partygoers. To Chrysostom, Christ was desiring that all who should need help come to Him directly and not through a surrogate. Furthermore, Chrysostom also expressed that Mary did not know Christ as she ought to have, including her among His brothers lacking in faith in John 7. Therefore, from a non-Roman Catholic perspective, the words of Jesus at Cana were a rebuke of His mother for her haste, which means that the events of Cana highlight Mary's impatient intercession as wrong.
Non-Roman Catholics also see the scene at the cross as lacking any direct evidence of Mary's prescription as the mother of the Church. Typically, non-Roman Catholics are quick to point out that John was never considered to be a representative of the entire Church. Even in Roman Catholic opinion, Peter is considered to be the leader and representative of the Church, not John. If Jesus had spoken these words to Peter or Paul or even James, then there would be some plausibility for prescription, but as it were, Christ spoke these words to John. Because of this, Jesus was merely trying to make sure His mother was taken care of after His death.
Now, as mentioned, the passages discussed thus far are used by Roman Catholics to argue for Mary's sinlessness and her role as mother of the Church. However, other Marian beliefs have no evidence at all in the Bible, and Roman Catholics concede this fact. For instance, Roman Catholics believe that Mary's body was assumed into heaven either after or before she tasted death (more on this in articles to come). Yet no scripture remotely hints at this. The only passage to mention the last days of Mary comes from John 19:27, where John says, "And from that hour the disciple took her into his home." All that can be drawn from this verse is that Mary lived the rest of her life under the care of John.
The other main Marian dogma, the perpetual virginity of Mary, likewise is lacking in biblical support. In fact, certain verses in the New Testament seem to call this opinion into question. There are a multitude of verses in the Gospels that refer to the "brothers" of Christ. Non-Roman Catholics believe that these "brothers" are the legitimate half-brothers of Christ and are a product of the marriage between Mary and Joseph. Roman Catholics, however, contest this opinion and believe that the Greek word "adelphos" is better translated as "cousins." To a certain extent, there have been good arguments made on either side of the "adelphos" argument.
At the end of Mark 3, Jesus engages in a brief verbal exchange with a crowd.
"A crowd was sitting around him and told him, 'Look, your mother, your brothers, and your sisters are outside asking for you.' He replied to them, 'Who are my mother and my brothers?' Looking at those sitting in a circle around him, he said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother"16
This exchange is important because adelphos (or its plural form) is used at every point to describe the word "brother." This acknowledgment is important because Christ's use of the word is intended to demonstrate that those who believe in Him are His true brothers. If Christ had intended this word to be taken as "cousin," then the verse would take an unjustifiable turn as those with faith in Christ are no longer heirs to the kingdom of God, for how could God be our Father when Christ is our cousin? Similarly, it would be entirely confusing for Mark to intend adelphos to mean "cousin" when the crowd speaks and "brother" when Christ speaks a couple of verses later. Interestingly, Roman Catholic Bibles do translate adelphos here to mean brother. However, usually, they provide a simple commentary as follows:
"[T]he terms 'brother,' 'sister' are applied not only to children of the same parents, but to nephews, nieces, cousins, half-brothers, and half-sisters... While one cannot suppose that the meaning of a Greek word should be sought in the first place from Semitic usage, the Septuagint often translates the Hebrew word 'ah' by the Greek word adelphos, 'brother,'... a fact that may argue for a similar breadth of meaning in some New Testament passages. For instance, there is no doubt that in v. 17, 'brother' is used of Philip, who was actually the half-brother of Herod Antipas. On the other hand, Mark may have understood the terms literally... The question of meaning here would not have arisen but for the faith of the church in Mary's perpetual virginity.”17
There are two main issues with this opinion. First, there is a distinct word for cousin present in Greek. That word is "anepsios" and is used in Colossians 4:10 to refer to "Barnabas' cousin ["anepsios"] Mark." Therefore, with an entirely different word accessible to Mark, why would he not opt for the proper association? Second, notice that the commentary explicitly states that the translation of the word would not have been called into question if it were not "for the faith of the church in Mary's perpetual virginity." This is an example of improper biblical exegesis. Scholars have long demonstrated that the critical explanation of Scripture should inform our traditions and beliefs, not the other way around. Our personal beliefs should not lead to a questioning of Scripture but rather it is Scripture that should lead us to question our beliefs and bias.
On the contrary, Roman Catholics make an interesting case for the "cousin" translation using Jesus' assignment of Mary to John's care. Essentially, if Mary did have other children that were her own, why then did Jesus assign John to take care of Mary? According to Old Testament tradition, it would be the responsibility of these other brothers to care for her. Non-Roman Catholic rebuttals typically refer to Christ's brothers' lack of faith and presence at the cross as reasoning for Christ's designation of Mary to John.
