When you read Scripture, it becomes clear that Satan wasted no time spreading his demonic agenda. Heretics sprung up, teaching false doctrines, even false gospels, even before the Apostles drew their last breaths. There were the Gnostics, there were the Judaisers, there were even those who said there would be no resurrection.
Ironically, while they claim to trace their roots right back to Christ Himself, one heretical sect that does not seem to have arisen in the first century is the Roman Catholic Church. Their unique heresies are absent from Scripture in more than just the prescriptive sense: Nobody seems to have believed anything comparable. One of their particularly damning heresies is the "veneration" of Mary, the mother of Jesus.
In spite of how prominent she is in Roman Catholicism, as well as other pseudo-Christian religions, the Bible pays surprisingly little attention to her. It does not prescribe any devotion to her, nor does it seem this devotion arose early enough for the Bible to give it any particular note. In fact, the Bible says so little about Mary that I could write an entire, admittedly rather lengthy article, detailing everything Scripture says about Mary directly, and cite other relevant Scriptures, in order to categorically refute the Roman Catholic view. Well, as I can do it, I now have done it, and you are now reading the introductory segment of that article. I will now examine every Scripture that speaks directly about the blessed mother of Jesus, as well as several Scriptures which, while they do not directly speak of her, do give us sufficient information to form a Biblical view of her. I will also be including Scriptures that Catholics provide in an attempt to defend their view.
The two views
For sake of clarity, it seems prudent to lay out both the position I am defending, and, as clearly and accurately as possible, the position I am refuting. The latter is fairly simple. Citing official Roman Catholic sources and authorities (primarily the Catechism of the Catholic Church), I can explain, in great detail, what the Roman Catholic Church teaches with regard to Mary.
The difficulty comes in outlining my own position. This, too, should be fairly simple but, for purposes of this particular article, is actually not. This is simply because my position is that the Bible is true and accurate in every area in which it speaks. Therefore, presenting the Scriptures found in this article is presenting my view. But that means I'm presenting my view as the evidence for it, which is incoherent.
It would also be quite silly to simply deny the Catholic view, first because even an alternate Marian heretic could do the same, but also because even an atheist can deny. Rejecting a view, without presenting an alternative, is wholly ineffective. My solution to this is to present the Roman Catholic view, then present my alternative views in a "this is what they say, this is the actual truth" structure.
The rarity of real Marian verses in Scripture also allows me to include "honorable mentions". That is, Scriptures which do not necessarily mention Mary, but nevertheless are relevant (or are considered relevant by Roman Catholics) to which view of Mary is the most Biblical. I will therefore include these verses. To skip the summary of the two views and see the Scriptures, I am including two collapsable lists for your convenience.
Honorable mentions
Roman Catholic Mariology
Catholic Mariology can be summed up in 5 points, which includes 4 dogmas, and Mary's unique role in salvation.
1. Immaculate conception (and subsequent freedom from all sin)
2. Perpetual virginity
3. Divine Motherhood
4. Bodily assumption
5. Mary as Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that "...it was necessary that she (Mary) be wholly borne by God's grace." Thus, according to Pope Pius IX, "The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin." With this in mind, it teaches that "By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long." This can all be found in CCC 490 - 493.
CCC 499 - 501 titles Mary "Ever Virgin", stating "Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man." It even jumps the gun a bit by pre-empting an objection, raised from Scripture, which we will be examining later in this article.
In CCC 509, we see that Catholicism teaches "Mary is truly "Mother of God" since she is the mother of the eternal Son of God made man, who is God himself."
Roman Catholicism also teaches "...when the course of her (Mary's) earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things..." (CCC 966).
Finally, Catholicism ascribes the titles "...Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix" to Mary. This, they claim, "...in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power (...) just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures" (CCC 969-970).
Bible Brain Alternatives
As previously alluded to, a somewhat appropriate summary of the Christian position is "none of that is true", mainly because, whether through technical inaccuracy, or outright blasphemy, it is not. However, to merely stop there is insufficient. Thus, I will respond with my own alternatives. As I intend this entire article to be about what Scripture says, I will only assert my views for now. In summary:
1. Natural conception/normal life of a sinner
2. Eventual marriage consummation leading to other children
3. Messianic motherhood
4. Natural death and decay
5. Vessel-only role in salvation
To begin with, Christ alone is without sin, original or otherwise. Mary's conception was quite unremarkable, and she was as sinful as any other devout Jewish woman of her time. It may even be, based on similar logic found in Deuteronomy 9 (which I will not be addressing further in this article), that Mary was not even the most righteous or least rebellious of women in Israel, though it is equally possible that she was. Nevertheless, the fact that she was a sinner cannot be reasonably disputed.
Regarding the perpetual virginity, many Catholics like to point out that many Protestants accept it. To that, I simply say my faith is not in many Protestants, nor indeed in any Protestants. Furthermore, I utterly reject the term "Protestant" for myself, believing it is a stupid label. The attempt to herd Christians towards the perpetual virginity dogma by pointing to "other Protestants" is just one more proof of how useless the term truly is.
At any rate, while it is true that many Protestants are united with Catholics regarding the perpetual virginity, the simple fact is there is no Christian position on Mary's sex life post-birth. There are Christian positions that may be relevant, such as the marriage bed is pure and undefiled (Hebrews 13:4), and that it is somewhat inappropriate for a married couple to abstain from sexual intercourse for extended periods of time (1 Corinthians 7:5), but ultimately Mary's sex life after the birth of Christ is between her, Joseph, and God.
Therefore, while I will not say it is the Christian view, it is nevertheless the historical view that Mary did eventually consummate her marriage with Joseph. Historically, Mary did not remain a virgin after she got married, and that marriage even resulted in other children. But a Christian does not need to believe that, nor are they actively sinning if they, for whatever reason, fall for the perpetual virginity. Roman Catholicism places far too heavy an emphasis on this one major historical error.
The divine motherhood thing is awkward, simply because of the Triune nature of God. In the Catechism, we read "Mary is truly "Mother of God" since she is the mother of the eternal Son of God made man, who is God himself." Thus, the Catholic argument goes:
P1: Mary is the mother of Jesus.
