Here on my blog, I have been addressing the doctrines of Catholicism that revolve around their belief that Mary was something more than Protestant Christians claim her to be. You can read more on each below. The four core dogmas of RCC Mariology include:
- Perpetual Virginity. This is the notion that Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus, and was never sexually intimate with her husband Joseph, and gave him no children aside from Jesus (who was not biologically Joseph’s son).
- Immaculate Conception. The idea behind this doctrine is that in order for Mary to have been the vessel for bringing God’s Son into the world, she too must have been sinless.
- Mary as “The Mother of God”. This doctrine is based on the Greek title theotokos meaning “God Bearer” or “Mother of God”. Protestants generally reject this title, and I discuss why at the link.
- The Assumption of Mary. This doctrine insists that Mary ascended into Heaven – or, God “assumed” her into Heaven – like Christ, Elijah, and Enoch are described as having experienced.
Let’s address the Assumption of Mary…
For starters, it is important to understand that God has in fact raised people to Heaven either before death as in the case of Enoch (Genesis 5:21-24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:9-11), or afterward in the case of Christ (Acts 1:9-11). So there is ample precedence to suggest God could have done so with Mary. But did He, and is there any evidence of this?
According to church history, Mary did in fact die, though the details are a very thin, which has convinced some (but not all) Catholics to believe she did not die at all. The historical account of her death from natural causes is referred to as the “Dormition of Mary”. Best as we can tell she seems to have died in Jerusalem, and in the company of a few of the apostles including John. This places the time of her death and/or ascension somewhere before 70 AD when Jerusalem fell to the Roman siege of the city. Yet there is no recorded mentioning of Mary’s death and assumption… with one, possible, exception…
Revelation 12:1-6,
“A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth… And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne. Then the woman fled into the wilderness where she had a place prepared by God, so that there she would be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.”
Catholics will assert that these verses are a “clear reference” to Mary in the Heavens, clothed with the sun, and in a position of honor and glory, “proving” the Bible supports the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. Here are the flaws in their “proof”…
- Mary’s supposed ascension is never mentioned or even implied. It begins with a “great sign in heaven”, but does not indicate how the “woman” got there. We believe Heaven is full of people who were not “assumed” into the spiritual dimension. Furthermore, Mary is not even named! The imagery could just as easily be referring to the nation of Israel as a whole, and God’s protection of “her” in the wilderness for 3.5 years in the future would strongly suggest that is a better interpretation.
- Revelation is written in the Biblical apocalyptic genre. As such, it is flush with figurative imagery which is almost impossible to interpret literally in every instance that does not give us clear indicators. If this passage even is referring to Mary, she does not “literally” wear the sun as a garment, nor does she have a literal crown of 12 literal stars… again, this strongly suggests a reference to Israel, not Mary.
- The rules of interpretation cannot bend that far. The only way to interpret this passage as a “clear” reference to Mary’s assumption is if you decided it meant that and tried to make it fit, also known as eisegesis. By contrast, honest interpretation of Scripture requires exegesis, or extracting meaning from a given text within the intended contextual settings.
Again, I am not against the idea that God did something miraculous for the woman who brought God the Son’s incarnation into the world. As mentioned earlier, He’s done so for a small handful of others. But there is zero proof of this. In fact, we have zero historical records of any dormition traditions regarding Mary until 450-600 AD – a whopping four centuries after her lifetime! That’s a lot of time for Christian superstitions to emerge, especially in an era that was very susceptible to such infiltrations of false beliefs.
I will write one final piece concerning Mary, how Protestants generally view her, and what I think is appropriate to the mother of our Jesus.
Blessings,
Pastor John
