Mary, Mother of God

The Sacred Page ^ | December 29, 2015

[NYer]

January 1 is the Solemnity (Holy Day) of Mary, Mother of God.  To call Mary the “Mother of God” must not be understood as a claim for Mary’s motherhood of divinity itself, but in the sense that Mary was mother of Jesus, who is truly God.  The Council of Ephesus in 431—long before the schisms with the Eastern churches and the Protestants—proclaimed “Mother of God” a theologically correct title for Mary. 

So far from being a cause of division, the common confession of Mary as “Mother of God” should unite all Christians, and distinguish Christian orthodoxy from various confusions of it, such as Arianism (the denial that Jesus was God) or Nestorianism (in which Mary mothers only the human nature of Jesus but not his whole person).

Two themes are present in the Readings for this Solemnity: (1) the person of Mary, and (2) the name of Jesus.   Why the name of Jesus? Prior to the second Vatican Council, the octave day of Christmas was the Feast of the Holy Name, not Mary Mother of God.  The legacy of that tradition can be seen in the choice of Readings for this Solemnity.  (The Feast of the Holy Name was removed from the calendar after Vatican II; St. John Paul II restored it as an optional memorial on January 3.  This year it is not observed in the U.S., because Epiphany falls on January 3.)

1.  The First Reading is Numbers 6:22-27:

The LORD said to Moses:
“Speak to Aaron and his sons and tell them:
This is how you shall bless the Israelites.
Say to them:
The LORD bless you and keep you!
The LORD let his face shine upon
you, and be gracious to you!
The LORD look upon you kindly and
give you peace!
So shall they invoke my name upon the Israelites,
and I will bless them.”

This Solemnity is one of the very few times that the Book of Numbers is read on a Lord’s Day or Feast Day.  Here’s a little background on the Book of Numbers:

The Book of Numbers is a little less neglected than Leviticus among modern Christian readers, if only because, unlike its predecessor, it combines its long lists of laws with a number of dramatic narratives about the rebellions of Israel against God in the wilderness, which create literary interest.  The name “Numbers” is, perhaps, already off-putting for the modern reader—it derives from the Septuagint name Arithmoi, “Numbers”, referring to the two numberings or censuses, one each of the first and second generations in the Wilderness, that form the pillars of the literary structure of the book in chs. 1 and 26.  The Hebrew name is bamidbar, “In the Wilderness,” which is an accurate description of the geographical and spiritual location of Israel throughout most of the narrative.

         The Book of Numbers has a strong literary relationship with its neighbors in the Pentateuch.  In many ways it corresponds with the Book of Exodus.  Exodus begins with the people staying in Egypt (Exodus 1-13), then describes their journey to through the desert (Exodus 14-19), and ends with them stationary at Sinai (20-36).  Numbers begins with the people staying at Sinai (Num 1-10), describes their journey through the desert (Num 11-25), and ends with them stationary on the Plains of Moab.  Sinai and the Plains of Moab correspond: at each location the people will receive a covenant (see below on Deuteronomy).  Furthermore, there are strong literary connections between the journeys through the Wilderness to and from Sinai (Ex 14-19; Num 11-25).  Both these sections are dominated by accounts of the people of Israel “murmuring” (Heb. lôn), “rebelling” (Heb. mārāh), or “striving” (Heb. rîb) against the LORD and/or Moses, together with Moses’ need for additional help to rule an unruly people (Ex 18; Num 11:16-39), and God’s miraculous provision for the people’s physical needs (Ex 15:22-17:7; Num 11:31-34; 20:1-13).  This is evidence of careful literary artistry: the central Sinai Narrative (Exod 20–Num 10) is surrounded by the unruly behavior of the people wandering in the desert.

         Numbers also has a close relationship with Leviticus.  If Leviticus established a sacred “constitution” for the life of Israel, exhibiting a logical, systematic order concluded, like a good covenant document, with a listing of blessings and curses (Lev 26), Numbers is more like a list of “amendments” to the “constitution,” together with accounts of the historical circumstances that led to their enactment.  And like the lists of amendments on many state and national constitutions, the laws have an ad hoc, circumstantial character, with little logical connection between successive “amendments.” 

         Finally, Numbers “sets the stage” for the Book of Deuteronomy, providing us the necessary information about Israel’s geographical and moral condition when they arrived at the “Plains of Moab opposite Jericho” in order to appreciate Moses’ extended homily and renewal of the covenant that he will deliver at this site in the final book of the Pentateuch.

The specific text we have in this First Reading is the famous Priestly Blessing of Numbers 6.  The formula for blessing given to the priests involves the invocation of the Divine Name (YHWH) three times over the people of Israel. 

A Brief Excursus on the Divine Name

“If they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say?” “God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM,” say … “I AM has sent me to you” (Ex 3:13-14).  The revelation of the divine Name to Moses (Ex 3:13-15) is one of the most theologically significant passages of the Old Testament.  By revealing himself as “I AM”, God distinguishes himself from the other gods of the nations, which “are not.”  He is the only God who truly is.  Furthermore, the name “I AM” stresses that God exists of himself; unlike all other beings he does not take his existence from some other cause.  Later philosophical language will describe God as the one necessary being.  While lacking technical philosophical language, the ancients did have the concept of self-existence: in Egyptian religion, the sun-god Amon-RÄ“ “came into being by himself” and all other beings took their existence from him.  However, God reveals to Moses that it is He, the LORD—not Amon-RÄ“ or any other Egyptian god—who is the ground of being and the source of existence. 

