Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

Is Mary the Mother of God, - God, Who is Spirit?


Catholics have recited the “Hail Mary” prayer for many years. It includes the words, “Holy Mary, Mother of God.” These words represent one of the most treasured doctrines of Catholicism. In A.D. 431, the Council of Ephesus proclaimed Mary “to be the mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her” (“Formula of Union...” n.d.). One of the arguments used extensively to support this doctrine is presented as follows: (1) Mary was the mother of Jesus; (2) Jesus is God; (3) therefore, Mary is the “Mother of God.” This syllogism may seem logical, but the conclusion is superficial. Consider the following.

First, although the Bible documents that Mary became the mother of Jesus and clearly teaches that Jesus is God, it never states, or even implies, that Mary was (or is) the “Mother of God.” For a theological syllogism to explain correctly the relationship between Mary and God, it must be based on biblical truth. We can propose correctly that (1) Jesus is God (Hebrews 1:8); (2) God became flesh (John 1:1,14); (3) therefore, Mary is the mother of Jesus according to the flesh (Romans 9:5), i.e., Jesus’ physical body.

Second, we should keep in mind that Deity is not constituted by a literal family—with fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters—like some of the gods of Greek and Roman mythology. Although we refer to the first and second Persons of the Godhead as the Father and the Son, these titles do not denote a literal familial bond, but emphasize Their united and divine nature. To refer to Mary as the “Mother of God” is to misunderstand the nature of Deity and misapply Scripture.

Third, consider the consequences which develop from such an inappropriate use of the syllogism aforementioned. Since the Bible records that Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18), Catholics conclude that it is correct to refer to Mary as “the daughter of God the Father, Mother of Jesus Christ, and true spouse of the Holy Spirit” (Peffley, n.d., p. 3). If the Holy Spirit is Mary’s “husband” (and, therefore, Jesus’ “father”), and Jesus is God, would not the Holy Spirit be the “father” of God? This is not only a completely erroneous application of Scripture, but also blasphemous theology. Now let us consider some additional evidence from the Bible that further explains Mary’s relationship to God.
God does not have a physical mother.

Speaking to the Son, the Father declared, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever” (Hebrews 1:8). In God’s revelation to the apostle John, the resurrected Christ said, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,...who is and who was and who is to come” (Revelation 1:8). The Son did not have a beginning; He is the Beginning. “He was in the beginning with God” (John 1:1-2). Paul pointed out, “He is before all things, and in Him all things consist” (Colossians 1:17).

The Son’s existence did not begin with His conception in Mary’s womb. He was alive in eternity (cf. Micah 5:2), and, at the right time in history, He became flesh (John 1:1,14). Paul put it this way: “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law” (Galatians 4:4). On the other hand, Mary came into a time-bound world long after the creation of the Universe. She, like all human beings, was not eternal. She was not divine, not “from everlasting to everlasting” (Micah 5:2). She could not have provided an eternal nature to her Son. He is Deity. He is the “eternally blessed God” (Romans 9:5).

Consider how Jesus explained His divine nature. When addressing the Pharisees, He asked them: “‘What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?’ They said to Him, ‘The son of David.’ He said to them, ‘How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord’.... If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his Son?’” (Matthew 22:42-45, emp. added). The Pharisees failed to answer the question correctly because they were thinking about the physical nature of the Messiah. While Christ was a physical descendant of David (cf. Luke 1:32; Matthew 1:1), according to His divine nature He did not have a physical father, since He Himself is before all (John 8:58).

In the same way that David could not be the father of the divine Messiah since he called Him “Lord,” Mary cannot be the “Mother of God” since she calls Him “Lord” in Luke 1:38,46-47. The truth is, as Paul explains, “according to the flesh, Christ came” through the patriarchs, David, and, yes, Mary, but according to His deity, He is the “eternally blessed God” who is over all (Romans 9:5).
Mary never was considered the “Mother of God.”

There is not a single verse in the Bible that describes Mary as the “Mother of God.” In fact, none of the inspired writers of either the Old or New Testament gave even a hint that she should be regarded as such. This idea is based purely on human tradition. Mary considered herself as a “maidservant of the Lord” (Luke 1:38, emp. added) and considered God as her “Savior” (Luke 1:47). Sadly, many have distorted this concept.