P2: Jesus is God.
C: Mary is the mother of God.
This sounds logical, until you follow it up with other similar syllogisms:
P1: Jesus is God.
P2: God is a Trinity.
C: Jesus is the Trinity.
Or:
P1: God is triune.
P2: Jesus is God.
C: Jesus is triune.
You see, then, how the whole "mother of God" dogma is, at best, confusing. Ultimately, I'm willing to just let Catholics have this one, as the dispute seems to be more about how appropriate the term is, rather than the doctrine it is supposed to describe. I personally would never use such a problematic term, but as long as they keep it as simple as it is stated in the Catechism, i.e. Mary is the mother of Jesus, who is God, then fine, it's just a dodgy term for a genuine truth.
It is worth noting, however, that Jesus distinguishes Himself from the Father and the Holy Spirit. When, for example, He says "...I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works" (John 14:10), He is not saying "I'm not God, the Father is". In the same way, it is possible to say Mary is not the mother of God, without saying Jesus is not God, simply because Jesus is not the Father, and Mary is not the mother of the Father, nor is Jesus the Holy Spirit, and Mary is not the mother of the Holy Spirit. The complex nature of the Trinity transfers a high degree of complexity to the title "mother of God". Thus, I strongly recommend Christians abstain from using such a disastrous term, but I don't think, so long as they use it correctly for themselves, God will condemn them for it.
Regarding the bodily assumption, this is simply a legendary embellishment. It did not happen historically, and it is neither found, nor alluded to, in any extant Christian writing prior to the 4th century. It wasn't even a formal dogma in the Catholic Church until 1950. Thus, Christians have no need to believe it, and I believe I am able to make a compelling Biblical case that it didn't happen, either.
Finally, there is only one redeemer, mediator, and advocate, and Mary is absolutely not Him. It is a Gospel-affecting blasphemy to rob Christ of His unique, salvific attributes, and pass them off to Mary.
With the two positions defined, let's look at every reference the Bible ever makes to Mary and see which position Scripture, as the word of God, and the oldest and most authoritative Church document, supports.
Genesis 3:15
"And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel.”"
Genesis 3:15 is known as the "protoevangelium", or "first Gospel". Primarily, it speaks to Satan about Christ. The word "seed" refers to offspring, be it literal (regarding Eve and her offspring), or figurative (regarding Satan and his). In a general sense, this Gospel speaks of the perpetual war in which Satan and his ilk fight against mankind, even later including the impenitent against the Church (e.g. John 8:44).
Most notable is that the woman's "Seed" here is singular, which is also followed up with "He shall bruise your head", and "you shall bruise His heel". This was, of course, fulfilled in Christ, when Satan put Him to death on a cross, yet He rose in victory, finalising the victory against the devil. We see a similar concept described in Galatians 3:15-18: "Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man’s covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it. Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ. And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise."
Another thing that cannot be overlooked is the simple fact that it is unusual for the "seed" to be attributed to the woman. Usually, the "seed" is of the father. This indicates that the "He" who shall bruise the head of the serpent would not have an Earthly father. Thus, Mary is indirectly referenced as an antitype of Eve.
It is vitally important to note that Scripture says He shall bruise Satan's head, and he would bruise His heel. These are masculine pronouns, because they are referring to a single, male, individual, that of course being Christ, and Christ alone.
But there is ample Catholic material to the contrary. Even much Catholic imagery depicts Mary crushing the head of the serpent rather than, or in some cases along with, Christ. This is because Catholics view Mary as "the new Eve". Just as the first Adam brought death, but the second Adam brought life (1 Corinthians 15:45), so also is Mary the new Eve, who reversed Eve's disobedience with her obedience. Thus, they argue, she should be credited with crushing the serpent's head.
But this is obviously not reflected in Genesis 3:15, which exclusively gives the role of crushing the serpent's head to the Seed of Eve, neither to her directly, nor to her antitype. Nor indeed is there any reasonable way to ascribe male pronouns to Mary. In reality, just as Scripture says little of Mary, it also says next to nothing about Eve. It does not foretell the coming of a new Eve (which, as we will see shortly, refutes the possibility that there is one), nor does it tell us that this new Eve has arrived. The New Testament references Eve only twice by name, and whenever Adam and Christ are mentioned together, Eve is conspicuously absent. Rather, Adam is seen as sufficient to have brought sin and death, and Christ is seen as sufficient to have brought righteousness and life. There is simply no precedent for giving Mary extra roles in the plan of salvation in Scripture.
Honorable mention - Exodus 20:12
"“Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you."
The "first commandment with promise", as Paul calls it in Ephesians 6:2, is found in abundance throughout the Bible, and of course, Jesus obeyed it to perfection. Some Catholic apologists, like Scott Hahn, suggest that this is a fantastic argument for our own devotion to Mary. See, Scripture calls us to imitate Christ, and Christ, following this command, honored Mary. Therefore, we should honor Mary.
There are a myriad of problems with this argument, starting with the very assumption that Roman Catholicism does honor Mary. One could argue with vehement ferver that the wrong kind of honor is actually very dishonorable. We see in Acts 14:8-18, for example, that the men of Lystra mistook Paul and Barnabas for Zeus and Hermes, but their response was to tear their robes in grief. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that if we could borrow Mary from the first century, shortly after the day of Pentacost, and show her around the Catholic Church, she would be filled with the same grief. She doesn't want people bowing to her statues, or asking for her intercession, or calling her the Queen of Heaven. And there is no way Jesus would have done any of these things to her either.
But more importantly, Jesus didn't honor only Mary as His mother. He honored Joseph as His father, to begin with, but He also submitted to the very authorities who would go on to crucify Him, and persecute His followers long after He had ascended to the Father. Are we to believe we should likewise submit to the long-deceased Pharisees, or to Rom... well, that makes sense, the Roman Catholic Church is, after all, very Roman. Even the term "Pontifex Maximus" comes from the chief priest of the Roman College of Pontiffs, but I digress. Hahn's logic leads us to a number of conclusions not even he would want it to. Thus, it is no defence of Catholic Mariolatry.
