Whom He Loved Against the Marian Gospel

How the apostle John alone opposes Marian dogma and grounds the saving truths of the faith in Christ alone.

“You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”
– John 5:39-40

William Dyce, “St John Leading Home his Adopted Mother” (c.1842–60). Oil paint on paper.

---

John the apostle wrote five notable works that have survived: The Gospel of John, three epistles now called First, Second and Third John, and his apocalyptic mystery of the coming kingdom Revelation. When examining John’s theology, core saving truths come to light that seem to contradict and come against three out of four Marian dogmas affirmed in later Ecumenical Councils and infallible Papal decrees, specifically Mary’s Perpetual Virginity (AD 553), Immaculate Conception (AD 1854), and Bodily Assumption (1950), as well as the proposed fifth Marian dogma that assigns the tripartite appellation “Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of All Graces, and Advocate of the People of God” to Mary as the integral go-between for salvation. Through the Byzantine era, the Blessed Virgin Mary grew and developed into a central figure in many Roman Catholic liturgies, feasts, hymns, icons, homilies, and spiritual life, that theologians draw foundational parallels between Christ’s Passion and the Virgin’s compassion—Christ physically suffered and was crucified on the cross, Mary suffered and was spiritually crucified at the foot of the cross[1]. While Catholics claim they do not worship Mary (latria), say, as the fourth person in the Trinity, but venerate her to the utmost degree (hyperdulia) as the sinless “Second Eve” and “Queen of the Universe”, the confusion among Protestants is not unwarranted considering the large quantity of deific and salvific parallels Jesus and Mary share in Roman Catholic theology, the perceptible gradient of devotion to adoration and veneration to worship from dulia to protodulia to hyperdulia to latria, and that she possesses the same redemptive and mediatorial attributes that Christ alone is told to possess in Scripture as a heavenly intercessor and distributor of grace and propitiation. All things considered; she sounds an awfully lot like Christ.

The beloved John was very close with Jesus, one of three disciples within his “inner circle” (Peter, James, and John), and seemingly closer to Mary than any other disciple, so much so that Christ appointed John her adopted son and Mary his adopted mother (John 19:26-27), whom Franciscan theologian Ubertino of Casale (c.1259–1329) said is a “disproportionate and disturbing substitution”[2] for Mary’s divine Son. Yet, despite this mother-son relationship, John did not see it necessary to add Mary’s interior disposition or personal virtues or moral acts or cooperation, not even her virgin birth, as an incontrovertible saving truth in any of his written work, even though he took care of her in his home and may have witnessed her dormition (or “falling asleep”) and bodily assumption (whether by divine revelation or in person I do not know), sometime around AD 63 before the destruction of the Temple in AD 70[3]. While it is plain that the virgin birth is a logically necessary truth that cannot be denied lest Jesus’ deity be denied, John does not even mention it in his Gospel; in fact, he seems to prioritize the belief in Christ’s full divinity and full humanity as the necessary birth point of salvation from which you will further believe and not reject other gospel truths concerning Christ, which necessarily includes the virgin birth. The significance of this cannot be overstated enough. Scripture, history, and Catholicism all teach that John cared for and outlived Mary here on earth. Yet John, Mary’s spiritual son, never refers to the necessity of Mary’s interior disposition or personal virtues or moral acts or cooperation for salvation, not before or after her virgin birth and not even her maternal suffering on Calvary, even though history tells us that he wrote his Gospel, letters, and Revelation roughly thirty years after her assumption as the last surviving apostle (anywhere between AD 63 to 99). He had the time to do it. To implement canonical prayers to her, to speak of her divine-given attributes and intercessory, to teach about her role in salvation. But Scripture and John are in a resounding silence.

---

---

Silence of Scripture v. Trumpets of Tradition

It is no news that none of the Marian dogmas listed above are mentioned nor hinted at in Scripture, let alone John’s work. Her virgin birth known as the Divine Motherhood dogma is explicitly mentioned in Matthew and Luke, of course (and prophesied in Isaiah 7:14), but the rest of the text is silent concerning her virginity after Jesus’ birth (if I concede the plain reading of Matthew 1:24-25), Jesus cleansing her of original sin in the womb, and her bodily assumption into heaven at death (which they claim is recorded in Revelation 12:1; a highly contested correlation by no stretch of the imagination considering Mariological interpretations of Scripture did not rise till the fourth century[4] and she is bodily assumed in verse 1 before she is pregnant with Jesus in verse 2). That, and we only read Mary speak four times in Scripture—the Annunciation (Luke 1:26-38), the Magnificat (Luke 1:39-56), her finding the twelve-year-old Jesus in the Temple (Luke 2:41-52), and the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11)—and we only hear of her appearance once at Calvary in John’s Gospel, but her sorrow and suffering in never mentioned. Not only that, but if her suffering was central to the gospel, then she would have been the first to see the risen Christ, but she was not. Inasmuch that John refers to Christ’s love for him as “the disciple whom he loved” (19:26) but he, or any other Gospel or epistle, never records Christ’s love for his mother (not that He didn’t, but that the apostles just did not deem it all that important to the gospel). The three Marian dogmas are not firmly established in Scripture but are all contingent upon the magisterium’s veracity. It is very evident that the Gospels’ primary concern is Christ-centric. This is not contested by anyone, as far as I can tell. Marian dogma is the quintessential archetype of doctrinal development insofar that Mary is now a sinless figurehead in the gospel and lifeblood of the Roman Church.

