Posted on 03/27/2015 2:04:10 PM PDT by Colofornian
It's past time to unpack an old Greek word: 'Theotokos'
Here, you'll "catch" the English translation of it among the italicized words below:
A Freeper put it rather logically on a recent thread...and something, btw, historically verifiable within the history of the church:
Jesus is God incarnate.
Mary is Jesus mother.
Ergo, Mary is the Mother of God.
"Nestorious, patriarch of Constantinople, championed the term 'Mother of Christ,' while Cyril of Alexandria favored 'Mother of God. The Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) decided in favor of Cyril." (Geisler & MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, p. 299)
So...a key historical part of all this was to fend off the Nestorian heresy...and to rightly NOT divide Jesus as to being only human, or being only divine...but that He is both human and divine...in, fact, eternally so.
I'm a Protestant. I've notice how Protestants, especially NOT having carefully reviewed church history, tend to "knee jerk" response to the phrase "Mother of God" primarily (IMO) because we know God the Father and God the Holy Spirit had no mother, and the Son of God, none from eternity past.
The historical church has pointed to the Greek word Theotokos as the original descriptive phrase -- "Mother of God":
"Harold O.J. Brown comments concerning theotokos: 'The term, which means 'God-bearing one' (not precisely 'Mother of God,' as it is frequently translated), originally was descriptive of the man Jesus, born of Mary' (Heresies: The Image of Christ, p. 172). Theotokos, therefore, was designed to say more about Jesus than to glorify Mary." (Geisler & MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, p. 299)
IoW, Christmas is really more about Christ...than any characters in the Nativity. And Who is glorified by Who we focus upon in things like Christmas is really one of the points to be stressed within this thread.
So while church fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries referenced Mary as the "Mother of God," a more precise meaning of the Greek word has ALWAYS been "God-bearing one" (which may be a difference of no account, but probably at least sounds less provocative to the average Protestant).
Jesus is God incarnate.
Mary is Jesus mother.
Ergo, Mary is the Mother of God.
Let's apply this "logic" to the Holy Spirit, first taking into account two Biblical considerations:
1. The Holy Spirit is God incarnate within the flesh-and-blood temple of His people (see John 14:16-17; 1 Cor. 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 3:16; Eze. 36:26-27; 37:14).
2. Mary did not initiate being chosen by God, nor did she need to do anything (Luke 1:26-37) other than submit to bring our Lord into fleshly fruition (see her specific response in Luke 1:38: 38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.”)
So, my extended analogy is:
a. The Holy Spirit is God incarnate within His Church [caveat: No single ONE of us constitutes that corporate temple]
b. Just as Mary simply relented in order to enflesh Jesus, we, too as His Body simply acquiese to "embody" the Holy Spirit
c. Then are we to "logically" conclude: Ergo, the Church is the Mother of the Holy Spirit!??? (Uh...this is where we tend to let us mere servants and sons get in the way of the Divine One)
16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. (John 14)
* 7 But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. (John 16)
Tell me: According to these two passages, Who is the One honored, venerated, lauded for being receivers of the Holy Spirit? The Church at-large? Or Jesus as Intercessor (John 14:16) and Sender (John 16:7) along with the Father as Giver (John 14:16)?
We as the Church are not to...
...assume any credit or glory for any Divine Presence or Divine Activity within and through our lives...
...As our Lord said: "So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.’” (Luke 17:10)
...I would say Mary's reaction in Luke 1:38 embodies this same humble servanthood
Mary is no more responsible or laudable or intercessory-worthy for embodying our Lord than the ensuing generational, worldwide Lord's Church as having embodied the Holy Spirit.
So, yes, Mary is the "god-bearing one" (Theotokos). Why argue that historical reality? 'Cause really it's frankly a settled point.
Yet let's face it: We, too, are a collective theotokos. If Roman Catholics wish to be offended by the worldwide church having this same title accorded unto Mary, then perhaps they need to face the question: Is the Holy Spirit any LESS divine than our Lord Jesus Christ who indwelled Mary?
Does this reality -- that the worldwide flesh-and-blood church of Jesus Christ bears the indwelling Holy Spirit -- play down Mary's role? I don't think so ... for to be "god bearers" is something of great honor. Of great privilege. Of great esteem.
And yet it's overwhelmingly humbling.
Let's instead discuss if Mary is overglorified as theotokos by some segments of those who call Jesus their Lord.
For example, yes, I understand "why" when a Catholic book says "The springtime month of May is popularly devoted to Mary" due to it being the month of "Mothers Day" (Greg Dues, Catholic Customs & Traditions, p. 128).