Psalm 69:8
"I have become a stranger to my brothers, And an alien to my mother’s children;"
Psalm 69 is a well recognised Messianic prophesy, likely because the New Testament constantly recognises it as such. Most famous of the references are John 2:17, which references verse 9, and the several verses which speak of Jesus being given vinegar on a stick while hanging on the cross, fulfilling verse 21.
Recognising that Psalm 69 is about Jesus, as the New Testament confirms, the "mother" referred to in verse 8 must be Mary. Yet, His mother has children. These children are His brothers, not merely His cousins, as Catholic theology teaches. This utterly invalidates the perpetual virginity myth.
In one attempt to solve this dilemma, Catholics point to verse 5, which says "O God, You know my foolishness; And my sins are not hidden from You." Since we know Christ was neither foolish, nor a sinner, this verse cannot be about Christ, and thus we can, by similar reasoning, suggest that verse 8 is not about Him either.
This conclusion can only be drawn from a surface level study of theology. Though it is true that Christ is neither foolish, nor sinful, Scripture quite explicitly speaks this way of God Himself. 1 Corinthians 1:25 says "...the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." Is God foolish? Is God weak? Of course not! Yet this verse says He has foolishness and weakness because it speaks in relative terms. How, then, do we ascribe the sin of Psalm 69:5 to Jesus?
Note how the rest of the Psalm speaks of sins falsely ascribed to the narrator. Note verse 4: "...Though I have stolen nothing, I still must restore it." Or verse 7: "...for Your sake I have borne reproach;...". This does not seem to suggest the narrator is suffering for His own sins. Well what a surprise, we turn to the New Testament, and we read things like "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." (2 Corinthians 5:21). So, how are Christ's "sins" not hidden from God in Psalm 69:5? Because my sins are not hidden from God. Your sins are not hidden from God. Not even Mary's sins are hidden from God. Roman Catholicism may not have a concept of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, but it's right there, in Scripture. Thus, yes, even verse 5 applies to Jesus. So does verse 8, but we have no need to assume transferrence, as Scripture neither justifies, nor compels this interpretation.
Isaiah 7:14
"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel."
Isaiah 7:14 provides no real insight into Mariology, as it clearly presents the common belief among almost all nominal Christians. A exception would be Mormonism, which teaches “The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers,” (Journal of Discourses vol. 8:27). Roman Catholicism, however, has this element correct. Believing Mary was a virgin from her birth to her death, they obviously believe she was a virgin prior to the birth of Christ.
Honorable mention - Isaiah 8:19-20
"And when they say to you, “Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who whisper and mutter,” should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living? To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."
Biblically speaking, communication with the dead is not only against the law of Moses, but is so thoroughly repugnant to God that He cites it as a reason for eliminating the Canaanites. Though I could have included these laws as honorable mentions in and of themselves, I have opted instead to simply mention Isaiah's interpretation thereof. This is because he specifically mentions seeking the dead on behalf of the living, telling us that we should instead seek our God. This, he follows up with a charge: "To the law and to the testimony", and finally, if they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Now, do Catholics, who seek Mary (not to mention other dead saints) on behalf of the living, speak according to this word? Certainly not! Mary's intercession is such a large part of their faith that they will even make up excuses about how she is not dead, because she is in Heaven. This, however, is incoherent, for a number of reasons, starting with the fact when God outlaws the communication with the dead, He does not distinguish between the dead in Christ (an actual Biblical phrase found in 1 Thessalonians 4:16) and those doomed to everlasting Hellfire. In fact, when Saul tries to contact Samuel via the witch at En Dor, Samuel tells Him this was a futile endeavor. Is Samuel in Heaven? Yet God's word plainly tells us "Then Samuel died..." (1 Samuel 25:1) and "Now Samuel had died..." (1 Samuel 28:3).
Catholics, by seeking the intercession of Mary, are doing what the law of God calls an abomination. In so doing, by Isaiah's reckoning, they are showing there is no light in them. Their necromancy is abominable, their excuses for it is feeble, Catholics put themselves in serious spiritual danger with this nonsense.
Honorable mentions - Jeremiah 7:18, Jeremiah 44
"The children gather wood, the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven; and they pour out drink offerings to other gods, that they may provoke Me to anger."
Although not referencing Mary directly, there is a false goddess alluded to in Scripture by the name of the "Queen of Heaven". She is not irrelevant to our discussion, simply because Roman Catholic theology ascribes such an abominable title to Mary.
The only time Scripture ever mentions a "Queen of Heaven", it is not a title ascribed to Mary "...so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death." (CCC 966). Rather, it is ascribed to a false goddess to whom the rebellious Israelites credited their prosperity. As we read in Jeremiah 44:17-19, "But we will certainly do whatever has gone out of our own mouth, to burn incense to the queen of heaven and pour out drink offerings to her, as we have done, we and our fathers, our kings and our princes, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. For then we had plenty of food, were well-off, and saw no trouble. But since we stopped burning incense to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have been consumed by the sword and by famine.” The women also said, “And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, did we make cakes for her, to worship her, and pour out drink offerings to her without our husbands’ permission?”"
The result was the very terror they sought freedom from. "Behold, I will watch over them for adversity and not for good. And all the men of Judah who are in the land of Egypt shall be consumed by the sword and by famine, until there is an end to them." (v27).
The similarities between this and Catholic Mariology are striking. Even one of the most common arguments used by Roman Catholics is the peace they feel when they devote themselves to Mary, and the emotional struggles that result from turning away from her. They are emotionally locked into Marian devotion, and genuinely believe she is, in some way, helping them. The result, however, will be just as devastating. All who seek Mary's intercession, on the day of judgment, will find only Christ, who will declare to them plainly "I never knew you, depart from me, you who practice lawlessness" (Matthew 7:23).
Honorable mention - Amos 3:7-8
"Surely the Lord God does nothing, Unless He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets. A lion has roared! Who will not fear? The Lord God has spoken! Who can but prophesy?"
