Mary, Mother of God, The Greatest of all Her Titles

It is that time of week again, where we talk about the Mary, the Mother of God. This is definitely the single most important title that Mary has. If someone gets this wrong, then they get the Divinity of our Lord wrong, and that means the whole plan of Salvation is just messed up. So let us look at this most important title.

Theotokos, God-bearer in Greek, is what the council of Ephesus declared in 431. It specifically says this “If anyone does not confess that God is truly Emmanuel, and that on this account the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (for according to the flesh she gave birth to the Word of God become flesh by birth), let him be anathema.” Now just that statement alone proves the early Church believed that there was Authority given to the bishops to decide sound doctrine, Mary was a Holy Virgin her entire life, and that She bore God. However, we only have time for one today.

Now many times we will hear non-Catholics tell us that this title is nowhere found in Scripture, explicitly at least. However, they cannot themselves find a Scripture verse that says that all doctrine and dogma must be explicitly proven in Scripture. I bet they can never find that. This is a trap they set up for themselves and it is a very unfair double standard that they expect us to meet, but they do not have to. However, on top of this double standard is if we used that same standard, then the doctrine of the Trinity is thrown out, since it’s not an explicit teaching, but instead is implicit in Scripture. This double standard seems to cause more problems that it’s worth wouldn’t you say?

Here is the cold hard truth of it though, all Christians rely on some Church Tradition, as well as Scripture, to validate their doctrines, whether they admit it or not. With that being said, Scripture and Tradition can never contradict one another. The Traditions of men can contradict the Word of God, but the Traditions God left us, through Christ, in the Holy Spirit, are binding upon us, as we are to hold fast to Traditions. So then, what is the real question? The real question is, Does Scripture contradict the teaching that Mary is the Mother of God, and is that doctrine found in Scripture at least implicitly?

Let us begin with Luke 1:43, where Mary visited Elizabeth. There Elizabeth exclaimed “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” Because Mary was the Mother of the Lord, who is the Second part of the Holy Trinity, Mary is truly and rightfully called the Mother of God.

We also see in Isaiah 7:14 “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is interpreted God with us.” Jesus is God. He was God when He was in the womb, conceived, lived, died, buried, resurrected, in the Eucharist, and in Heaven. The Messiah, who is God, was to be born of a virgin, according to Scripture. God was born of a virgin, and it’s right there in Isaiah, who prophesied of Christ birth. That means both Old and New Testament support the Catholic Doctrine of the Mother of God.

However, this may not be enough for some non-Catholics. Some say that Elisabeth called Christ Lord, and not God, saying that Mary was only to give birth to the human child, the Lord Jesus Christ. So then the question becomes, does lord here mean divinity or just authority? Let’s look at the context.

First let us look at 1 Cor. 8:5, which states “Indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet to us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” St. Paul makes it clear that Jesus is the one True, Lord, as opposed to all the false ones, that the pagans who converted in Corinth were probably worshiping. So then, they would understand that Jesus is God. This holds true to the Jews who converted too, who would know Deut. 6:4 “Hear, therefore, o Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.”

So then that brings us back to Luke 1:43. Elizabeth calls Mary the mother of her Lord. The Mother…Mothers give birth to persons, not natures, let us remember that. Mary did not just give birth to the human nature of Christ, she gave birth to the person of Christ. Christ personhood is Divine, it is God the Son.

Then let us look at 2 Sam. 6:9 where the King, who was David says “How can the ark of the Lord come to me (being the ark of the covenant)” Then in 2 Samuel 616 we see King David leaping in the presence of the Ark, just as John the Baptist did. Then we yet again see another parallel, which says that the ark of the Lord abode in the house of Obededom the Gethite for three months (2 Sam. 6:11), and according to Luke 1:56 Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth about three months. Then, we see that the ark of the covenant carried three items, manna, the Ten Commandments, and Aaron’s rod. These are all types of things Christ are, the Bread of Life, Word made Flesh, and our true High Priest.

Even knowing all this though, there are still those who would deny that Mary is the Mother of God. So then we have to ask, who is Jesus Christ to them? If Mary is not the Mother of God, then who did she give birth to? Many would say it was an earthly human lord, not God. So then, what does that make Christ? If Mary did not give birth to God, then who did she give birth to? Was not Christ God when He was conceived?

