Is Mary really our Advocate?
NO!
Biblical Evidence against Mary as Advocate
Both the beliefs that we as Christians should pray and
petition Mary who will then offer them up to Jesus and that she intercedes for
us, turning God’s wrath away from us, are utterly unbiblical. Not only do we
not find a single biblical example of a believer offering prayers and petitions
to Mary in heaven, but nowhere in Scripture are we even encouraged to do so.
1 John 2:1 reveals
to us that we can go to Jesus as our Advocate who secures our right
relationship with the Father, stating, “My
little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if
anyone sins, we have an Advocate with
the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.”
In Hebrews 10:19-20,
we read, “Therefore, brethren, since we
have confidence to enter the
sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which He opened for us through the curtain,
that is, through His flesh”. It’s
through the flesh of Jesus Christ I even have access and confidence to enter
God’s sanctuary in Heaven, not Mary. You don’t ever need Mary or anyone else
since it’s always Jesus Christ alone that we need. As a Christian one must
never put anyone between us and Jesus Christ since we can directly to Him through His blood and sacrifice for
our entrance into God’s sanctuary.
In John 14:14 Jesus Christ says, “If you ask Me anything in
My name, I will do it.” Thus, it’s
obvious that we don’t need to pray to anyone else who will then give our
petition to God.
In Roman Catholic theology, Catholics are taught that Jesus
is the King of Justice and Mary is the Queen of Mercy. Therefore, when
Catholics fear God’s justice they are taught to pray to Mary who then pleads
mercy for them before God.
But on the contrary, Philippians
4:6 says, “Have no anxiety about
anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.”
(RSVCE)
Now, concerning the false belief that Mary appeases God’s
wrath and anger for believers, this is not found anywhere in Scripture as well.
1 John 2:2 says that Jesus “is the propitiation for our sins”. (see
also 1 John 1:10; Heb. 2:17). The
word “Propitiation” in the original Greek is, hilasmos, and can mean ‘expiation’, that is, the canceling/wiping
away of the penalty of sins, or it can mean ‘propitiation’, that is, a
turning away of God’s wrath by an acceptable offering.
In this specific verse the word ‘hilasmos’ does mean
propitiation, and plenty of examples in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament)
can be cited in which ‘hilasmos’ is used in a propitiatory view (Gen. 32:20;
Num. 16:47-48, 25:11; 1 Sam. 26:19; 2 Sam. 21:3-4; 24:25; Prov. 16:14). Also,
John many times points out the theme of God’s wrath and Jesus being the
solution (John 3:16; 36; 8:24; 1 John 3:14; 5:16). Therefore, the evidence tilts
in preference for Jesus turning away God’s wrath for us sinners, since His
continual heavenly intercession involves applying His death to our salvation.
Hence, we do NOT need Mary to turn away God’s wrath because it’s Jesus alone
who turns away God’s wrath from us through His perfect work.
Rome falsely asserts that Mary’s prayers “will deliver our
souls from death” (Catechism of the
Catholic Church {DoubleDay,, 1994], par. 966, p.274). For this reason Rome
believes Mary helps in “restoring supernatural life to souls” (CCC, par. 968). Presenting Mary as a
co-savior in this way is extremely insulting to us regenerated Christians who
believe that Jesus alone delivers our souls from death and restores
supernatural life to souls. As the Apostle Paul proclaims in 1 Tim. 2:5-6, “For there is one God,
and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave
Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.”
If there is only one mediator between God and Mankind, i.e.
the Man Christ Jesus, why then do we need Mary as another mediator and raise
her up to such a superior and exalted level? Rome answers by saying, “There may be only one mediator between God
and men, and that’s Christ Jesus, but who is the mediator between man and
Christ Jesus”. Our response is, you
don’t need one. One goes directly to Jesus Christ to our Father in Heaven.
