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

http://www.catholicchristiananswers.com ^ | August 12, 2015 | Jessie Neace

[NKP_Vet]

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.

[Arthur McGowan]

You don’t know what an analogy is, if you think that every use of an analogy is an assertion that two things are “equal.”

[BillyBoy]

>> Mary bore Jesus Christ. Bore his human nature. Bore his divine nature. <<
For this reason, it is true to refer to Mary as “bearing God.” <<

Gee, nice to know that Mary as God-bearer is not some "the Roman Church made up"

If we can agree on these basic points, I have no problem with your theological understanding of Jesus, even though I find it bizarre that someone who affirms that Mary gave birth to God doesn't want to use the phrase "mother of God". It would like me acknowledging that Texas is in the United States and that Texans are citizens, but insisting that calling Texas "Americans" is an unfair honorary title because the Constitution doesn't mention that Texans are Americans.

The problem is here is several so called "Christians" on this very thread aren't even willing to accept the basic Christian belief that Mary gave birth to God incarnate. They have stated quite openly that she only gave birth to "Jesus, the human person". Again, this is a grave heresy in mainstream Christianity whether you're Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox. It's on par with denying the resurrection or any other basic Christian dogma. If any practicing "Christian" sincerely thinks that Mary "only" gave birth to a human man named Jesus and the two natures are entirely separate, or that is divinity wasn't present when he was in the womb and that he "became" God later on, they need to sit down with their pastor and learn some basic theological facts about their faith. If they are still unwilling to accept that Jesus was God incarnate from the moment He was conceived and when He was in Mary's womb, they really shouldn't be self-identifies as Christian, IMNO.

>> Mary didn’t conceive his divine nature. He preexisted from all eternity as God. <<

Agreed. Again, I'm simply not seeing how saying "Mary is the mother of God" makes any claim that she's "higher" than God, or that she "created" God", or "existed before God", or "conceived" his divinity, or any of the other claims made on this board. Again, many people are universally acknowledged as mothers. None of that is applied to them:

Saying Stanley Ann Durham is the mother of President Obama doesn't mean she's "higher" than the President or gave him the office and powers of President.

Saying Dorothy is the mother of Sam the fireman doesn't mean "Dorothy existed before there were firemen".

Saying Angelina Jolie is the mother of Maddox Chivan doesn't mean she "created" or "conceived" Maddox Chivan.

So why does saying Mary is mother of God "imply" any of that about God?

[WVKayaker]

...to come up with the doctrine that Mary gave birth to God.

Having been a Bible student for more than 50 years, I wonder where some people get their understanding and why they can't read things properly. The doctrine in question is the title given to the Roman Catholic mary, nothing like the theme from God's Word.

I did not deny that Mary (the one is scripture) gave birth to Jesus Christ! But, I am reading your post and it again repeats lies and innuendos unsupported by Scripture.

Repeating a lie does not ever make it become truth. Jesus is God. Mary is a woman from Scripture chosen to be the vessel by which Jesus came into this world. BUT, Roman Catholics want to substitute some bastardization of the concept and claim powers and titles for that woman never found within God's Word. Their claims come straight from the mouth of Lucifer, the fallen angel. He wants to bring as many down as he can. So, he makes a plan to deceive the very elect. But, his version is to take the person of a simple Jewish woman, instill all sorts of schemes and false visions to help the superstitious to believe those lies. They sound real good.

But, they fall apart when taken away from the light of Scripture, and into the realm of "tradition". Mary is dead. She was never shown to be anything other than a Jewish girl given a special status, and who after bearing the person of Jesus, went on to bear other children, which Roman Catholics deny.

Myths and superstition is what religion is all about. Jesus came to restore us to our place in God's house. He came that we sinners may have eternal life there. How? With simple faith in the completed work at the cross. We have a relationship, not a religion. God is a Spirit and we must worship Him, not some plastic statue of a dead woman.

But again, Catholics want to ignore that victory over sin and add all sorts of extraScriptural and unScriptural requirements. It is a works-based cult. It gives false hopes that "if we are not good enough on Earth", we can always have those with enough money and candles lit to help get them out of some middle place. But again, Scripture does not give that opportunity.