If someone says Mary only gave birth to the person of Christ one of two errors, or both could happen, and that is the Denial of the divinity of Christ, and that one would have to say Christ is two distinct persons, and that he is not One. Both were considered heresy in the Early Church. Christ is one Person, with two natures, Divine and Human, which go together and are not separate of one another. If one denies that, the ultimately they are speaking about a different Christ, and St. Paul warns us about that problem, and to not to give heed to them (2 Cor. 11:4).

So then, some say that Mary is the mother of the Trinity if we take it that far, however, this is not true. Mary gave birth to the 2nd part of the Trinity, the 2nd Person, who is still God just not the Trinity. However, we must never forget that each Person in the Trinity shares the same Divine Nature and is fully God.

One thing some still point out is that Christ is eternal, so for Mary to be the Mother of God she would have to be God. However the Church does not say Mary is the source of the Divine Nature of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. To better understand this let’s look at humanity. Parents give birth to a person, however they are not the author of life, and certainly did not give the child it’s soul. Thus is true with Mary, she did not give Christ His Divine Nature, though she was the Mother of more than just the human form of Christ, because she gave birth to a person, who was God.

What poppycock! The title of Theotokos is important because of what it says about Jesus, not because of what it says about Mary. "Mother of God" is a horrible translation because it flips the important point. The point of "Theotokos" is that it states that Jesus was God incarnate from the moment on conception. "Mother of God" is a horrible translation because it becomes an honorific for Mary, rather than a statement of belief about Jesus.

Indeed, as Greek Orthodox have stated,

“The term Theotokos — Θεοτοκος — does not mean the same as “Mother of God” in English or the common Latin translation. In English one must translate Theotokos as “Bearer of God.” The correct Latin would be deipara or dei genetrix, not Mater Dei. (“The Significance of the Term Theotokos” from The Byzantine Fathers of the Fifth Century (Fr. Georges Florovsky) June, 1987).

The most literal and correct translation of Theotokos [though lacking an exact English equivalent] is “Birth-giver to God” or “God bearer”. - http://www.irishorthodoxchristianchurch.com/response-on-the-use-of-%E2%80%9Ctheotokos%E2%80%9D/

The title Theotokos (in Greek, Θεοτοκος) is a Greek word that means "God-bearer" or "Birth-giver to God." "The most literally correct one is Birth-giver to God, though God-bearer comes close."

"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." "The most popular translation, Mother of God, is accurate to a point, but the difficulty with that one is that Mother of God is the literal translation of another Greek phrase which is found on nearly all icons of the Theotokos: Μητηρ Θεου (Meter Theou)..," - http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theotokos

Yet the article blatantly misrepresents what it cites, saying,

Instead, it said,

If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is, in truth, God, and therefore that the holy virgin is Theotokos (for she bore in a fleshly manner the Word from God become flesh), he is estranged from God and therefore let him be anathema”. (Cyril’s third letter to Nestorius). - http://www.irishorthodoxchristianchurch.com/response-on-the-use-of-%E2%80%9Ctheotokos%E2%80%9D/

Thus the article both leaves out the qualifying caveat, and turns Theotokos into saying Mother of God!

It further argues,

Which is basically another RC straw man, as the argument is not simply that the title is missing from Scripture, but that MOG is a technical theological title which use is unwarranted, at least without qualifications, and as a common adorational title.

Here is the cold hard truth of it though, all Christians rely on some Church Tradition, as well as Scripture, to validate their doctrines, whether they admit it or not.

True to some degree, but not as amorphous oral tradition being equal with Scripture in authority when the church decrees it is, resting on the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unecessary in Scripture.

Under which even an even an extraScriptural event which is lacking even in early evidence , and was opposed by the Rome's own scholars, but decreed as fact under the premise that Rome cannot err on such and can remember what no one else seems to have for centuries.

Scripture and Tradition can never contradict one another.

Yet which assertion is made under the premise that Rome is the supreme autocratic judge of that, in which Scripture,. tradition and history only mean what she says in any conflict.

For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

Which is more adding to Scripture, compelling it as a servant to say what it does not by placing word in the mouth of Elizabeth. For the word here is not God, theos, which denotes deity when rendered in the singular, but lord, kurios, which basically denotes authority. As such it is often used for God and Christ, but its use itself does not denote deity, otherwise certain men would be God in nature.