"Though she had other sons, Jesus chose John to provide care for Mary after His death. Why? Jesus’ brothers did not become believers until after His resurrection (John 7:5). Further, Jesus’ brothers were not present at His crucifixion. Jesus was entrusting Mary to John, who was a believer and was present, rather than entrusting her to His brothers, who were not believers and who were not even present at His crucifixion.”18
In any case, the debate over Jesus' brothers is either definitive proof of Mary's lack of perpetual virginity or is simply indifferent to the matter. After all, just because Mary may not have had other children does not imply that she did not have sexual relations with Joseph. Other verses such as Matthew 1:24-25 suggest that Joseph did (or as Roman Catholics argue was allowed to) have sexual relations with Mary after Jesus was born. Furthermore, it is entirely plausible that 1st Corinthians 7:5 indicates a contradiction between Marian dogmas.
Paul writes,
"Do not deprive one another—except when you agree for a time, to devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again; otherwise, Satan may tempt you because of your lack of self-control"19
Should Mary have deprived Joseph of sexual relations for at least 12 years20, it seems she could have been sinning in the process. Granted this is said by Paul to be a "concession" and not a "command," it is entirely possible that for Mary's perpetual virginity to be true her perfection could not.
Now, this article has nearly exhausted each distinct reference to Mary, barring Jesus' time at the temple when He was 12 years old. One of the remaining references to Mary is problematic for those who argue for Mary's sinlessness. Mark 3 is not just a good example of the word adelphos being used; it may show that Mary sinned.
Near the beginning of Mark 3, we read,
"Jesus entered a house, and the crowd gathered again so that they were not even able to eat. When his family heard this, they set out to restrain him, because they said, 'He’s out of his mind.”21
When Jesus' family became aware of what was happening, they thought that Jesus was out of his mind and proceeded to travel to Him in order to restrain Him (i.e., stop His ministry). But, who is considered within the word "family?" Unfortunately, an intra-chapter division causes this to be overlooked. However, near the end of the passage we read,
"His mother and his brothers came, and standing outside, they sent word to him and called him.”22
Jesus' mother was included in the people coming to restrain Jesus. Thus, Mary's inclusion means that she might have been amongst Jesus' family that did not believe. However, in fairness, there are certain technical reasons why this is unclear.
"In [the] field of NT text linguistics, the analysis of participant reference in narrative discourse has identified certain patterns of identifying new participants in contrast to participants who are already “active.” The default sequence is a full noun phrase e.g “Mary the Mother of Jesus” for introducing Mary as a new participant. Once Mary is active in the narrative she can be identified with what is called “reduced encoding” which means something like a feminine singular pronoun “She” or the person and number inflexion on a finite verb where Mary is the subject. This sequence of participant reference[s] is actually quite complex. The author may choose to use an elaborate full noun phrase “Mary the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ” when Mary is already an active participant. But the general pattern is from full noun phrase to reduced forms of reference. What is not common is the opposite sequence, where a vaguely encoded reference to “new” participants like we find in Mark 3:21 οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ “his people/friends” [1] is followed by a more explicit “His mother and His brothers.” Saying it isn’t common doesn’t imply that it is impossible. All it means is that it isn’t what we would expect. Unless it can be demonstrated that οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ in Mark 3:21 has a unique unambiguous referent, e.g. Jesus’ Family, we end up with an expression which raises the question “who” in Mark 3:21, leading to scribal and translation attempts to alleviate the problem[1] and causing many readers to doubt that “his people/friends” in Mark 3:21 is explicitly referring to “His mother and His brothers” in Mark 3:31.”23
Essentially, it is rather unusual for a New Testament author to go from using vague terminology to specific as seen in Mark 3. Because of this, the dispute over this passage boils down to a translation issue. If the translation from Greek truly means "family," as in the Christian Standard Bible, then it seems more than likely that Mary is amongst them. However, if it is the case that the passage should be translated as "his relatives," as in the Roman Catholic New American Bible, then the passage is more ambiguous.
Roman Catholics, however, have argued against this passage in a strange way. Because other translations are vaguer in verse 21, the verse could take an entirely different meaning.
"The Gospel of Mark says that, during Our Lord’s public ministry, some ‘people’ accused him of being ‘beside himself.’
Mark 3:21 (RSV) And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, ‘He is beside himself.’ (Other translations with ‘people’ include NRSV, NEB, Phillips, Moffatt, TEV)
Mark 3:31 And his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside they sent to him and called him.