When speaking about the blessing of being chosen by God to be the mother of the Messiah, Mary declared: “For He [God] has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant” (Luke 1:48, emp. added). Certainly the words “lowly state” would be inappropriate to refer to Mary if she is the “Mother of God.” W.E. Vine has noted that the Greek word for “lowly state” is tapeinosis, which denotes “abasement, humiliation, or low estate” (1966, 3:23). Mary was conscious of the humble state of her human condition.

Additionally, the New Testament makes it very clear Who became flesh. It was God Who took on the form of a man (John 1:14) and was born of a woman (Galatians 4:4). The woman did not become “divine” in order to conceive the Son of God. The Bible mentions Mary as the mother of Jesus, but never as the “Mother of God” (cf. Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; Acts 1:14; et al.).
Mary never was worshipped as the “Mother of God.”

Catholics worship Mary, claiming that she has “divine maternity” (“Dogmatic Constitution...,” 1964, 8.3). But if Mary is to be worshipped as the “Mother of God,” we should expect to find a biblical command to do so, or a biblical example of approved action. However, such commands and examples are nowhere to be found. From the first moment Mary appears in the biblical record, there is no indication of her being the object of worship of any kind. When God’s angel announced to Mary that she would give birth to the Messiah, the heavenly messenger did not worship her (Luke 1:26-38).

The shepherds, who came to the stable, praised God—not Mary—for what they had witnessed (Luke 2:16-20). Later, the wise men came to a house and “saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him” (Matthew 2:11) - not Mary. Simeon and Anna, who had waited their entire lives for the Messiah, recognized Jesus as the One sent by God. They did not offer any special acknowledgement or praise to Mary (Luke 2:21-38). Additionally, Jesus’ disciples never gave Mary any preeminence during their gatherings, much less worshiped her as the “Mother of God” (cf. Acts 1:14-26).

When Mary asked for Jesus’ help at the wedding in Cana, He said, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me?” (John 2:4). He used the word “woman” not in a derogatory way but as an expression of respect and affection (cf. Matthew 15:28; John 19:26; 20:15; Lyons, 2004). He may have used “woman” instead of “mother” to emphasize that “in his calling Jesus knows no mother or earthly relative, but he is their Lord and Savior as well as of all men” (Lenski, 1961, p. 189).

Jesus made it clear that Mary had no preeminence among His followers or before God. On one occasion, “He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, ‘Here are My mother and My brothers!’” (Matthew 12:49, emp. added). Jesus wanted His disciples to understand that anyone who believed in Him and obeyed the will of the Father would be blessed as part of His family. But He did not say that any member of that family was worthy of worship or adoration.

Another incident in Jesus’ ministry is worth mentioning. While Jesus was teaching the multitudes, “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!’” (Luke 11:27). Jesus responded, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it” (Luke 11:28). Again, Jesus made it clear that there was nothing about Mary that elevated her above anyone else who heard the Word of God and obeyed it. Jesus Himself taught us not to consider His mother as the “Mother of God,” a person to be worshiped.

The title “Mother of God” is unbiblical, as are other titles given to Mary, such as “Mother of the Church,” “Mother of Mercy, Life, Gentleness, and Hope,” “Door to Heaven,” etc. Worship directed toward her (or any other mere human being), rather than to Almighty God, not only denigrates appreciation and respect for Deity, but also leads further into apostasy.

REFERENCES

“Dogmatic Constitution on the Church” (1964), Second Vatican Council [On-line], URL: http://www.vatican.va/ archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_ council/documents/vatii_const_19641121_ lumen-gentium_en.html.

“Formula of Union Between Cyrill and John of Antioch” (no date), The Council of Ephesus [On-line], URL: http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/EPHESUS.HTM.

Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).

Lyons, Eric (2004), “How Rude!?,” [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/articles/593.

Peffley, Francis J. (no date), “Mary and the Mission of the Holy Spirit,” [On-line], URL: http://www.legionofmary.org/files/marymission.pdf.


http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=2670
by Moisés Pinedo

Vine, W.E. (1966), An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell).

