Replies

Nestorius's avoidance of the term was odd enough within the Church that it drew attention to him, even though he had mostly kept his heretical beliefs to himself.

I’m curious as to where precisely the term "mother of God" comes from. You’re absolutely correct that the Church technical meaning of Theotokos is "the birthgiver of God". This is a far different meaning than what is being applied here as the "mother of God" which implies far more grandeur. This is a subtle but important difference.

Nestorius clearly had a wrong perception of the essences of Christ, believing Christ was two seperate entities, human and divine. He objected to the term "birthgiver of God" (Theotokos) instead favoring the term "birthgiver of Christ" (Christotokos). But his was not an isolated view as you would seem to dismiss. His view was enough to cause the Chalcedonian schism and the separation of the Assyrian Church of the East from the Byzantine Church. According to my readings, today it is believed that Nestorius and the Church of the East's views were exaggerated.

However, Nestorius isn’t the point. The point is whether Theotokos can be accurately translated into “mother of God” which you have rightfully stated is an inaccurate interpretation. I have not yet been able to find when the actual term "mother of God" first appeared as the writings seem to incorrectly use these interchangeably; but it is an imprecise and inaccurate definition of the meaning of Theotokos. With all due respects, the Church seems to fosters this misconception by claiming the Theotokos and then substituting the different term "mother of God".

I wouldn't bet on the Archangel Gabriel using such a term because it is not recorded. As you, yourself pointed out, Elizabeth did not even call Mary, "mother of God" but properly stated, "...mother of my Lord". This is consistent with the precise definition of Theotokos. Mary was the mother of MY Lord. Mary was the birthgiver. Nothing more. A view that was correctly held by the early Church but that has now become distorted.

I've noticed there was no response on my question to whether Mary was sinless in direct contradiction to Rom 3:23.

Here's what I don't get:

Theotokos is "the birthgiver of God". This is a far different meaning than what is being applied here as the "mother of God" which implies far more grandeur.

You're ok with birthgiver of God, but not mother of God. It would seem to wish Mary gave birth, then walked away without mothering the infant Jesus or caring for her son or weeping at His death.

To me, the Incarnation is a major, if not the major, defining moment for Christianity. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus became like us. He underwent torture, pain, ridicule; the Passion of Christ. All this is not diminished by the simple fact that He also had a mother - like us.

So, I honestly don't get it.

I'm not sure where the term "Mother of God" first enters Church life. The construction does exist in Greek liturgical texts, but it is very uncommon. The most notable occurence of it happens in the hymn to the Virgin "It is truly meet to bless thee..." that is the usual concluding hymn of the anaphora in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

Typically, in Orthodox liturgical texts and services, there will be a series of hymns or prayers, and the last one (and usually only the last) will be about or to the Theotokos. This is a convention that is rarely deviated from. They mostly commonly will have a dogmatic character (in fact the most prominent "theotokion" at Vespers is actually called a "dogmatikon," since it always deals with the dogmatic Christological implications involved in our reflections on the Virgin.ff

Anyway, in that particular hymn, "It is truly meet...", the phrase is "ever-blessed and blameless and the Mother of *our* God." [emphasis mine] The hymn seems thus to make it very clear that He is not only the God of those doing the singing, but also the Theotokos's God. Even as we are proclaiming her blessed, we at the same time are proclaiming that she is one of us before "our God."

There is really no serious debate within Orthodoxy whether Nestorius and Nestorianism were real threats and heresies. What is debated is whether Monophysitism was more imagined than real. (My opinion is that is was and is very real, and that the fathers of the 4th Council are better judges of what was heresy than are armchair theologians a millenium and a half later. But this is politically incorrect in many circles to say.)

What caused the Chalcedonian schism was precisely the opinion of the Monophysites that the Church outside of Egypt was falling back into Nestorianism. To us, they are guilty of Monophysitism -- to the Copts, *we* are guilty of Nestorianism for believing that Christ had both a divine nature and a human nature rather than a single comoposite nature.

We all agree that Nestorianism is a heresy, though. Of course, their numbers aren't large enough to make as good a lobby as do the Monophysites.

Nestorianism certainly did not end up being isolated -- it made deep inroads into the Churches of Antioch and Constantinople in particular. But at the start, it was a latent phenomenon, that went undetected for some time.

I've noticed there was no response on my question to whether Mary was sinless in direct contradiction to Rom 3:23.

You did not notice a response, but there was at least one, from me, in 6160:

When it states [in Rom 3:23] that all have sinned it includes Mary
No it doesn't. The adjacent verses make clear that "all" refers to the Godless who toil uinder the law of nature or the law of Moses (compare verses 11-18). That passage stands in direct contrast to Luke 1:28, "hail full of grace". That grace is the grace of Christ that justifies the believer, starting with Mary, as Paul explains in verses 24-30.