Note the italicized word ‘people’ above. This is key to understanding this incident. There is dispute even about who was making this claim of Jesus’ supposed craziness or mental instability: Was it his relatives or the scribes, whose opinion of Jesus was reported in the next verse?
Mark 3:22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, ‘He is possessed by Beelzebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.’ (cf. John 10:20-21)
Context highly suggests, in my opinion, that ‘people’ (or ‘they’) in Mark 3:21 is indeed specifically referring to the scribes, since we know that they thought he was demon-possessed. They alone are described as having this utterly hostile view, not the masses, who, except in Nazareth (Matthew 13:57), and Chorazin and Bethsaida (Matthew 11:21), generally were open to Jesus and his message.
In this understanding, the text is simply construed as his family coming out to remove him from hostile enemies, who were massively misunderstanding him, accusing, and perhaps becoming violent (as at Nazareth, when his critics tried to throw him over a cliff). Hence, there would be no necessary implication (in this particular passage and incident) of his family’s (let alone Mary’s) disbelief in him. They were concerned for his safety.”24
This opinion, however, fails to take into account the order of verses and suffers from the same problem from which the non-Roman Catholic argument suffers. The argument made, again, is suggesting that Mark went from using vague terminology to specific, which is uncharacteristic of the New Testament. Furthermore, the Scribes are not introduced until the following verse, so it is improper to associate subjects backward to previous pronouns. More than anything the passage of Mark 3 calls into doubt any perfection associated with Mary. While the passage is not absolute, it places the belief in perfection on rocky ground.
This last section will be used to highlight a few different biblical passages that call much of Mariology into question. This section will not go as deep as above and will be presented in a rapid-fire procession.
1. Jesus directly confronts Marian veneration
In Luke 11, Jesus is directly met with veneration of His mother. A woman from the crowd cries out to Jesus, "Blessed is the womb that bore you and the one who nursed you!" to which Jesus responded, "Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it." This was the ideal situation for Jesus if He had intended for Marian veneration to propagate through the Church. However, Jesus corrects the woman in the crowd and explains who exactly is considered blessed and why. The answer: "All those who hear the word of God and keep it." Mary was considered blessed because she heard the word of God and remained in it as is the case with Moses, David, John the Baptist, and any Christian that places their faith in Christ. This is true even for us today.
2. Mary considered blessed amongst not above
In Luke 1, Elizabeth exclaims to Mary, "Blessed are you among women, and your child will be blessed!" This verse is famously included in the "Hail Mary" among Roman Catholics. Often, it is used by Roman Catholics to validate that veneration of Mary is acceptable as she is considered "blessed amongst women." However, this verse only says Mary is counted blessed amongst women, not above all women. In other words, Mary is counted as blessed along with all the other blessed women of the Bible. This list might include Sarah, Ruth, Esther, etc. There is no direct distinction in this verse to suggest that Mary is above all the other women of the Bible. Thus, the same amount of veneration should be due to other women of the Bible. Furthermore, the verse also states that Mary is considered blessed amongst women only. It does not compare her with men. Therefore, it is improper to use this verse as a means to elevate Mary to a status supreme to men.
3. John the Baptist considered to be the greatest
Jesus points out in Matthew 11:11 that John the Baptist was considered the greatest person ever born of a woman.
"Truly I tell you, among those born of women no one greater than John the Baptist has appeared, but the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”25
This verse indicates Mary is considered less than John the Baptist as she was also born of a woman. However, Roman Catholic dissension typically observes the fact that Jesus is the obvious exception to this verse as He was also born of a woman but is most certainly greater than John the Baptist. They argue that because an exception is made for Jesus, likewise, an exception should be made for Mary. However, the exception for Jesus can be made as He is God, and obviously, no one is greater than God. Yet Mary was not God. She was a normal human being. Therefore, it would be entirely improper to make an exception for her as she has no defining reason biblically for an exception.
4. Jesus never refers to Mary as "mother"
Interestingly, in all the Gospels, Jesus does not refer to Mary as "mother." At Cana, He referred to her as "woman." Similarly, at the Cross, He referred to her as "woman." This seems to hint at the problem Jesus raises with considering someone to be a parent of the Messiah. In Matthew 22, Mark 12, and Luke 20, Jesus asks the Pharisees a simple question: "What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?" (Matthew 22:42). The Pharisees tell Jesus that the Messiah should be the son of David. Jesus then proceeds to show the logical issue with this understanding.
"He asked them, 'How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’:
The Lord declared to my Lord,
‘Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies under your feet’?