According to Roman Catholic doctrine, there is the public and Written Word of Christ, sacred Scripture, and the private and Unwritten Word of Christ, sacred Tradition. Mary’s interior disposition, personal virtues, moral acts and cooperation after her virgin birth and Calvary, then, have been handed down through a variety of apocryphal texts written in the second and third century such as the Protevangelium of James, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Bartholomew, Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Ebionites, and Pistis Sophia, and many other fifth and seventh century texts inspired by the Protevangelium[5], which have been confirmed by apostolic succession and oral tradition, in accordance with Paul’s words, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15) Indeed, there are more references to Mary in the Quran than in the Bible.

If the apostles, like John, who wrote Scripture did not see the urgent need nor spiritual mandate to speak of Mary’s interior disposition or personal virtues or moral acts or cooperation after her virgin birth and suffering at Calvary, or required her intercessory prayer while she was still alive (considering she prayed with them in Acts 1:12-14), in any of their writings as a requirement for salvation (or even sanctification)—not in their letters of admonition or exhortation that were read aloud among the churches, not so much as a prayer about her let alone to her, even after she was assumed and stood as our heavenly “Queen” according to Franciscan priest Saint Bernadine of Siena (c.1380–1444)—how much spiritual weight should these private, unwritten words of Tradition hold? Especially for the public? Not as doctrine, but as dogma—saving truth? That is necessary, immutable, and irrevocably obliged belief to obtain full salvation. If Scripture truly teaches that it is sufficient for soteriological doctrine and profitable to defend against false doctrine, then what does this mean for the Blessed Virgin Mary’s shared participation in salvation: Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of All Graces, and Advocate of the People of God?

---

---

Holy Trinity v. Divine Motherhood

John was Mary’s son, yet his Gospel was Christ-centred, not Christ-and-Mary-centred. John strongly and plainly lays out an Incarnation and Trinitarian theology first and foremost as the sole primacy of salvation. In the same manner the Third Ecumenical Council (AD 431) condemned the heresy of Nestorianism when they declared Mary the Theotokos or “God-bearer”, the Mother of God. Jesus Christ and His Triunity was the central subject of the Divine Motherhood dogma by which heresy would be exacted. Rather than teach Jesus Christ was God incarnate, Nestorius, the Archbishop of Constantinople, falsely taught that Mary gave birth to the man Christ who later united with the Spirit like other OT prophets before him, calling Mary the Christotokos or “Christ-bearer”. The response was nothing but gospel truth: The Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ who is fully God and fully Man (cf. Matthew 2:11). Therefore, Mary is Theotokos. The Mother of God and the Virgin Birth were vital doctrines to defend Christ’s full divinity and full humanity; Mary’s disposition and virtue had nothing to do with the Council’s condemnation. In the same way, Scripture and John never place Mary’s later life/role after Calvary equal to Christ as necessary, immutable, and irrevocably obliged belief for salvation—dogma. Whereby if the Church, say, rejected Mary’s perpetual virginity, then Christ’s deity would be logically compromised in the exact same way that her virginity before Jesus’ birth would compromise Christ’s deity. The two doctrines do not hold the same weight. Yet consider the dogmatic implications as it is, that if I reject Mary as my intercessor, my mediator, my redeemer, I reject Christ and my salvation in the same way that if I reject the Son I reject the Father (1 John 2:23)[6].

The primary concern of the apostles, and Mary herself, was Jesus, not Mary. She was not even a secondary concern in the Gospels or epistles. Her lack of prominence, let alone centrality, by the immediate apostles of Christ while she was alive, and by the apostle John, her spiritual son and caretaker appointed by her Son, especially after her dormition and assumption, and even by Christ himself considering she was not the first to see Him risen from the tomb, is all highly suggestive that these Marian dogmas are historical and theological accretions that extend far beyond the scope of the Gospel’s original meaning and purpose—our full redemption through Christ Jesus.