Being one of the so-called "minor" prophets, Amos is quite easy to overlook. Nevertheless, he passes on a very important message regarding the general behavior of God. Specifically, he tells us that God does nothing unless He reveals it to a prophet first. There are, of course, a literal infinite number of exceptions. He could not tell a prophet "I'm going to create the heavens and the Earth", because there were no prophets to tell. Nor is He sending billions of prophets every minute to inform us of every minuscule micro-management He performs in His ongoing task upholding the universe.
However, God's greater works are never fully obscured. He sends word ahead when He fulfills His plans. Much like the protoevangelium seen above, He tells us His plans ahead of time, and it happens. This is why we constantly see Scripture saying things like "this was to fulfill what was written in this Scripture". Almost every element of Jesus' life was foretold ahead of time, including, as we have just seen, His birth from the womb of a virgin.
Mary's life is significantly more shrouded. We aren't told that she herself would be immaculately conceived, nor are we told that she would be bodily assumed into Heaven. We are certainly not told of her exaltation. In fact, other than giving birth without first knowing a man, there is never anything particularly special mentioned about her, neither foretold in the Old Testament, nor fulfilled in the New. How, then, can we be expected to believe these fantastical elements? A simple syllogism can be presented here:
P1: The Lord does nothing without informing the prophets.
P2: The Lord did not inform a prophet of anything special regarding Mary.
C: The Lord did nothing special regarding Mary.
The virgin birth is, of course, excluded from the above. The Lord foretold that a virgin would conceive, the New Testament affirms that Mary conceived Jesus in her virginity, therefore it is unacceptable for a Christian to believe otherwise. But where are the immaculate conception, or the bodily assumption, anywhere in Scripture? They are neither foretold, in whole or in part, nor affirmed. We can, therefore, reasonably dismiss legendary embellishments such as the immaculate conception, or bodily assumption, of Mary.
Matthew 1
The first time Mary appears in the New Testament is right at the beginning of the New Testament. The focus begins on the genealogy of Christ (v1), followed through Joseph's ancestral line. Verse 16 tells us "And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ." And there she is, the first mention of Mary by name. It's interesting that the very first thing the Bible notes about Mary is that she is the wife of Joseph. This, of course, is not something any Catholic would ever deny. It is not against their theology, in any way, that she married Joseph, only that this marriage was consummated even after the birth of Christ. But it is important simply because sex is a very important part of marriage. If two people are married, it is generally assumed they will eventually have sex. Paul even later tells married couples not to abstain from sex for too long, but by mutual consent and for a time (1 Corinthians 7:5).
But we don't even need the implication, because after again affirming that Mary conceived Christ in her virginity, Matthew 1 concludes with "Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus." (v24-25).
Now, I really don't feel the need to make a doctrine out of that. The focus of this verse is that Joseph didn't "know" Mary (as Adam "knew" Eve in Genesis 4:1) until she brought forth Christ, and so that is the Christian doctrine. But the flip side of this is that after she had brought forth Christ, they did what married couples do. Otherwise, it wouldn't say he did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son, but that he did not know her at all. Clearly, therefore, the perpetual virginity is a myth, and to declare it an infallible doctrine by which the whole Church is bound is perversion.
Matthew 2
Not surprisingly, Mary again shows up in chapter 2, which is a continuation of the Nativity narrative. The wise men, having seen the famous star, seek Jesus, have a brief talk with Herod, set back off to find Jesus, and verse 11 tells us "And when they had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him. And when they had opened their treasures, they presented gifts to Him: gold, frankincense, and myrrh."
This has implications for the Divine Motherhood dogma. If you remember, this is where Christians and Catholics will believe near enough the same thing, we'll just bicker over the terms, so really, this Scripture doesn't massively help either view of Mary. I will note, however, that it uses language more consistent with my view of Messianic Motherhood, rather than Divine Motherhood.
You will never find the term "mother of God" in Scripture. In fact, to my knowledge (though unlike many Catholics, I am quite conscious of, and open about the fact that I do not know every word ever written by every Christian, so I could be wrong), the term does not show up until certain cults started denying the Deity of Christ, with the earliest reference I can find being in 262 A.D.
By contrast, Matthew 2 uses the word "Mother" 5 times: Once in verse 11, once in verse 13, once in verse 14, once in verse 20, and once in verse 21. Each time, it speaks of "the Child and His mother". This does not negate the use of the term "mother of God", any more than Jesus being the "Son of God" (which is a Biblical term) negates Him actually being God. Again, it all depends on how you mean it, and if you simply mean that Jesus is God, and Mary is His mother, then it is simply a dodgy term for good theology. But the less loaded terminology, like "mother of Jesus", "mother of the Messiah", or even "mother of our Lord", is more consistent with the language exemplified here.
Matthew 12:46-50
"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.”"
Having established her significance as the virgin mother of Jesus, Matthew doesn't pay vast amounts of attention to her. Neither, it seems, does Jesus, in the next instance she is mentioned. Here, she is not even mentioned by name, simply as "His mother", and alongside her? His brothers. Now, how, if Mary remained a virgin until her bodily assumption into Heaven, did Jesus manage to acquire brothers? Roman Catholics have a number of excuses for this, with the official explanation being that these are actually just His cousins. This, however, is not what the verse says, implies, or describes. It is simply a weak attempt to reconcile bad theology with what Scripture very clearly states.
Aside from this obvious and explicit repudiation of Catholic doctrine, I also note the less obvious element of this account. Jesus is summoned by His mother, but He does not obey. He practically waves her off and turns her into a metaphor. He takes His very real mother and brothers (yes, real brothers), and says that those who do the will of His Father in Heaven are His mother and brother. That's right, my friends: I am the mother of Jesus 😎
All jokes aside, this is the first time Jesus "downplays" Mary's role, but as you will see soon, it is not the last. It cannot be doubted that the virgin birth is spectacular (and that is rather the point; it directs our attention to the God who did it), and it is certainly a blessing for Mary to have been chosen out of thousands of possible candidates to be that virgin, but Jesus consistently points to a higher honor that we all share with Mary: Christ as our inheritance. In this case, the familial bonds of the elect, both to Christ and to each other, is significantly greater than the mere birthing of Christ.