Good luck with your religion. Jesus came to restore us into His family as joint heirs in God's Kingdom.You may opt for simple faith in Christ's finished work, or you may repeat a million Hail Mary's. I prefer the first choice. The cross is empty!

YMMV!

Hebrews 9: ... 24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

[BillyBoy]

Interesting. Nine paragraphs and you didn't comment on a single point I raised or tried to refute it. You just rehashed your own false premise that the Catholic Church "made up" the concept that Mary gave birth to God, when the truth is that ALL Christians accepted this dogma in the 4th century.

>> Repeating a lie does not ever make it become truth. <<

Indeed. Which is why repeating your points over and over again is not proving them to be fact.

>> I did not deny that Mary (the one is scripture) gave birth to Jesus Christ! <<

Almost no one denies this. Many Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, even some atheists will acknowledge that Jesus Christ was a real person and that Mary gave birth to him.

Only Christians, however, acknowledge that Mary gave birth to God incarnate.

If you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge this basic fact that all Christians have accepted for centuries, your beliefs are outside the mainstream Christian faith. End of story. Continuing to falsely allege that "Roman Catholics made up" the idea that Mary gave birth to God incarnate won't make it true, and plenty of Christians from all denominations will be happy to refute your beliefs that she "only" gave birth to the human Jesus.

[WVKayaker]

blah, blah, blah...

Glad to see you can count!

[kinsman redeemer]

Listen, when someone posts something about a Catholic belief and it is obviously controversial, then it should be posted in the protective space of the “Catholic Caucus.”

Otherwise a controversy will follow.

It is not Catholics who are being bashed - it is what Catholicism teaches.

You know how to mark a new post as a caucus, you do it all the time. Nobody (usually) bothers you. Hardly anyone pays attention, in fact. Maybe you could help the situation by teaching other Catholics to follow your lead.

I wonder if you could ask the Mod to reclassify a post as soon as you see that its content is likely to draw criticism of the “Holy Roman Catholic Church.”

Saying things like “Mary was without sin” or she is the “mother of God” (with all it implies) along with a whole host of other controversial declarations are sparks that will bring firestorms of criticism from Christians who believe otherwise.

Whining about the criticism is an immature response. So, use the caucus feature to protect your sensitivities.

Thanks.

[goat granny]

Mary did not create her baby called Jesus...she was the vessel that carried the baby. To me, the greatest name of Mary is the one God gave her.....namely Full of grace. All other names are creations of man. A mother does not create the child within, even today. Can any mother say she created her child?....the child is separate from her even to the DNA that the child has. God chose her to be the vessel that would carry Jesus. Full of Grace is a great name. When you start giving her other names that you think honor her more than what God called her, you name her in vain. She did not create the child within, just as any mother even today, does not create the child within...I did not create my 5 children, I was the means that brought them into this world. Mary was the means that brought Jesus into this world....she was full of grace...she did not create Jesus therefore she did not create God. But she was the means that brought him to earth. Even today, naming her other than what God did one comes up with the silly name co-redemperest, of which she is not..

[Biggirl]

No, it is NOT grave error, just a fact.

[Biggirl]

Thank-you and God Bless for the article.

[vladimir998]

“Idol worship.”

The title can’t be worship.

“Mary is not the mother of God she was the mother of Jesus.”

Then you;’re saying Jesus is not God. But He clearly said He is God so you’re wrong.

“She was a sinner that needed a Savior.”

She did need a Savior - and she had Him for a Son - and He preserved her from sin.

[vladimir998]

“Mary was his earthly mother. That doesn’t not mean she created God.”

I don’t understand how anti-Catholics can just make up straw men like that. Who here IS CLAIMING that Mary created God?

“She bore God.”

Exactly. So she is the mother of God. Women who bear children are called their mothers.

“She didn’t create God through conception.”

Again, who here IS CLAIMING that she created God?

“Jesus existed as God from all eternity.”

Well, technically, the Second Person of the Trinity existed from all eternity. Jesus (the God-man) did not exist until He was conceived in Mary’s womb.

“The verse you quote does not give Mary the title Mother of God. That is a human addition to what God said.”