We are NOT to give our prayers in Mary’s name, who in turn will give those
prayers to Jesus Christ her son, who in turn will give them to God. Since
Christ Jesus is our ONE and only Mediator, there is thus only one way to come
near to God, for only Christ Jesus “gave Himself as a ransom for all, the
testimony given at the proper time”. 1
Thess. 5:9 declares, “For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation
through our Lord Jesus Christ”. Thus, salvation is through Christ, Not
Mary.
The Bible most plainly forbids communicating with dead. Deut. 18:10-11 states, “There shall not
be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through
the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or
one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a
medium, or a spiritist, or one who
calls up the dead,”. The word ‘spiritist’ that is used in Hebrew is darash (דָּרַשׁ). Old Testament Scholar, Earl S. Kalland
explains that the word is referring to, “(‘[one] who consults the dead’) is
one who investigates, looks into, and seeks information from the dead” (Earl S.
Kalland, Deutoronomy, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositor’s Bible
Commentary with the New International Version, Volume 3, p. 121, n. 11). Sadly,
Catholics seek the deceased saints and Mary for help. Isaiah 8:19 reveals more of the Bible’s stance on communication
with the dead:
“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?”
The Bible’s stance is that Christians must seek God on behalf of the
living. We are not to seek the dead, like the saints and Mary. Now, Catholic
apologists in predictable fashion will reply to this by misusing Matthew 22:32, which states, “God is
not the God of the dead, but of the living.” Romanists such as Patrick Madrid
make the flawed case that because the saints are alive in Heaven the Biblical
prohibitions against praying to the dead do not apply on them (Patrick Madrid, Answer
Me This!, [Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 2003], p.168).
First, this verse was never meant to be an
argumentation that permits prayers to the dead saints in the New Testament
times. Nowhere does the context indicate such a thing. This out-of-place use of
the text is just not the case whatsoever. Second,
even though believer who enter Heaven are spiritually alive with God, they are
nonetheless dead as Scripture proclaims. Hence, communication with them is
prohibited. Joshua 1:2 states, “Moses
My servant is dead”. Furthermore,
in Acts 2:9, a follower of Christ named
Eutychus sat next to a window and as he fell asleep, “he fell down from the
third story and was taken up dead”.
So according to Scripture, even though the dead saints are living spiritually,
they are nonetheless counted as part of the dead, and thus, communicating with
them is prohibited.
In spite of the fact that later church fathers began communicating with
the dead saints and Mary, Early Church history showed no such thing. The
Historian Philip Schaff writes:
“In the first three centuries the veneration of the martyrs in general restricted itself to the thankful remembrance of the their virtues and the celebration of the day of their death as the day of their heavenly birth...But in the Nicene age it advanced to a formal invocation of the saints as our patrons (patroni) and intercessors (mediators), before the throne of grace, and degenerated into a refined form of polytheism and idolatry. The saints came into the place of the demigods, Penates and Lares, the patrons of the domestic hearth and country” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume 3, [Hendrickson, 2011], p. 432)
Since the dead saints are with God in Heaven, this means that they are
in a condition of perfect happiness or absolute peace. Revelation 21:4 recounts those in Heaven as never experiencing
sorrow, nor crying, nor pain. However, if the saints in Heaven were presented
with all the prayers from all the Catholics in the world in regards to all
their troubles, trials, adversities, afflictions, maladies, etc. they would
definitely be full of grief and in great pain. Therefore, it is impossible that
the saints and Mary receive those prayers and intercede for them.
Historical
Evidence against Mary as Advocate
A meticulous examination of the Early Christians of the first 300 years
shows that it was never orthodox to seek Mary’s intercession through prayer.