Matthew 13:53-57
"Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables, that He departed from there. When He had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, “Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?" So they were offended at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house.”"
The next time Mary is mentioned, she isn't even physically present, but once again we see that she had, and is well known to have had, more children than just Jesus. Four of them, James, Joses, Simon, and Judas, are mentioned by name, followed by his unnamed sisters (plural). That means Mary had at least 7 children including Christ: 5 boys, and at least two girls. Now, I see no reason to create a whole "honorable mention" section just for this one verse, but it's worth noting that in Galatians 1:19, Paul affirms that James is "the Lord's brother". This, once again, annihilates the perpetual virginity myth, demonstrating the historical fact that Mary and Joseph had a quite normal Jewish marriage.
Honorable mentions - Matthew 19:17; Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19
The three synoptic Gospels contain parralel accounts of a rich young ruler who asked Jesus how to obtain eternal life. These can be found in Matthew 19:16-22, Mark 10:17-22, and Luke 18:18-23. On the whole, these accounts mean next to nothing with regard to Mary. But the reason I include them here is because of an encounter with one of my Roman Catholic friends, and she immediately recognised this reference as problematic for her theology.
As is standard social custom, I asked how she was, to which she answered "I am good". With neither intention to begin a debate, nor even her Catholic faith in the back of my mind, I jokingly replied "no one is good but God". This, of course, is a reference to these honorable mentions. Taking Mark 10:18 as the example, "So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God." So, who is good? No one but God. ";.; wrong", she replied, immediately reminding me, this woman believes Mary is good, being born without original sin, reversing Eve's disobedience with her obedience, and living her entire life without personal sin. Even her good deeds are in the mythical treasury of merit. So as I saw those little bubbles dancing around, telling me she was still typing, I knew what was coming. Sure enough, it was an emotional assertion of Roman Catholic Mariology.
How is it that this one statement by Jesus is so firmly opposed to Catholic Mariology that a devout Catholic woman intinctively interprets it to be so, even when it was not cited as such? Or even in a serious manner? I can't remember if I sent it with emojis (though I usually do so with my jokes), but I would have thought it would be taken as it was intended: A joke. But no, it was taken as a direct assault on something precious to her. This, of course, is because it genuinely is. If no one is good but God, as is affirmed by God's own flesh incarnation, then Mary is not good. She is no longer tainted by sin, only because she is now dead.
Honorable mention - Matthew 27:55-56
"And many women who followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to Him, were there looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons."
One of the more difficult aspects of studying Scripture is the vast array of people with the same name. "Mary", for example, is shared by 6 women in the New Testament. This is just a feature of first century Jewish life in the region. Thus, some names needed disambiguators like Simon "Bar-Jonah" (Matthew 16:17), or even "Jesus of Nazareth" (Matthew 26:71). As a bonus note, this is actually a strong piece of evidence for the historicity of the New Testament. Matthew disambiguates popular Israeli names from the time, like Simon, James, and Judas, whereas he doesn't disambiguate names that are less common, such as Thomas or Bartholemew.
But this concept gives Catholic apologists a bit of a dagger in the cloak when it comes to Matthew 27:55-56, and other verses similar to it (which I'll just apply the same answer to here, rather than creating another honorable mention). Notice here, Mary the mother of James? But as we have already seen, James is also the name of one of Jesus' brothers. And the mother of Joses? But that's yet another name of Jesus' brothers, mentioned in Matthew 13:55. We're two for two! So is it possible that the James and Joses of Matthew 13:55 are Jesus' cousins after all, and the Mary in Matthew 27 is their mother, rather than Mary the mother of Jesus?
But the answer to this is simple: There are more than one pair of brothers with the names James and Joses. Specifically, Mark 15:40 disambiguates which James we are talking about: James the Less! That is, one of Jesus' disciples. So, Jesus has a disciple named James, and a brother named James. Jesus' disciple had a brother named Joses, Jesus and His brother James had another brother named Joses. By Western standards, this might be seen as a bit too coincidental to be considered a counter argument, but aside from the fact coincidences do happen, which is more believable? For there to be two pairs of brothers with the same name, or for there two be two sisters called Mary, and for the sons of one of them to be referred to, with no clarification what so ever, as the "brothers" of the Son of the other? Clearly, though initially convincing, attempts to push Jesus' brothers on to another Mary are less than satisfactory as a defence of the perpetual virginity myth.
Mark 3:31-35
"Then His brothers and His mother came, and standing outside they sent to Him, calling Him. And a multitude was sitting around Him; and they said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are outside seeking You.” But He answered them, saying, “Who is My mother, or My brothers?” And He looked around in a circle at those who sat about Him, and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”"
Much like in Matthew 12 (and it is likely this is even the same event being described by both authors), Mark's Gospel affirms that Christ had brothers, once again eradicating the perpetual virginity myth. Though it seems redundant to go through this again, and I should probably have just mentioned these together (as well as the third account in Luke 8), I feel that continuing in chronological order will reinforce the point: Jesus had siblings, these siblings are directly linked to Mary, and therefore Mary was not a perpetual virgin.
But I don't want to hammer this point in because I have any particular interest in Mary's private marital life. As I have said from the beginning, there is no particular doctrine in view here. It's a historical fact, but it isn't one any Christian needs to know. The reason it matters is simply because the Roman Catholic Church, and similar variations, have made it a doctrine. In fact, an infallible dogma. You do not have the option, as a Roman Catholic, to believe the historical truth, even as the Bible describes it.
"But does the Bible really describe it?", a Roman Catholic may answer. It is an unfortunate fact that any Biblical truth can be twisted in one's mind. The Bible can say the same thing in several different ways, and if you are so inclined, you can reinterpret it to say what you want it to say instead. I can make myself into a prophet if I use the right verses. So, even now, a Roman Catholic can make up a number of excuses for why Jesus' many siblings are not biological descendants of Mary and Joseph. And sadly, this is what Roman Catholics are prone to do.