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

When one's theology is limited to "sola scriptura" there is much you will never understand and even more that you will get wrong. The Blessed Virgin Mary is but one of those numerous errors. Before we begin, I believe it is fascinating to consider the Truth that obviously Jesus chose His own mother. Indeed, she must have been very special.
Furthermore, as we approach Christmas I always reflect back to the time of the Annunciation! I can picture in my mind's eye, and in my soul's heart, that heaven must have held its collective breath waiting for the young virgin to give her assent. And when she did, heaven must have literally erupted in joy. "Joy to the world!" I am, therefore, exceedingly distressed when sterile sola scriptura Protestantism reduces The Blessed Virgin Mary into a mere pipeline that God "used" to transmit His son into our sinful world!

As an Orthodox Christian I am used to referring to Mary as the Theokotos or the more familiar and correct term, The Mother of God. Theotokos was recognized by the Church at the Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431. It had already been in use for some time in the devotional and liturgical life of the Church. The theological significance of the title is to emphasize that Mary's son, Jesus, is fully God, as well as fully human, and that Jesus' two natures (divine and human) were united in a single Person of the Trinity. The competing heretical view at that council was that Mary should be called Christotokos instead, meaning "Birth-giver to Christ." This was the view advocated by Nestorius, then Patriarch of Constantinople. The intent behind calling her Christotokos was to restrict her role to be only the mother of "Christ's humanity" and not his divine nature.

Nestorius' view was anathematized by the Council as heresy, (see Nestorianism), since it was considered to be dividing Jesus into two distinct persons, one who was Son of Mary, and another, the divine nature, who was not. It was defined that although Jesus has two natures, human and divine, these are eternally united in one personhood. Because Mary is the mother of God the Son, she is therefore duly entitled Theotokos.

Calling Mary the Theotokos or the Mother of God (Μητηρ Θεου) was never meant to suggest that Mary was coeternal with God, or that she existed before Jesus Christ or God existed. The Church acknowledges the mystery in the words of this ancient hymn: "He whom the entire universe could not contain was contained within your womb, O Theotokos." At the very instant of conception Jesus, fully man and fully God was contained within the womb of Mary!

If Mary had not been declared Theotokos then you would not know the same Jesus you know today and the Nestorian Heresy would have changed the faith. Thanks be to God that, as promised, the Holy Spirit led the Church into Truth. Sad, however, to realize that practically every heresy conquered and anathemized by the Early Church is found alive and well, prospering within some part of the thousands of Protestant denominations today. This historical fact of Christianity will not be be found in sola scriptura! Many of those who question the title "Mother of God" are those who doubt the full divinity of Jesus Christ. There is nothing paganistic or improper in the Church's veneration of the Mother of our Savior.

Finally, if one chooses to disrespect Jesus' mother there is nothing in your free will that will stop you.....except common sense.

bahmer

Excellent post Zemirah thanks again for these bible lessons and now to frustrate Doc110. Amen and Amen

Rose42

Good post Zemirah. When I was a Catholic I was never comfortable praying to Mary and pretty much just said the hail Mary as fast as I could. I always got in trouble for asking why go through Mary instead of directly to Christ when he is perfect and he said the only way to the Father is through Him. That never sat well with me that intermediaries were used because why go to something that isn't perfect when you can go straight to Christ?

Looking in the Bible I also found that Jesus had brothers - half brothers but brothers. Mary wasn't a virgin all her life and that's clear. And nowhere does it say she was sinless or ascended into heaven. I also got in trouble for asking if the Bible was true or not. For me it made to sense to say on the one hand its the word of God then on the other say there are traditions and letters that override it. So I was outta there! lol It was tough though, because I was raised in it, my parents were Catholics and many of my relatives Catholic.

bahmer

There has to be other logical ones in the Roman Catholic Church that felt as you felt. What is that old saying you can fool some of the people all of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. I am sure that this apply's to the Roman Catholic Church as well. But we can see who have been fooled all of the time by the Roman Catholic Church because they are here on OPP.