There is also no Scriptural evidence that John, or any other apostle for that matter, commanded disciples to worship or appeal to Christ through His mother as the Advocate, as if her mediation was required or even needed on our behalf. In fact, the apostles say just the opposite, to only worship God through Christ, the one and only Advocate (1 John 2:1; cf. Romans 8:9,26-27). As Christ commands, “If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.” (John 15:7)

Clarity and Contention

My contention is simple. I do not believe the latter three Marian dogmas are equal to Christological and Trinitarian dogmas. That is it. I do not believe they are incontrovertible saving truths of the faith even if, say, Mary’s perpetual virginity is historically true[7]. It elevates the creaturely too high. And I think John, and Scripture as a whole, testify to this conclusion. Mary’s later interior disposition and personal virtues and moral acts and cooperation after her virgin birth and her suffering at Calvary as well as her celestial intercessory as requirements in salvation seem, to me at least, to detract if not usurp the immanency and centrality of Christ’s redemptive mediatory power, especially when Scripture clearly testifies about Christ’s sufficient saving power (John 5:39-40; Acts 4:12). In Scripture Mary was a means, not an end—as we all are in God’s plan of salvation—because salvation begins and ends with God. Salvation is God: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Enforcing these Marian dogmas as incontrovertible saving truths of the faith strongly implies that the Trinity is insufficient for salvation. Yet the apostles, especially John, very clearly state that the atoning power from God the Father through the Son is enough (John 14:16-17,26, 15:26). Not from the Father through the Son through the Mother. While Catholicism does not verbally place Mary, the Mother of God, at the top of the hierarchy equal to God—and I am very grateful that they don’t—the sheer fact that she is an obligatory intercessor, comforter, redeemer, and the only creature worthy of hyperdulia as a sinless mediator between man and God who is able to distribute grace and propitiate sins, even if she is contingent upon Christ to do so, really blurs the line between veneration and worship because she embodies the identical characteristics of her Son but further separates us from God’s imminence and inner witness as an essential go-between, even though we, as Christians, are able and supposed to pray to God the Father directly because we have the Holy Spirit within us, who is “the Spirit of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:19; Acts 16:7).

Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.
– 1 John 3:24

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.
– Galatians 4:6

It begs the question: Why must we go through Mother Mary to get to God the Father if we have the Spirit of her Son and His Son, Jesus Christ, within us?

Continue Reading >

---

Matlock Bobechko | April 19, 2023 – 9:00 AM EST

---

---

[1] “The Cult of the Virgin Mary in the Middle Ages”. The Metropolitan Museum of Art: Department of Medieval Art and The Cloisters. Published October 2001.
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/virg/hd_virg.htm
See also: Sigrid Goldiner, “Art and Death in the Middle Ages”. The Metropolitan Museum of Art: Department of Medieval Art and The Cloisters. Originally published October 2001, last revised February 2010. 
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/deth/hd_deth.htm

[2] Flynn M. Fernandes, “Mary: Co-redemptrix, mediatrix of all graces, and advocate of the people of God: An interdisciplinary exposition and evaluation of the proposed fifth Marian dogma”. Boston College University Libraries (Electronic Thesis or Dissertation, 2015), 13.
https://dlib.bc.edu/islandora/object/bc-ir:105006

[3] Taylor Marshall, “In what year was Mary assumed into Heaven?” Published August 15, 2011.
https://taylormarshall.com/2011/08/in-what-year-was-mary-assumed-into.html

[4] Ibid, vii.
https://dlib.bc.edu/islandora/object/bc-ir:105006

[5] The Arabic Infancy Gospel (sixth century), the Latin Liber de Ortu Beatae Mariae et Infantia Salvatoris or Pseudo-Matthew (early seventh century) and the Latin Infancy Gospel all draw inspiration from the Protevangelium, a work that is not included in Scripture but has a place in Catholic tradition, such as the feast of the Presentation of Mary in the Temple and in the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

[6] It begs the question: Am I truly guilty of unbelief, here? Must I repent for my unbelief in Mary’s divine attributes? Why am I anathemized, cursed, or condemned by later councils rather than seen as a man of weak faith? Granted, the latter question may only apply to pre-Vatican II, which did not previously oblige conscience as a way to vindicate a man before God, so now even atheists can go to heaven by virtue of conscience.

[7] Given that Mary did not appear to have other children besides Jesus. This is based on on several passages of Scripture: John became her adopted caretaker and legal guardian in John 19:26-27, rather than her supposed biological children who are referred to as the’ “brothers” of Jesus (Matthew 12:46; Luke 8:19; Mark 3:31, 6:3; Acts 1:14; Galatians 1:19), specifically, James, Joses, Judas, and Simon. James and Joses, specifically, are also later mentioned as children of another women, Mary of Clopas (Mark 15:40). Furthermore, the Greek plural noun adelphoi (ἀδελφοί, from a- meaning ‘same’ and delphys meaning ‘womb’), has a variety of connotations from physical brothers and sisters to figurative brothers and sisters, and can be used to refer to someone who is a cousin, kinsman, neighbour, or step-brother (Genesis 29:12, Romans 9:3; Matthew 5:22-23; Mark 6:17-18). All of this adds weight to the historical teaching that Mary did not have children with Joseph and was, therefore, a perpetual virgin. So, where was James the Just in all this if Jesus was truly his blood brother, according to Galatians 1:19? Why didn’t Jesus give Mary to, say, one of his step-brothers or cousins? Well, it is recorded that Jesus’ brothers did not believe Him, and no one was present when he was crucified, perhaps due to familial and societal shame. So, perhaps, Jesus gave His mother to John because he believed Him till the end—Spirit over blood.