But when Elizabeth calls Mary the mother of her Lord it means exactly the same thing as mother of God. There was only one Lord.

[NKP_Vet]

The only protestants that come close to following the teachings of Luther about Mary are......well.........LUTHERANS!

The other 60,000 or so sects believe what they feel like believing, the Bible be damned. Every protestant is their own authority on the Bible, just ask.

[Kolokotronis]

"Excellent point. In my Orthodox parish, the chanter had been using an English translation that rendered “Theotokos” as “Mother of God.” I had usually heard it translated “birthgiver of God.” When our bishop visited, he corrected the chanter during the service. Since then, he has chanted “Theotokos.” Θεοτοκος is of course the proper term. English is lousy for discussing or accurately expressing the theology of the early Church. But the truth of the matter is that "Mother of God", in English, is a translation of Θεοτοκος. So is "Birth-giver of God". The canons provide that we should pray in the language of the Laos tou Theou, which in many parishes here in America, is English (I wish it were 100% Greek, but that's just me). Your bishop probably did the right thing, but expecting English speaking Americans to appreciate the subtleties of Byzantine Greek might be a bit much. Unless your chanter was calling Panagia the "God Bearer" (θεοφορος) or the "Christ Bearer" (Χριστοτοκος), I suspect you weren't being subjected to heresy.

[huldah1776]

Jesus said this.

Matthew 12 NASB

46 While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. 47 Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.” 48 But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Behold My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.”

[xone]

The only protestants that come close to following the teachings of Luther about Mary are......well.........LUTHERANS!

Only the biblical of Luther's views on Mary were accepted, not the over the top Catholic influence. There was no scriptural warrant for those views so they didn't make the cut to the Book of Concord.

[ealgeone]

The Immaculate Conception from catholic encyclopedia online:(http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6056)

No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.

Tell me again why we should listen to catholics on this????

Your own sources tell us there is NO direct or categorical support for the immaculate conception....yet catholics continue to advance this false teaching.

[HarleyD]

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.

There is a flaw in this person's reasoning. It does not say that she "bore" God. The statement says that she gave birth so that the Word of God became flesh. A distinct difference that has taken some off the path. Christ existed before Mary bore Him.

There is an excellent devotional posted by Gamecock on the Arian crisis of the 4th century, God's Greater Wisdom. The Arians claimed our Lord had a beginning no less than what is being stated here. The meditation is worth the read.

[dartuser]

Mary is the Mother of Jesus. Jesus is God. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.

A freshman in Logic 101 class can spot the fallacy in this reasoning.

Your logic mimics the following:

1. Dogs can climb trees
2. There is a dog in a tree
3. The dog climbed the tree to get there.

That is the analogy of what your logic is claiming, and it clearly does not follow from the 2 premises.

1. Mary is certainly the mother of Jesus, she bore Him in the realm of His humanity. He underwent a normal human birth, normal human infancy, normal human childhood, etc. In the realm of His humanity Mary was the mother of Jesus. There is no issue with the first premise as long as you preface the statement as such; which none of the RCs on this forum have ever bothered to do.

2. Jesus was surely the Son of God. No one would deny the second premise either, but your conclusion based on 1 and 2 does not follow.

Here is where your logic breaks down. Yes, He is fully man, Yes He is fully God, the so-called hypostatic union that has been held since the apostles.

But what you are doing by ascribing the title 'Mother of God' is transitioning the source of the divine part of Christ to Mary, which is surely blasphemy.

Christ existed in the realm of His deity long before Mary's existence, so she cannot be the source of His divinity.

The title 'Mother of God' is clearly bringing the deity of Christ from premise 2 forward into the conclusion in 3.

Mary is NOT the source of His deity ... and here is my main point ...

You may have never said that she is ... but silence on your part and every other RC on this important distinction is affirmation that you believe she is.

[Salvation]

Check again:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“The gospel does not tell us about this incident just to make chit-chat. The gospels were written to tell about the realities of the spiritual economy.”

Neither is it a blank check that can mean whatever one wants to impose onto it. Your teaching didn’t come from the passage, but is imposed upon it from outside the Bible.

Best