Rose42

It's hard to understand unless you've been raised in it. People tend to stay where they're comfortable There are a lot of people raised in Christian homes who later depart from it too. And there are many who believe they are Christians but they are not.

A sobering read is The Almost Christian by George Whitefield

http://www.biblebb.com/files/whitefield/gw043.htm

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Odd, don't you think, that until Protestant carnal and sola scriptura theology thrust itself into Traditional and Biblical Christianity Mary was always a virgin. Why is it so important to you for the Mother of God to have sex?

The Traditional teachings of the Church is that when Mary died she was assumed, uncorrupted, into heaven witnessed by the Apostles. Where there are known graves of the Apostles, there is no grave site for the Blessed Virgin.

bahmer

Well when I married my late wife she was a Mormon and the reason she became one is because they befriended her. She was born wit ha double club foot and had difficulty with that leg all her life even though it was straightened through surgery when she was small. She wore a size nine on one foot and a three on the other foot. Anyway she wanted to go to a state meeting for the Mormons while we lived in Bloomington-Normal IL. at the time. Anyway we get to this meeting and they have various speakers and one of the speakers was from Salt Lake Utah and he had a late prophesy and that was that you had to have at least three generations traced back in your family to entire into the highest level of heaven. I at that point sat out loud and I am sure a number of them heard it was BS man is saved by faith alone lest any man should boast. I then took my wife's hand and said we are out of here and got up and left. Never did return either.

Rose42

What you call traditional Christianity is not Biblical though. That Jesus had brothers shows she didn't remain a virgin.



If she had indeed been assumed into heaven why would God's word omit such an important detail? If God's word is perfect as scripture states it is, then how can one justify overriding it with tradition?

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

If, as you claim, "people tend to stay where they're comfortable" why do innumerable protestants change churches as often as they change their dirty shirt until they find a place that "fills my personal needs" or, in plain speak, believes and teaches what they already preconceive and believe is truth and is, therefore, comfortable for them? It's called Democratic Christianity because the congregation relegates God into the Democratic where power emanates from the people and is then benevolently offered up for God to accede. Unfortunately for them, God did not come into this world to establish a democracy but His Kingdom. I wonder how many people left the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church because they "didn't want God in their bedrooms?"

Rose42

I don't disagree with that. There are a lot of protestants who go to church more for an emotional experience or to be entertained than to be preached to. Charles Spurgeon lamented about watered down preaching and he was alive in the 1800s!

2 Tim 4:3 - For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,

That is so true of today.



I can truthfully say when I left it was painful. But I had to. It's not easier now but harder and at the same time more rewarding. Reading the Bible is convicting.

Heb 4:12 - For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Does the bible tell us about the martyred deaths of every Apostle except Saint John who died of old age? The Holy Tradition and history of the Church does. Is it important to know? Yes, as part of Christian Apologetics because every one of them, under torture, never recanted a single word regarding the gospel of Christ. Bartholomew was flayed alive - they skinned him! Would you have denied Christ if someone began to skin you alive today? Would you have tossed a pinch of incense in the Pantheon's smouldering brazier to save your life?

Rose42

Though I realize the value of history and think every Christian should have a copy of Fox's Book of Martyrs, I don't look at any traditions as holy. Is it important to know history? I think it is. Is it necessary for saving faith? No it is not.

Would I deny Christ? Would you? I can only hope I would have the strength not to deny Him no matter what. No one can say unless they are faced with it.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

I never inferred that your thinking wasn't wrong! Apostolic Traditions guided the early Church as much as they do today. The Bible, separated from the Tradition, creates heresy, schism, apostasy and sacrilege!
Protestants have allowed themselves to learn a new kind of faith which is condemned by the Tradition of those Holy Fathers. For the Divine apostle says, "if anyone is preaching to you a Gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:9) What good is your free will if you use it unwisely to deny the Christian faith once delivered by Christ to the apostles; a faith to last for all time; nothing added and nothing, such as the Eucharist, taken away?

Rose42

I know you believe my thinking is wrong.

What I deny is Catholic doctrine not Christian faith. What is your definition of the Gospel?