Does John 19 advocate Mariology?

When Jesus was on the Cross over 2000 years ago, one of His Last Words said to His mother was: “Woman, behold your Son!”, and to His disciple John: “Behold your mother!” (John 19:26-27) This small passage carries huge significance to Catholicism (if I’m not mistaken), for they believe that it is Jesus’ Command that we take Mary – the mother of Jesus Christ – as our spiritual mother. (Behold your mother!) This is why Catholics strongly hold on to Mariology, and calls her the ‘mother of God’, paying heavy tribute to her – giving her respect above any other human being (hyperdulia).

**Quick response to the Catholic reference to Mary as the “mother of God”: The term “Mother of God” has never appeared in the Bible; but only ‘mother of my Lord’ (Luke 1:43). There’s a huge difference between ‘mother of God’ and ‘mother of my Lord’. Branding Mary as the ‘Mother of God’ signifies how she has a supernatural and divine nature; and since God’s nature is Holy, His ‘mother’ must carry the same nature too – just as how one’s offspring carries the same sinful nature as one’s forefathers. Humans are born into the flesh, and because those of the flesh have a sinful nature (Galatians 5:17), we need the Blood of Christ to justify us for Salvation. Yet, if Mary truly has a Holy and Divine nature, she does not need the Blood of Christ for her salvation.

However, how can the ‘mother’ of God be human? Calling Mary the mother is God is a huge issue! If you look at The Gospel according to Luke, Mary only identifies herself as a lowly servant of The Lord (Luke 1:38; Luke 1:48), and how can a servant of The Lord of Sabaoth be the ‘Mother of God’ at the same time? Furthermore, if you take account of Mary’s Song of Praise in Luke 1:46-55, she identifies God as her Lord, and her Saviour (Luke 1:46-47). This passage is sufficient to conclude that Mary requires Yeshua for her salvation - yet, to further establish my logos, if you look at Excerpts from the Gospel of Mary, a New Testament apocrypha as well as a partially lost book from the Dead Sea Scrolls, she also identify's Christ as THE SAVIOUR. (This is also why I highly encourage Christians to spend time reading the apocrypha/deuterocanonical books as well as the Protocanon)

Lastly, Elizabeth calling Mary as the “mother of my Lord” has no reference to her having a Divine Nature. Nonetheless, it does connote how Mary will bear the long-awaited Messiah and Deliverer of the Jews – The One Who will be King over the whole earth (Zechariah 14:9). I do not advocate how we should not respect her, and treat her as if she had not appeared in the Word of God. Mary was chosen by God to bear Christ – which carries significance – but she is not the ‘mother of God’, and no different from key people mentioned in the New Testament (such as Peter, Paul, and John) in the sense that they all need The Blood of Christ for their salvation. END.**

Most of what Jesus said to His disciples (or a single disciple) is dedicated to all of the church – past to present. (Jesus didn’t only tell His disciples 2000 years ago to deny themselves and carry their crosses daily, but to us as well) Yet, in order to discern whether or not Jesus’s Command truly meant that all Christians are to take Mary as our ‘spiritual mother’, we need to wisdom and discernment based on the context of entire chapter, as well as the general context of the entire Word of God.

In fact, a huge problem that lies within Catholicism is how many traditions and beliefs are scripturally manipulated. Aside from this one – which I’ll explain in just a bit – the likes of purgatory, papal infallibility, justification of war, and caesaropapism, are poorly Biblically evidenced – which is scriptural manipulation. (Justification of war is manipulating Luke 22:36. If you look at the preceding and proceeding verses, you’ll find out that it does not advocate or justify war by any means – but at most self-defense. We are only justified to wage a Spiritual war against the dominions of evil, for The Kingdom of God is currently not a physical Kingdom where we can physically fight for it, but rather, in spiritual methods) I find some Catholic beliefs and traditions only having a few verses as a reference, whereas the general context of the Bible is neglected.

John 19:26-27:

When Jesus saw His mother and the disciple (John) whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, “Woman, here is your son.” Then he said to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home.

If John 19:26-27 really meant that we are to take Mary as a spiritual mother, which is a huge add to the Protestantism theological spectrum, why doesn’t anything similar to that appear in the rest of the Protocanon? The Bible is the Word of God as a whole, and different parts of the Word of God cannot contradict. Thus, I believe with full confidence and full scriptural evidence that John the Apostle did not take Christ’s Command at His Crucifixion to tell the church to take Mary as a spiritual mother in the sense of hyperdulia. This is evidenced, because apart from the Gospel, John wrote 3 letters and Revelations, with none of it included the slightest bit about anything as a Spiritual mother.

Try comparing the 'mother of God' to The Trinity. The Trinity isn't merely a 'New Testament' or Gentile thing; and if you pay closer attention to the Old Testament, you'll find out that God is plural. Genesis 1:1-2 mentions God (The Father) and The Spirit of God. In Genesis 1:26, Adonai Yahweh says "Let us make man according to our image, according to our likeness..." (Genesis 1:26). Elohim (God) is referred to as singular, therefore, the only way to explain God, is that He is a communal. There also other references found in other parts of the Word of God referring to The Trinity.  (Such as triple repetition of language) However, regarding the 'mother of God', there is, simply, nothing to reinforce hyperdulia or Mary as having a Divine nature.  

Therefore, Christ’s Command in John 19:26-27 is foretelling us of our identity as coheirs with Christ (Romans 8:17). When Christ told her mother ‘here is your son’, and to John ‘here is your mother’, He is juxtaposing John and Himself as having the same identity, that is, a son of the Most High God (Yet, we are not equals with Christ, for we are adopted - Ephesians 1:5), as well as how they are part of a spiritual family. In fact, in Matthew 12:49-50, Christ says: “Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the Will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.” The church was not existent by that time, but those of the church – the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12) – are those who does the Will of God, and those who are brothers and sisters of a Spiritual family. Christ also proves that those of the church will have eternal life. In Matthew 7:21, He says "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”, signifying that anyone who is His spiritual brother and sister is a coheir with Christ, and anyone who is a son or daughter of the Most High God will have eternal life.

However, the believers can only become part of the church – the body of Christ as well as the spiritual family – after Christ has paid the price for our sins, (1 Peter 3:18) which is death (Romans 6:23). Thus, the timing is highly crucial, because a few moments after Christ foreshadowed our identity as Children of God, he paid the Highest Price (1 Corinthians 7), and enabled our reconciliation with The Father (2 Corinthians 5:18). This is why the temple’s veil was torn into 2 (Matthew 27:51), signifying how man did not need to access God via the Holy of Holies, and that Christ’s Blood was shed - so that none would perish and all would repent (2 Peter 3:9). Through God we can become heirs of YHWH. (Galatians 4:7)

All in all, John 19 does not advocate Mariology or how we are to take Mary as a spiritual mother in the sense of hyperdulia – where we pay adoration and respect far greater than any other  human – but something far greater than that. Christ was advocating our paternal relationship with God, where we can have an intimate relationship with Him as His Child or Daughter, as well as foreshadowing our fraternal relationship as a spiritual family with the rest of the church.

-Barnabas

PS: I do not mean that we can’t take other Christians as our spiritual parents. In fact, Timothy was Paul’s spiritual son (1 Timothy 1:2), which justifies a spiritual paternal relationship with other people of the church. However, we are not to take anyone as a spiritual parent in the sense of hyperdulia. The entire motion of hyperdulia is cultish, for most cults have a founder which the congregation pays extra respect and adoration in the sense of how the person is a prophet beyond any other person known to man. Feel free to read my article on cults: What makes a new religious movement?