If so please EMail us with your question to jonpartin@tiscali.co.uk and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer. EMailus.

What Does The Bible Teach Us About the Virgin Mary?

The New Testament first reveals the Virgin Mary to us as a virgin through whom Jesus Christ was born (Luke 1.27). She is declared to be someone who has found favour with God (1.28, 30) and as a result had been chosen to bear the Messiah so that He was truly human (Luke 1.31-33). The human side of Jesus came from Mary, the divine side from the Holy Spirit. That she was a good woman is unquestioned, and she is revealed as ‘prophesying’ (Luke 1.46-55). Elizabeth spoke well when she called her ‘blessed among women’ (Luke 1.42), and even ‘the mother of my Lord’ (Luke 1.43), but was there thinking in Messianic terms not in terms of divinity. We should note that the angel said that the holy child to be born of her was to be called ‘the Son of God’ (Luke 1.35). In Scripture Jesus is never called the son of Mary, nor is she ever called the mother of Jesus. He addresses her as ‘woman’ or ‘lady’ (John 2.4).

The desire to be the mother of the Messiah was common to large numbers of women in Palestine. Thus the choosing of Mary did indeed demonstrate that God was blessing her. But we must not read into that more than the fact that it was a great privilege for her.

When dealing with such an unusual situation words have to be used with care. It is true that Mary was the mother of Jesus, and that Jesus was God, but to call her the mother of God is to be in danger of assuming what was not true. She was so in the sense that the One she bore, and was mother to, was also God. But she was not the mother of His divinity which existed long, long before ever she was born.

This is actually stated by Pope John. "Mary's divine motherhood refers only to the human begetting of the Son of God but not, however, to his divine birth. The Son of God was eternally begotten of God the Father, and is consubstantial with him. Mary, of course, has no part in this eternal birth. However, the Son of God assumed our human nature 2,000 years ago and was conceived by and born of Mary." The only quibble we have with this is the final statement, for ‘the son of God’ was not conceived by Mary. It was the human nature that was conceived by Mary. As he had in fact agreed when he stated ‘Mary has no part in this eternal birth’. It is a pity that loose language muddles the idea by careless application.

Thus the early church, when discussing the matter at the council of Ephesus (431 AD), came to the decision that she should not be called ‘the mother of God’, but rather the ‘God-bearer’ (theotokos). But even this carries with it the danger of seeing Mary as in some way bringing God into the world, whereas it was the Holy Spirit Who brought God into the world, in union with the human being that was conceived by Mary. Mary could not in any way conceive divine spirit, who was eternal, only the human being with whom that divine spirit was inseparably connected in two natures.

Scripture reveals that Mary’s faith fluctuated as does the faith of all human beings. We read that after his birth and what the shepherds said ‘Mary kept all these sayings, pondering them in her heart’ (Luke 2.19). She was not sure what it all meant, but constantly thought about it.

When she and Joseph took Jesus up to Jerusalem and on their beginning their journey back home discovered that Jesus was not with them, they returned to Jerusalem and sought Him. They found Him in the temple listening to the great teachers, and asking them questions. When Mary rebuked Him He replied, ‘How is it that you looked for me? Did you not realise that I must be about the things of my Father?’ And they did not understand the saying which He spoke to them (Luke 2.41-51). It is clear that she was still very puzzled about the future of Jesus. His parents naturally saw Him as a normal child as her rebuke reveals. However, she remembered what He had said and would no doubt understand better after His resurrection.

The next mention of Mary is when He began His ministry in Galilee and went to the wedding at Cana (John 2). When the wine ran out, which was a real social disaster for the people involved who were no doubt well known to Mary, she naturally went to Jesus her son with the problem. Where else would a woman go if her husband was dead? But Jesus clearly realised that she was expecting Him to do some ‘wonder’, and He said to her, ‘Lady, what is there to you and to me? My hour has not yet come.’ By this He was warning her that she must not interfere in the ministry that was to be His. He was not here to use His powers for personal things. But Mary recognised from His words that He would do something, and so told the servants to do whatever He asked.

We have an indication here that at this time Mary believed that He was the coming Messiah Who would bring food and wine to His people, a common view of the Messiah, and that He could therefore in some way produce wine for the wedding. Therefore why should He not do so at this moment of great need for their friends? Jesus in return wanted her to know that she must not try to influence His decisions as the Messiah. He alone must decide His way. His ways are not her ways, (nor anyone else’s). Thus when He does what He does, it was not because of her request but because He recognised from it an opportunity to reveal His Messiahship in a veiled way.