So, having proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that Mary and Joseph had a perfectly normal Jewish marriage, and that God did not curse her with a barren womb, nor did she deprive Joseph of his marital rights and allow Satan to endlessly prey on his natural male desires, what do we do with the unreasonable doubts? Unfortunately, God alone can sort those out. However, one last thing we can do is show that they are unreasonable.
See, no Roman Catholic worth his salt will pretend the Bible is not the word of God. That doesn't mean they are all worth their salt; many of them do have an unacceptably low view of Scripture. However, it is official Roman Catholic dogma that "...Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit...", and "...both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence." This is all found in Dei Verbum.
So, Catholics are stuck between a rock and a hard place here. No matter what they do, they're already holding "sacred" tradition with a different sense of loyalty and reverence than Sacred Scripture. That's just a necessary aspect of being a Roman Catholic: Tradition trumps Scripture. But if we're going to play that game, we now have to ask, if the perpetual virginity is an essential dogma that must be accepted by all the faithful, why is it not only absent from Scripture, but is also apparently opposed by Scripture, and God doesn't seem to care that His Holy word so appears to oppose one of His dogmas?
We'll put it another way. There are many things I believe based on Scripture, but there are also things I believe only because I have received them from other sources. Per Bible Brain rules, I am not normally allowed to express those beliefs, because I don't want this ministry to teach someone else's error. But for sake of this article, let's just say I have a position on the rapture. Now let's suppose I break Bible Brain rules and start debating that view. My opponents consistently show that Scripture doesn't support my view, but I keep reinterpreting the Scriptures they show me. At some point, I have to explain why I have to keep reinterpreting the Scriptures. This is where I have to admit that even if my view is true, God doesn't seem to care who believes it, because He makes His believers fight too hard for it. In the same way, the way God wrote Scripture doesn't lend itself well to the perpetual virginity myth. Thus, even if it was not a myth, we can safely conclude God doesn't care if we believe it.
Mark 6:3
"Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?” So they were offended at Him."
Need I repeat myself? Jesus had siblings, the James and Joses who were children of the other Mary are a different James and Joses who are the children of Mary the mother of Jesus, the perpetual virginity is a myth, all attempts to rescue it fail. This is the last time Mary shows up in Mark's Gospel.
Luke 1:26-56
The most detailed account of Mary comes from the beginning of Luke's Gospel, wherein he describes the announcement of Christ's birth to her, and her reaction. On the whole, there isn't a lot that can be drawn from this passage. A regular Christian, being unaware of the Marian dogmas found in the Roman Catholic Church, will not come away believing, or seeking them. This is because, objectively, this passage doesn't present anything on which Christians and Catholics disagree. It portrays Mary as the virgin fiance of Joseph who gladly and faithfully receives the news that she has been chosen to bear the Son of the Living God. Christians believe that, Catholics believe that. Thus, we should be able to leave Luke 1 alone.
One exception to this is verse 47, wherein Mary says "And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior." If Mary was truly free of sin, either original or personal, she doesn't seem to know it. God is her Savior, because she needs to be saved.
To this, Catholics respond with a mucky puddle analogy. There are two ways to save someone: To pull them out of disastor, or to prevent them falling into it in the first place. Everyone else throughout history has fallen into the mucky puddle, from which Christ pulls us, whereas Mary, He simply prevented from falling into the puddle in the first place.
This is ultimately why we should never argue primarily from analogy. Analogies are ways of explaining things, but they are not proof of anything. For example, how does one normally obtain a son? If you're a man, there are two choices: You can adopt one, or you can sleep with a woman and produce one yourself. Well, Christ is certainly not the Son of God via adoption. Did I just prove the existence of a fourth, female member of the Trinity? Or perhaps I just proved the Holy Spirit is female? Or maybe the Mormons are right: The Holy Spirit really did have His way with Mary? None of that is true. It's absurd. Thus, the mucky puddle analogy is nothing more than a rescuing device. When we see that Mary relies on God as a Savior, the natural interpretation is that He saved her as He saves us. Catholics must establish that Mary is free of original sin first. But this is neither the first Scripture, nor the last, that suggest she was as sinful as any other woman.
Beyond that, there really isn't much to say about Luke 1, and not surprisingly, it is supportive of the "Protestant" view of Mary. But as this is a longer passage about Mary, Catholics do have a few extra things to say about it. It would be impractical to respond to all of them in this one article, especially as it is already very long, but ultimately, all of these things are a case of "reading between the lines". That is, the easiest response to all of them is "it doesn't say that". For example, we see Mary's obedience in verse 38: "...Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word...." What does this mean? Well, it simply means Mary quite understandably accepted this blessing from God. Does it make her the "New Eve"? Is it telling us, as Irenaeus Williams argues, "The New Eve obeys and undoes the disobedience of Eve, her mother. The Woman releases the knot, and opens the way of salvation for humanity and creation!"? I can show you a connection between Christ and Adam quite easily. Look at 1 Corinthians 15:45. Is that here in Luke 1:38, or anywhere in the Bible? No, it's something that is entirely read into the text. This is a practice known as "eisegesis".
There is one argument that I notice does tend to trip many Christians up. In verse 48, Mary says "For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant; For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed." Lacking Catholic "guidance", one might easily gloss over this. I know I certainly did. I'd read the Bible cover to cover 3 times before I even started to study Catholicism from the sources, and this just never stood out to me. But Catholics highlight "all generations will call me blessed" as a silver bullet.
But there is a significantly more obvious interpretation to those who do not have Catholic goggles on. Of course Mary was blessed! What child doesn't want to portray her in the school Nativity play? Who doesn't look in awe at an image of her cradling the Son of God? Even as a man, I can't help but envy the blessing she received on Earth. I don't need to imagine she is somehow exalted to the highest place in Heaven, as Queen over all things, to say yes, Mary was very much blessed. But as we'll see in a later honorable mention, Christ Himself affirms that there are greater blessings that are more generally available, even to us today.