But the rest of the overemphasis upon Mary is frankly bizarre:
* "Just as Sunday had always been devoted to Jesus Christ, Saturday eventually became Mary's Day. This tradition was promoted in Carolingian times by Alcuin (d. 804). A votive Mass in Mary's honor has commonly been offered on Saturday throughout modern times." (Dues, p.128)
* "The month of October is dedicated to Mary under the theme of the rosary because of the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary on October 7." (Dues, p. 129)
* And even with the history of the rosary, Dues mentions how "by the early 12th century, Hail Marys were substituted for the Our Fathers..." (p. 128)
A 1968 Sisters of St. Basil book, Novena Prayers in Honor of Our Mother of Perpetual Help, seems even to elevate Mary above her Son Himself!
"We have no greater help, no greater hope than you, O Most Pure Virgin; help us, then, for we hope in you, we glory in you, we are your servants. Do not disappoint us." (p. 16...as cited in Geisler and MacKenzie, p. 322, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences)
5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, NO ONE can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. (John 3)
The child of Bethlehem is the focus of the nativity. If any other character becomes overmagnified, especially minus any emphasis that totally excludes the need for a rebirth -- imbalance sets in.
IF we are speaking ONLY about Mary, there's another birth -- in fact, a certain rebirth of vital importance. Seems clear from Scripture to me, that she...
...confessed being a sinner (Luke 1:46)
...and she offered a sacrifice for her sinful condition (Luke 2:22).
Her son, very shortly after fulfilling her gentle nudge to handle that certain wedding wine shortage situation, mentioned how ALL needed to be born from above with the water and the spirit. Kingdom entrances includes both. "No one" entering without either means "no one." So her rebirth in our Lord is a great celebration! (Yet not one I see celebrated by Roman Catholics)
Otherwise, we, too, as "god-bearers" (of the Holy Spirit) --
--were we to stress His indwelling
--minus celebrating our rebirth
-- would likewise be as what's deemed imbalanced re: the Roman Catholic approach to Mary.
Catholics claim that approaching Mary and the Saints to intercede for them is not all that distinct from the way Evangelicals approach other "one another" intercessors -- asking them to intercede.
They tend not to divide the "saints" among the living and dead as Evangelicals do.
They also simply believe Mary has greater influential access to Jesus.
The focus of this piece isn't to define who is an "intercessor." Who am I to demotivate others from enlisting many mere fellow pilgrim-intercessors? But no doubt, the danger can become when such enlistment borders on usurpation by ignoring the Ultimate Intercessor:
14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. 16 Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. (Hebrews 4)
fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. (Hebrews 12:2)
The whole thrust of your argument is what bothers me, which is to minimize the doctrine of the Incarnation. Jesus is truly God and truly man. “John” says, and the Word became flesh. Paul says more concretely ”born of a woman.” That woman was Mary, as Luke makes abundantly clear, and not merely a passive actor. Without Mary, the person who gave him flesh, Jesus is a messenger from heaven.
You could point to a LOT of people and say, "Without XYZ..."
You could say, "Without Moses..."
Yet we see Moses had disobeyed God by striking the rock when he was told to speak the word to the rock to bring forth water; and because of that, he was told he would not see the promised land.
IoW, yes God used him: But Moses, ultimately, wasn't "indispensable" for how God would finally usher His people into the promised land. For every servant, ensuing servants exist when previous ones fall by the wayside.
God already knew Mary would acquiese, so it's not like I believe He had "plan B." However, were it not for Mary, it's not like God's hands would have been tied. He could have accomplished it thru another virgin; I simply believe, with His sovereign omniscience, He would have sent angels to that other person.
My point is whenever men and conclude that a certain servant, or a certain reformer, or a certain denominational leader, or a certain pope-servant, etc. is "indispensable," then they wind up glorying in that servant vs. the God who selected, equipped, empowered, worked in & thru that person.
Plain and simple, it's idolatry. And people need to repent. It's like having a spiritual gift and trusting in the gift itself vs. the God who gave it. Paul said no servant-leader is to whom we rally around (1 Cor. 1:10-17)
The whole thrust of your argument is what bothers me, which is to minimize the doctrine of the Incarnation.
Well, a key purpose, actually is to show that the Church has actually minimized the doctrine of the Holy Spirit-as-Indweller/River of Life, etc. of the flesh-and-blood church.
We wonderfully -- as we should -- celebrate Christmas, Good Friday, Easter. But we greatly play down Pentecost. (And, no, I'm not a Pentecostal or even what others might call a charismatic).
We talk about Jesus as if He's gone, when Paul references Christ as one who lives in us (Col. 1:7; Gal. 2:20). Jesus Himself promised to be with us until the end of the age (Matt. 28:20).
And we tend to treat the Holy Spirit's divine Presence as if He was "lesser" in glory, etc. than the Son of God's.
May the Church repent of this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.