And having accomplished His mission and all power beng handed over to Him, as Acts 2:36 states that "God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ," (Acts 2:36) then under Cath reasoning it would mean that is when Christ became God.

That Christ is God, the Divine Son of God, is manifest by other titles and statements, attributes, titles and glory, but to think all the early disciples recognized Christ as Lord and were attributing that to Him is contrary to the evidence. Thus they asked themselves, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him! (Matthew 8:27)

And thus Christ's words, Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. (John 14:1)

Thus true to form, the RC must read a theological statement into the words of a disciple who recognized the status of the Messiah, as did the apostles, but which did not at that time translate into a recognition of Him as God.

We also see in Isaiah 7:14 “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is interpreted God with us.”

Which was known but not understood at first by Jews as meaning God would be incarnated in human flesh, thus Jews could believe Christ was the Messiah but not as being God, for Scripture speaks of God dwelling among the people of Israel, (Ex. 29:4) and of being with the people of Israel, and of souls saying to men, "We will go with you: for we have heard God is with you." (Zechariah 8:23) or even that God was in them. (Isa 45:14; 1Co. 14:25)

That Christ was the Divine Son of God was something the disciples came to realize.

Which, consistent with the forced exclusivity of the Cath, means there is no other God "to us," but the Father, who is distinguished from Christ, and which thus would exclude Christ from being God, since there is only one God, the Father. But that the one Lord Jesus Christ is God by nature is manifestly revealed elsewhere, thus the Son, the Lord Jesus, is God as is God the Father and the Spirit. But that early disciples believed this is being presumed, contrary to the evidence.

Then let us look at 2 Sam. 6:9 where the King, who was David says “How can the ark of the Lord come to me (being the ark of the covenant)”

• The Ark, once made, was moved via poles, so as not to be directly touched by sinful man (Ex. 25:12-16; II Sam. 6:1-9), yet which men Mary was surely touched by. And the former was ritually defiled by giving birth, and thus observed the required days of purification, (Lk. 2:22-24; cf. Lv. 12:2,6-8) and then brought the required living creatures to the priest “for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest: Who shall offer it before the Lord, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood.” (Leviticus 12:6,7)

But the sanctity of the Ark corresponds to the spiritual purity of Christ, who being the Lamb of God is alone said to be “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens,” (Hebrews 7:26) “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth,” (1 Peter 2:22) “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

Which is never said of Mary. Yet Catholics have the audacity to make Mary was sinless, even as binding doctrine, when Scripture nowhere teaches it, and we can be confident that it would say so if that was true, and especially if was a binding doctrine, just as it clearly records the sinlessness of Christ and other extraordinary or otherwise notable aspects of its subjects, even far lesser ones.

• And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold....And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end:...And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims (Exodus 25:17,19,22) On top of the ark was the mercy seat on which rested the cloud signifying the presence of God, between two cherubs of gold. The Greek word (Hebrews 9:5) for “mercy seat” is hilasterion, meaning “that which makes atonement.”

This easily corresponds to Matthew 17:4,5, in which Moses and Elijah, representing the law and the prophets, can be seen to answer to the two cherubims, and who talk with Christ under a bright cloud, and in which context all are called to commune with Christ, the atonement: “While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him,” thus directly communing with God. (cf. Heb. 10:19) And which is said to Peter, James and John, whom Paul later states (Gal. 2:9) appeared to be pillars of the church (if not in that order), thus this call to directly commune with God via the mercy seat under the cloud is to the church.

• “And in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.” (Exodus 25:21)The Ark contained the 2 tables of the Law, which testimony in the NT becomes grace and Truth, and the Scriptures uniquely state Christ was “full of grace and Truth.” (Jn. 1:14) For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. (Jn 1:17)

• And they commanded the people, saying, When ye see the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, and the priests the Levites bearing it, then ye shall remove from your place, and go after it. (Joshua 3:3) And it was Christ, not Mary, who said “Follow me,” (Mt. 4:19) and “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me,” (John 10:27) as Christ alone was God manifest in the flesh. (Jn. 1:1-3,14; 20:28; 1Tim. 3:16)

• “And the ark of the covenant of the Lord went before them in the three days' journey, to search out a resting place for them.” (Numbers 10:33) And Christ, not Mary said,”I go to prepare a place for you.” (John 14:2)

Therefore it is Christ, not Mary who is clothed with gold, and declared to be undefiled, sinless, and the atonement/mercy seat, with two cherubs of glory on each side, by whom believers commune with God under the cloud of glory, and whom constrains the testimony of grace and Truth, and goes before believers.