Luke 2
Continuing from Luke 1, Luke 2 describes the actual birth of Christ, and the aftermath thereof. Once again, for such a large amount of information, there is very little in this that is relevant to Mariolatry. However, it is worth noting that, following His birth, Mary does perform Old Testament rituals pertaining to sin. In verses 22-24, we read "Now when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male who opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”), and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, “A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.”"
What is the relevant law here? Leviticus 12:6-8 commands "‘When the days of her purification are fulfilled, whether for a son or a daughter, she shall bring to the priest a lamb of the first year as a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove as a sin offering, to the door of the tabernacle of meeting. Then he shall offer it before the Lord, and make atonement for her. And she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who has borne a male or a female. ‘And if she is not able to bring a lamb, then she may bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons—one as a burnt offering and the other as a sin offering. So the priest shall make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’ ”"
Now, why is Mary bringing a sin offering if she is without sin? To this, a Catholic may answer, as is the only answer I have ever heard, "Jesus was baptised to fulfill all righteousness, so why shouldn't Mary offer a sin offering to fulfill all righteousness?" It shouldn't be surprising, given that Catholics make Mary a goddess in all but name, that they do not see the blasphemy in so flippantly comparing her to God in flesh. But the simple answer is "because that isn't what it says". It doesn't say Mary did this to fulfill all righteousness. It doesn't distinguish her offering, in any way, from offerings that were offered by any other Jewish mother at any point in time. John even hesitates to baptise Jesus, but no one hesitates to receive Mary's offering. Thus, if we ignore the immaculate conception myth and just let the text say what it says, we see that Mary was a sinner, and she knew it. Apart from this, there isn't a lot relevant in Luke 2.
Luke 8:19-21
"Then His mother and brothers came to Him, and could not approach Him because of the crowd. And it was told Him by some, who said, “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see You.” But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”"
This is the third and final account of Jesus' mother and brothers seeking Him, and Him waving them off by saying those who do the will of God are His mother and brothers. As we've already hammered to death that Jesus had siblings, we can move on from this very quickly.
Luke 11:27-28
"And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!” But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”"
The final time Mary is mentioned in Luke, it is not as a present individual, but rather, she is mentioned by name. I find it interesting how well this circles back to the first time she appears in his Gospel. In her famous Magnificat, she declares "...henceforth all generations will call me blessed", and here we have the correct application: "Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!" As Mary foretold, we see the first generation calling her blessed.
But Jesus does not respond as a good Roman Catholic would. Rather, He redirects the woman's focus. "More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!" Is Mary blessed? For sure. She had the privilege, out of thousands of Jewish women at her time, out of billions of women who have lived throughout history, of bearing and nursing the only begotten Son of God! But this is an Earthly blessing. It is one that echoes throughout eternity, and no doubt it brought more blessings with it, but if you are a Christian, you are more blessed than if you had been the physical vessel through whom the Son of God entered the world.
John 2:1-12
Moving on from Luke's Gospel, which again does not say vast amounts about her, we next find Mary near the beginning of John's Gospel. For Catholics, this is a very significant moment. The full passage reads: "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.”
Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of purification of the Jews, containing twenty or thirty gallons apiece. Jesus said to them, “Fill the waterpots with water.” And they filled them up to the brim. And He said to them, “Draw some out now, and take it to the master of the feast.” And they took it. When the master of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom. And he said to him, “Every man at the beginning sets out the good wine, and when the guests have well drunk, then the inferior. You have kept the good wine until now!”
This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory; and His disciples believed in Him. After this He went down to Capernaum, He, His mother, His brothers, and His disciples; and they did not stay there many days."
From this, Catholics argue that Mary is able to intercede for us, just as she did at the wedding in this case. Jesus initially refused, but Mary seems to force this task upon Him, and out of obedience to her, rather than any will of His own, He saves the wedding.
As with all things, it is vital to ensure we do not read too much into Scripture. If it isn't there, don't put it there. If it belonged there, God would put it there, or at least leave some justification, but what we do not see, in this passage, is someone praying to a dead woman, and her twisting Jesus around her little finger.
Of more significant note in this passage is Christ's response to her. "“Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.”" On Earth, Jesus' ministry had a tight schedule that could only be altered by the Father Himself. No one, not even Mary, could change the way things were going to happen.
But this is not the only time somebody tried. There is another woman in Scripture who sought a miracle from Christ ahead of time. In Matthew 15:21-28, and again in Mark 7:24-30, we read of a Gentile woman, whose daughter was afflicted by a demon. Pay attention to what Jesus says in the Mark account: "Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs." (v27).
Jesus' primary ministry was to the Jews. Not that He never showed kindness and blessings to Gentiles, but it wasn't yet time for them. His primary ministry was to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24). But because she persisted, she received what she asked for. Her faith prevailed. Is it not possible that this also happened at the wedding at Cana? Mary, after all, was a lost sheep of the house of Israel. If Christ responded with kindness to this unnamed Syro-Phonecian Greek woman, how much more so to His own mother? Thus, John 2 is not the one place in the Bible that actually shows Mary can intercede for us long after her death, but rather, it shows Christ honoring His mother on Earth. The key takeaway from this seems to be stated in verse 11: "This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory; and His disciples believed in Him." There is absolutely no justification what so ever for imposing anything special upon Mary.
John 6:42
"And they said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”"
Though Catholics love to argue for their version of the Eucharist on the basis of John 6, there really isn't anything here that is relevant to the Mariology debate. I have included it only for sake of being thorough; I promised to address everything the Bible says about Mary, and this is about Mary. All I can really add here is that this is the only time when Jesus' siblings, which we know from previous similar statements He had, are missing from this version of the complaint. This is what I would expect to see, if indeed Jesus was an only child. As we see otherwise in the other similar statements, Catholics still have no defence for the perpetual virginity myth.
John 19:25-27
"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."
If you ever hear me refer to Catholics as "Johnnys", this is why. See, the objective reader, not having a desire to read Mariology into Scripture, will see this exactly as it is: Jesus making provisions for His mother following His death (and, of course, upcoming Ascension). But to a Roman Catholic, this has a metaphorical meaning, too. It's not that Jesus is entrusting His mother to "...the disciple whom Jesus loved..." (John 21:20), but that He is entrusting His whole Church to His mother! Thus, if you're a Roman Catholic, she is your mother, too! It's all here, in these 3 little verses!