Rather, for the first three centuries drew near to God through Christ and
prayed directly to them. When one reads their writings on prayer or anywhere
prayer is talked about in some length, not one reference is made about praying
to Mary or seeking her heavenly intercession. The mere fact that the disciples
of the Apostles and the following generations after them for the next three
centuries never participated in such a practice is damaging proof that the
Roman practice is false. Rather, we find proof to the contrary. For instance, in
Clement’s late 1st century letter to the Corinthians he states how Christians must
strive against, “unrighteousness and iniquity, along with all covetousness,
strife, evil practices, deceit, whispering, and evil-speaking, all hatred of
God, pride and haughtiness, vain glory and ambition. For they that do such
things are hateful to God” (Clement, Letter to the Corinthians, 35). He
understands the struggle of the Christian life. Therefore, instead of
encouraging his readers to pray to Mary for help and strength as Modern
Romanism teaches, Clement urges them to pray to Jesus in their time of need and
temptation:
“This is the way, beloved, in which we find our Savior, even Jesus Christ, the High Priest of all our offerings, the defender and helper of our infirmity. By Him we look up to the heights of heaven” (Clement, Letter to the Corinthians, 36).
Now there is possibly one exception of prayer offered to Mary before
the 4th century of Christian history. This prayer that some date to
about 250 A.D. is named the ‘Sub-tomb Presidium’ which invokes Mary asking for
her protection from persecution and worldly hazards. However, the Historian
Maxwell Johnson mentions that lots of scholars are reluctant to give this
prayer an early date and instead choose to give it a later date (Maxwell E.
Johnson, Praying and Believing in Early Christianity, [Liturgical Press,
2013], p. 79). Yet, even if it’s given a later date, Johnson comments:
“It remains the earliest marian prayer in existence” (Maxwell E. Johnson, Praying and Believing in Early Christianity, [Liturgical Press, 2013], p. 90).
So it’s not until around 250 A.D. or later that one finally sees a
prayer to Mary in Christian history. Then, more than 100 years passes before
the first Christian Father is recorded to have prayed to Mary. As Church
Historian Philip Schaff states:
“The first instance of the formal invocation of Mary occurs in the prayers of Ephraim Syrus (379), addressed to Mary and the saints” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume 3, [Hendrickson, 2011], p. 422).
Later on, others take part in this new but unorthodox practice, like Gregory
of Nazianzus and Epiphanius of Salamis. Then, it gradually becomes the
prevalent practice on account of these influences. Remarking on this
development, J.N.D. Kelly affirms:
“Devotion to the Blessed Virgin developed more slowly…Thus reliable evidence of prayers being addressed to her, or of her protection and help being sought, is almost (though not entirely) non-existent in the first four centuries” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, [HarperOne, 1978], p.491).
As concerning Mary being invoked to turn away God’s wrath from Catholics,
which is the other-half of the Roman teaching, this belief develops later in
Church history. Medieval piety is what caused modern Catholics to believe this.
Elizabeth Johnson discusses this particular popular medieval legend called the Apocryphal
Theophilus Legend, based on the 6th century cleric Theophilus of Adana, stating:
“The idea that Mary had maternal influence over God, that she could turn away Christ’s just anger and obtain mercy for sinners, had already been accepted in the East, as seen in the popularity of the Theophilus Legend. In this story a man bargains his soul away to the devil to gain a lucrative job. Near death he implored Mary to get back the contract, which she does after contending with the devil. Theophilus dies forgiven and avoids eternal hell. Translated into Latin in the eighth century, this story exercised great influence on the West’s notion of Mary’s power to save” (Elizabeth Johnson, “Blessed Virgin Mary,” ed. Richard P. McBrien, The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, [HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 1995], p.833)
This fictitious tale was then utilized by well-known western churchmen
like Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153 A.D.), Bonaventure (1221-1274 A.D.), and
Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori (1696-1787 A.D.), to advance the belief that Mary
could turn away God’s anger by asking her in prayer. Therefore, it is mostly on
account of this ridiculously fabricated 6th century tale, which came
into Latin Christendom in the 8th century, that Modern-day Catholics
believe this teaching to this day. Germanus I of Constantinople who died in 733
A.D. popularized this belief as well that Mary could turn away God’s wrath from
Catholics (Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism: New Edition, [HarperOne,
1994], p. 1085).
We see once more that this teaching is unbiblical and ahistorical.