But Mary’s confidence in His Messiahship was not sufficient for her next test. When the great teachers came down from Jerusalem and began to attack her son’s claims she came with her other sons and wanted to see Him (Mark 3.31). We must probably tie this up with verse 21 which indicates that all Jesus’ ‘friends’ (that is, His intimates who lived in and around Nazareth) were concerned because he was neglecting food because of the great crowds that He had to deal with, and thought that He was behaving strangely, saying ‘He is beside Himself’, that is, He is not behaving normally.

But however that might be it is clear that there is intended to be a distinction here between Mary and her sons, and those who were following Jesus. Mary and her sons were on the ‘outside’ (Mark 3.31). His followers were on the inside. And it is equally clear that Jesus was saying that Mary and his brothers must not interfere with His ministry. Indeed now that He was fulfilling His ministry it was those who gathered to hear Him and learn from Him who had taken the place of His mother and His brothers (Mark 3.24). They were His brother, and His sister and His mother (Mark 3.25). If Mary and His brothers wanted any part in Him they must become His followers and share Him with all His followers. But it is clear that they did not do so, and Mary is never included among those who followed Jesus while He was ministering. This may have been because she had younger children to look after, or simply because her response to His ministry had cooled. But, however we interpret this incident it is clear that Jesus did not see His mother as especially spiritual.

In Matthew 13.55; Mark 6.3 the crowds who listen to Jesus (not His followers) refer to Mary and his brothers as someone known to them. There is never any indication in such references that his ‘brothers’ were any other than brothers of the whole blood, and therefore children of Mary. Jesus was Mary’s ‘firstborn’ and there is never any suggestion that Joseph had another wife. And if Jesus was not Joseph’s firstborn then He was not strictly heir to the throne of David.

The only other mention of Mary in the Gospels is when she was present at the cross (John 19.25). As his mother we would have expected her to be there whatever her beliefs. And there Jesus committed her into John’s care (19.26-27) addressing her as ‘lady’. What this meant is made clear. John took her into his home and family (19.27). Thus it was not seen by John as having any theological significance. It was a matter of protection. It might have been temporary due to her weak state, or more permanent, but if the latter it might suggest that her other sons were too young to be able to care for her. If her other sons were older than Jesus it is difficult to see why Jesus did what He did, or that they would have allowed John to take her permanently into his home.

But in all this we must recognise that during Jesus’ ministry there is no hint that His mother Mary was a follower of Jesus or was found with Him anywhere but at the cross. This fact is emphasised by Luke in that after Jesus’ resurrection both Mary and her sons are referred to as believers (Acts 1.14). Clearly then if they had been before His death Luke would have mentioned this somewhere. It is difficult to think that he could constantly list women who followed Jesus without referring to her if she had been with them. See for example Luke 8.3.

It is significant that Mary is never mentioned in the letters of Paul or the other Apostles. If later exalted views of Mary were held by the Apostles this is quite frankly incredible. But the truth is that such ideas about Mary began to rear their heads in the second century AD. Such ideas were inevitable given the propensity of some men to seek a mother figure.

1) Does the Bible Teach that We Can Ask Mary To Intercede For Us?

The idea of praying to God through Mary was unknown in the first Christian centuries. The New Testament makes clear that we are to approach the Father through Jesus, making our requests 'for His sake', or 'in His name' (Matthew 18.20; John 14.13-14). It is He who ever lives to intercede on our behalf in Heaven (Hebrews 7.25). In the Scriptures, while Mary was recognised as a good woman she was only seen as that, and at times had to be gently rebuked because of her misunderstanding (John 2.4). Jesus makes clear that her motherhood does not give her a special position in things pertaining to the Kingdom of God (Mark 3.31-35). Indeed Jesus clearly states 'my mother and my brethren are those who hear the word of God and keep it' (Luke 8.21).

Nowhere is she given a position of authority or influence. She is the mother of Jesus but nowhere described as the mother of God and indeed in later centuries there was a bitter dispute over this question, and it was accepted that she should be called theotokos (God-bearer) rather than mother of God. This in recognition of the fact that the One she bore was also God, but that the divine was not conceived by her. There was no suggestion that she held a special place of influence with God.

It will be noted that in the scene in Heaven in Revelation 4 & 5 there is no hint of Mary. She was simply numbered along with everyone else with the whole of creation who worshipped God.

We must therefore respect her deeply as the one through whom God was pleased to bring His Son into the world, sympathise with her misunderstandings as understandable in a puzzled mother, and honour her later dedication to the Christian church. What we should not do is consider her as one who somehow has a special place in Heaven whereby she is able to confer favours. Like all of us she was saved through the blood of Christ and found forgiveness in His name. She shares with all ‘saints’ (and that includes us if we are Christians) the benefits from the merits of His death and resurrection and intercession. Like us she is a supplicant and worshipper, and not a dispenser of grace.