If someone says Mary only gave birth to the person of Christ one of two errors,

Which is not what is meant by denying Mary is the mother of God, as instead it means Mary is not ontologically the mother of God, but is one thru whom God provided the body He took on, but contributed nothing to His Divinity.

"Mother of God" is as misleading as saying that the Jews (thru the Romans) killed God, since Christ is God.

One can no more kill God than give birth to them, though both statements could be technically allowed with clarification, which is not the case with MOG, as instead it is part of hyper-hyper exaltation which is nowhere close to what is given to any created being in Scripture, and goes so far as to attributed uniquely Divine attributes to her.

So then, some say that Mary is the mother of the Trinity if we take it that far,

Which is actually what MOG conveys, and what is being reproved by the censure of it.

the Church does not say Mary is the source of the Divine Nature of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

But which MOG most naturally conveys, regardless of the fine print that rarely accompanies its use,

The salutation of the angel Gabriel -- chaire kecharitomene , Hail, full of grace ( Luke 1:28 ) indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary

That is indeed part of the propaganda. Rather than only, that language applies to all believers. The word for “full” is not even in Lk. 1:28, as kecharitomene (one form of the verb "charitoo") in Lk. 1:28, is never used for "full" elsewhere, but Lk. 1:28 simply says she was graced, favored, enriched with grace, as in Eph.1:6. In contrast, the only one (though in some manuscripts Stephen in Acts 6:8) said to be full of grace is the Lord Jesus, "full ("plērēs) of grace (charis) and truth," using "plērēs," which denotes "full" 17 other places in the NT. If Mary was uniquely perfectly full of grace as bearing Christ then it would say she was, as Christ was, (plērēs charis) and RCs would not have to engage in such egregious extrapolations in seeking to left this invention.

Your own official RC Bible for America does not say “full of grace,” and Lk, 1:28 was wrongly rendered "full of grace" in the DRB, rather than "highly favored" or similar, as in Rome's current official New American Bible, “Hail, favored one!" (http://usccb.org/bible/luke/1) Yet the DRB correctly translates Eph. 1:6 as "in which he hath graced us."

For as CARM finds,In Greek: καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ. κεχαριτωμένη, is the pf. pass. ptcp. of χαριτόω (charitoō). It is the single Greek word kexaritomena and means highly favored, make accepted, make graceful, etc. Repeated: It is a passive participle derived from charitoō. It does not mean "full of grace" or ‘completely filled with grace’ which is "plaras karitos" (plaras = full and karitos = Grace) in the Greek. More technical data from source here

Mary is said to be “full” of grace, or uniquely so, nor from what i find does kecharitomene being a perfect passive participle translate into meaning a "a perfection of grace," or distinctively a past action, as per RC argumentation, in distinction to echaritosen (another form of the verb "charitoo") used in Eph. 1:6, as there also it refers to a present state based upon a past action, "To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted [echaritosen] in the beloved." (Ephesians 1:6)

See more on this issue here as White gets into detail with the Greek. (And notes that the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has to attempt to build such a complex theology on the form of a participle in a greeting should say a great deal in and of itself.)

Even Roman Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin said of Luke 1:28 on the word kecharitomene:

"This is a Greek term that you could use in that exact grammatical formation for someone else who wasn't immaculately conceived and the sentence would still make sense" like Mary's grandmother). He went on to say, "This is something where I said previously, we need the additional source of information from tradition and we need the guidance of the magisterium to be able to put these pieces together." Meaning the text does not teach the IM, nor is that necessary, but tradition becomes binding doctrine under the ultimate presumed authority of Rome.

Nor is “blessed art thou among women” a unique type of appellation, as Scripture also says, “Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent.” (Judges 5:24)

It remains that while Mary is highly blessed among women, and is to be honored according to what is written, this does not translate in the type of supererogation of praise seen in Catholicism, in which humble Mary is made into an almost almighty demigoddess!

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.

There is no God but the triune God.