'If David calls him ‘Lord,’ how, then, can he be his son?' No one was able to answer him at all, and from that day no one dared to question him anymore.”26
Jesus explained that it was illogical to consider the Messiah to be the son of David since David would be referring to his offspring as "Lord." The same can be made for Mary. How can Jesus be considered the "son of Mary" if Mary calls Jesus "Lord?" A mother is above her son, but no one is above Jesus. He is the Lord over all creation, and this includes Mary.
5. Jesus questions who His mother is
In Mark 3, we see Jesus ask a question to the crowd.
"A crowd was sitting around him and told him, 'Look, your mother, your brothers, and your sisters are outside asking for you.' He replied to them, 'Who are my mother and my brothers?' Looking at those sitting in a circle around him, he said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.”27
Again, Jesus had a perfect opportunity to acknowledge His mother in a special way. However, He flat-out denies His biological mother before the crowd instead suggesting that those who do "the will of God" are Jesus' "mother." The fact that Jesus never acknowledges Mary as His mother in the New Testament is quite a contrast to the Roman Catholic perception of Mary. Jesus had several opportunities to distinguish His mother from others but time and time again we see Him broaden the focus to include everyone.
The passages listed are not exhaustive as there are many more. In truth, there can be an entire deep dive into Mariology and its lack of corroboration with the New Testament. Biblically speaking, there is no support for many of the arguments postulated within Mariology. Verses that are used to show supposed attributes of Mary such as her perfection and role as a mother of the Church are entirely reaching. Mary is shown to be an instrumental figure in God's plan; this is true. However, to read modern inventions into Scripture is bad exegesis and goes against the point of Scripture. It should be Scripture that informs our beliefs and faith. Because of this, it is plain to see that should anyone with no prior knowledge of Christianity come to read the Bible alone, they could never come to the conclusions about Mary found within Mariology. So, if the Bible is not the source of Mariology, then where does it come from? The next article will discuss the history of Mariology in the Church and how the views of Mary have shifted throughout history.
1 Ephesians 4:3
2 Galatians 2
3 Acts 15
4 Luke 1:28
5 Horn, Trent. Why We’re Catholic. pg. 163.
6 Grondin, Fr. Charles. “Full of Grace” Versus “Highly Favored”. Catholic Answers. https://www.catholic.com/qa/full-of-grace-versus-highly-favored
7 Slick, M. Mary, “Full of Grace”, and Luke 1:28. CARM. Published Dec. 3, 2008. https://carm.org/roman-catholicism/mary-full-of-grace-and-luke-128/
8 Latin Vulgate. https://www.biblestudytools.com/vul/luke/1.html
9 Latin Vulgate. https://www.biblestudytools.com/vul/genesis/3.html
10 M, Fr. Gabriel. Christ and Mary Revealed in Genesis 3:15. Missio Magazine. Published May 24, 2017. https://missiomagazine.com/christ-mary-revealed-genesis-315/
11 Nash, T. Wedding of Cana: What if the Wine Had Run Out?. Catholic Answers. https://www.catholic.com/qa/wedding-of-cana-what-if-the-wine-had-run-out
12 John Paul II. Redemptoris Mater. Vatican. https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031987_redemptoris-mater.html
13 Nash, T. How Does John Represent Us All at the Cross?. Catholic Answers. https://www.catholic.com/qa/how-does-john-represents-us-all-at-the-cross
14 Gregory the Great (II). Epistle XXXIX. Letter to Eulogius. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Volume 13. Philip Schaff.
15 John Chrysostom. Homily XXII on John 2:4. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I, Volume 14. Philip Schaff.
16 Mark 3:32-35
17 The New American Bible: Notes on Mark 6:3. Catholic Bible Press. 2010.
18 Why did Jesus entrust Mary to the apostle John instead of to His brothers. Got Questions. https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Mary-John.html
19 1st Corinthians 7:5
20 This amount of time is used because Joseph was at least alive when Jesus was about the age of 12 years old when He was left at the temple. It is thought that Joseph died not long after that, which is why Joseph is not present at the crucifixion.
21 Mark 3:20-21
22 Mark 3:31
23 In Mark 3:20-12, did Mary, the mother of Jesus suspect that he was crazy? Stack Exchange. https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/19351/in-mark-320-12-did-mary-the-mother-of-jesus-suspect-that-he-was-crazy
24 Armstrong, D. Was Our Lady Among Those Who Accused Our Lord of Being ‘Beside Himself?’. National Catholic Register. Published September 28, 2022. https://www.ncregister.com/blog/did-our-lady-think-our-lord-was-beside-himself
25 Matthew 11:11
26 Matthew 22:43-45
27 Mark 3:32-35