Replies

I don't believe Mary, Mother of God is a correct title to use for Mary. I do believe she was the mother of the human part of Jesus, but not the divine part. Yet, unlike Nestorius, I believe that Jesus's divinity and humanity were a unity. He was one person with two natures unified within Himself. Mary gave birth to a man who was also God, but she didn't give Him His Godhood. She gave him His manhood. When I say this, I am accused of Nestorianism as if I believe that Jesus had two Separate natures and Mary was the mother of one of these Separate natures. Jesus is who He was. He was fully divine. He was fully human. They would imply that if I believe that Mary is not the mother of the divinity, that I am speaking heresy and denying Christ's divinity. Such is not the case. Like the doctrine of the trinity, I believe fully in Jesus as God-Man. And, I believe Mary was the mother of Jesus. But believe it is improper to call her mother of God because God entails more than just the person of Jesus. It entails the person of the Holy Spirit and the Father. She isnt' the mother of the Holy Spirit or the Father and can not be the mother of God the Son as God - else, God is divisible. So, I call her what the Bible calls her. Mother of Jesus, blessed among women.

I think I understand what your getting at, but here's where your presentation can lead down the wrong path as far as Orthodox Trinitarianism: "I do believe she was the mother of the human part of Jesus, but not the divine part."

In reading your post, I think I see that you realize this and that there's something amiss in it's form.

I believe it was Kosta who linked to St John Damascene's encyclopedic work on the doctrine. This portion here illuminate and be of use:

http://www.orthodox.net/fathers/exactiii.html#BOOK_III_CHAPTER_XII

But believe it is improper to call her mother of God because God entails more than just the person of Jesus. It entails the person of the Holy Spirit and the Father.

So is it improper to say that Jesus is God?

-A8

They would imply that if I believe that Mary is not the mother of the divinity, that I am speaking heresy and denying Christ's divinity.

If Christ is God and Christ has two natures, one fully human and one fully divine, then Mary could only be considered to be the Mother of the Human Nature of God, the Son. To say she is the "Mother of God" implies that she is not only the mother (progenitor) of Christ's physical nature, but also the mother of his divine nature. To say that Mary is the Mother of God is to say that Jesus' human nature standing alone is God, which would then make God a Quaternity instead of a Trinity. You would have God the Father, God the Word, God the Son (human nature of God the Word) and The Holy Spirit.

Since Mary was not the mother of the divine nature of God The Word, she cannot be said to be the Mother of God. She is strictly the Mother of Jesus. That is the way the Bible refers to her. That is good enough for me. I'm sure it is good enough for her.

As long as you admit that Jesus Christ, true Man and true God, one person, was born of Mary, but yet Mary was not the mother of the divinity, you are meeting the definition of the term "Mother of God".

In that it is a confusing term, and one that tends to make some believe that it means Mary was the mother of the second person of the Trinity, it should be used in the right context of Christlogical theology. If you are afraid that some may take the title "Mother of God" the wrong way, you are correct in stating that meaning differently to that person or group. Just be sure you do so in a manner that preserves the undivided person of Jesus.