But it's not, is it? Unless you are the Apostle John (hence "Johnnys"), there is no obvious significance to you. There is significance, or God would not have included it. It is of immense historical value, to begin with, as it shows that John was at the foot of the cross, further cementing how "...we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty." (2 Peter 1:16). But how do you expect to convince anyone who is not already seeking to be convinced that John 19:25-27 means we can all call Mary our mother?
Acts 1:14
"These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers."
The last official mention of Mary is seen in Acts 1, where, following the Ascension of Christ, she is found praying with the Apostles in the upper room with some other women. Oh look... it mentions His brothers. The last additional mention of Mary contains the detail that Jesus had brothers, who were with her at the time. It would appear the perpetual virginity myth is, once again, dead in the water.
Honorable mention - Romans 3:21-26
"But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."
There are many Scriptures which show that all people, including Mary, have sinned, but Romans 3:23 is sufficient in and of itself. Why? Simply because, marking no exceptions, it says all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The one and only response I have ever heard from Catholics is that Christ is an obvious exception. Therefore, can Mary not also be? To that, I simply say the blurred lines between Christ and Mary in Catholic theology is precisely the problem with Roman Catholicism. Christ is an exception because He knew no sin, and of course cannot fall short of the glory of God because He is the glory of God! Mary, by contrast, is not an exception because, to begin with, there is no justification for it anywhere in Scripture. None what so ever.
But furthermore, when we expand our reading beyond verse 23, we read, as seen above, "But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, (...) to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference...". Does Mary believe? Yes. Therefore, is there a difference? No, for all have sinned! It simply cannot be crammed into this text that there is any human being, save Christ, who of course is God Himself and exlicitly noted throughout Scripture as the exception, who may be considered an exception. Mary sinned, Romans 3:23 says she sinned, various other Scriptures say she sinned, and as we saw earlier in this article, Mary herself knew she was a sinner, and doesn't seem remotely aware of any evidence to the contrary.
Galatians 4:4
"But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,"
Most Christian sites will tell you that the last mention of Mary is the aforementioned Acts 1:14. This is merely the last historical aspect of her life is mentioned. In reality, Galatians 4:4 is the last mention of Mary. This is simply an affirmation that Christ was born of a woman, however, that of course being Mary.
After this? Poof. Never again do we see Mary mentioned in the New Testament. We see no evidence of any Catholic devotion to her, neither as a divinely prescribed practice, nor even as a single heretic beginning this practice. It is a "brand new" (of course, centuries old by our time) practice that would have been completely alien even to John, the Apostle to whom Christ entrusted His mother as He hung on the cross.
Honorable mention - 1 Timothy 2:5
"For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,"
Perhaps the most damning statement against Catholic Mariology is 1 Timothy 2:5. Far from ascribing titles such as "...Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix" to Mary, it shows that Christ, and Christ alone, is the one Mediator between God and men! This is such a problem for Roman Catholics that of all Scriptures, this is probably cited the most, by amateurs and experts alike.
This is where Catholics tend to shy away from their own teachings and claim that ultimately, Mary is only our Mediatrix in a similar way to how we might mediate for a friend. There is one mediator between man and God, but Mary is at the "man" level, so it goes man (including Mary), Jesus, God. Thus, Catholics argue, there is still only one mediator between man and God.
The main issue with this is that, as I said, it shys away from actual Catholic teaching about Mary. If, as these apologists claim, she is only Mediatrix at our level, then she is on our level. So, if I ask my own mother to pray for me, I can call her Mediatrix. Right? Wrong. Mary is, in Catholic theology, in a very much unique position above all who are alive on the Earth, and even all who are dead in Christ (remember that phrase, remember it's found in 1 Thessalonians 4:16, do not let Catholics get away with the lie that Mary and the saints are not dead). Therefore, 1 Timothy 2:5 is devastating to any attempt to classify Mary as our "Mediatrix".
Honorable mention - Revelation 12
If I don't give an "honorable mention" to Revelation 12 here, it's likely many Catholics would pick up on that. This is because many of them believe the "woman clothed with the sun..." is, in fact, her. This interpretation, however, is to be rejected as pure eisegesis on the part of the Catholic. In reality, this woman is Israel. This is why there is so much similarity with Joseph's dream in Genesis 37:9-11. The 12 stars are the 12 tribes of Israel, and while Mary did physically birth Christ, Israel did so figuratively. Revelation is a blatantly figurative book. Even in this passage, we see a fiery red dragon sweep a third of the stars from Heaven with his tail, throw them down to the Earth, and stand before the woman to try to eat her child. Now wouldn't that be hard to portray in our Nativity scenes? This woman is not Mary, but Israel, and I submit the burden of proof is on the Roman Catholic to show otherwise. Until they do, this particular verse is irrelevant to our discussion here today.
Conclusion
In the above article, we have seen literally everything the Bible says about Mary, the mother of Jesus, from the minor to the major. We have covered passing references to her, such as Galatians 4:4, which tells us only that Christ was "born of a woman". We have covered the largest passages of Scripture which mention her, such as in Luke 1, wherein she receives the news that she has been chosen to bear the Messiah. We have even covered Scriptures which do not directly mention Mary, yet nevertheless have implications on Marian doctrine.
What we have seen is that the Roman Catholic view, at best, is sorely lacking in any Biblical evidence. But this is the absolute kindest thing we can say. In reality, the Bible utterly repudiates Catholic Mariology, calling it a blasphemous abomination, even being an entirely different Gospel which, if followed, strongly suggests that there is no light in you. If the real Mary knew what Rome had turned her into, she would be deeply grieved, but far worse than that, God does know, and is likewise grieved. The honor Catholics render to Mary is owed to God alone, and I submit He will not be pleased that it is so flippantly passed on to anyone who isn't Him. It is, therefore, imperative that all believers in Christ reject the Marian idol of Rome, repenting of any and all past acceptance thereof.