The actual word given to Israel to serve as the Name of God is spelled YHWH in the English equivalents of the Hebrew consonants. It is not the full phrase “I AM WHO I AM” but rather an archaic form of the Hebrew verb HYH, “to be,” with the meaning “HE IS.” Out of respect for the third commandment, Jews after the Babylonian exile (c. 597–537 BC) ceased to pronounce the divine name at all, but instead substituted the title “Lord,” in Hebrew adonai, in Greek kyrios.  Thus the God of Israel is called ho kyrios, “the Lord” in the New Testament.  This sheds light on the meaning of the phrase, “Jesus is Lord!” (Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 12:3).

The Hebrew language was written without vowels until around AD 700, when Jewish scribes developed a vowel-writing system.  The form YHWH, however, was written with the vowels for adonai, the word Jews actually pronounced.  The English translators of the King James Version did not understand this system, and in a few instances combined the Hebrew consonants of YHWH (called the tetragrammaton, lit. “the four letters”) with the Hebrew vowels of adonai to form the erroneous name “Jehovah.”  Catholic tradition addresses God with neither the mistaken form “Jehovah” nor the ancient pronunciation “Yahweh,” but uses “LORD” to refer to the God of Israel, in keeping with the practice of Jesus and the Apostles.  In most English Bibles, “LORD” in caps represents YHWH in the Hebrew text, while “Lord” in lower case represents the actual Hebrew word adonai.

The concept of “name” in Hebrew culture was of great significance.  The “name” represented the essence of the person, and invoking the name made the person mystically present.  Therefore, God will speak of the manifestation of his presence in the Temple as the “dwelling of his Name” in various places of the Old Testament.

The invocation of the Name of God over the people of Israel communicates God’s presence and Spirit to them at least a mediated way. 

In post-exilic Judaism, the Divine Name (YHWH) was seldom if ever pronounced, except on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), when the High Priest would make atonement for the whole nation in the Holy of Holies, and then exit the Temple in order to bless the assembled people in the Temple courts.  There, he would pronounce the blessing of Numbers 6, including the vocalization of the Divine Name.  Every time the people would hear the Name pronounced, they would drop prostrate on the ground.  This is recorded in Sirach:

Sir. 50:20 Then Simon came down, and lifted up his hands over the whole congregation of the sons of Israel, to pronounce the blessing of the Lord with his lips, and to glory in his name, and to glory in his name;  21 and they bowed down in worship a second time, to receive the blessing from the Most High.

Similar information is recorded in the Mishnah, the second-century AD collection of rabbinic tradition and teaching that become the basis of the legal system of modern Judaism.  So in the Mishnah, tractate Yoma 3:8 and 6:2:

And [when the people heard the four letter Name] they answer after [the High Priest]: “Blessed be the Name of His glorious Kingdom forever and ever”. (M. Yoma 3:8)

Then, the priests and the people standing in the courtyard, when they heard the explicit Name from the mouth of the High Priest, would bend their knees, bow down and fall on their faces, and they would say, "Blessed be the Honored Name of His Sovereignty forever!" (M. Yoma 6:2)

We read this passage of Scripture in today’s liturgy for a variety of reasons. 

First, we gather as God’s people around the world on this, the first day of the civil year, to ask from God his blessing upon us. 

Second, we commemorate (in the Gospel) the circumcision and naming of Jesus.  For us in the New Covenant, the Name of God continues to be a source of blessing and Divine Presence, but the name we are to use is no longer YHWH but “Jesus.”  Jesus is God’s Name, the source of salvation.  When Paul speaks to the Philippians about the Name of Jesus, he may have in mind the prostrations in the Temple at the Divine Name:

Phil. 2:10  At the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth …

It has never been the Christian tradition to pronounce the holy name “YHWH.”  Jesus and the Apostles practiced the Jewish piety of substituting “Lord” (‘adonai, kyrios, dominus) for the pronunciation of the Name.  For this reason, under the pontificate of Benedict XVI, the pronounced name “Yahweh” was removed from contemporary worship resources.  The sect of the Jehovah’s Witnesses insist on the pronunciation of the Name, although their form of pronunciation is erroneous, and there is nothing in Christian tradition or the New Testament to encourage such a practice.  For us, the saving name is now “Jesus,” and although full prostration at the pronunciation of the name of Jesus is impractical, Catholic piety dictates a bow of the head at the mention of the Holy Name.

2.  The Second Reading is Galatians 4:4-7:

Brothers and sisters:

When the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son,

born of a woman, born under the law,

to ransom those under the law,

so that we might receive adoption as sons.

As proof that you are sons,

God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts,

crying out, “Abba, Father!”

So you are no longer a slave but a son,

and if a son then also an heir, through God.

This Reading has ties to the Gospel, which emphasizes Mary’s role in Christ’s birth (“born of a woman”) as well as Jesus and his family being obedient Jews, faithful to the Old Covenant in submitting to circumcision (“born under the law.”)

This Reading also reminds us that Jesus calls us to Divine sonship (or childhood, if gender neutrality is desired).  Let’s not forget that this is unique to the Christian faith.  Christianity—unlike Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Atheism—is a religion about becoming children of God.  In Judaism, Divine childhood is metaphorical; in Islam, it is blasphemy.  In Eastern religions, it is irrelevant, because God is not ultimately a personal being, but rather an impersonal force or essence that animates all or simply is All.  Christianity alone holds out the possibility of familial intimacy with Creator as a son or daughter to a Father.

Let us also notice the close connection between the gift of the Holy Spirit and divine sonship.  From a legal perspective, it is the New Covenant that makes us children of God; from an ontological perspective, it is the Spirit that makes us children.  The sending of the Spirit “into our hearts,” as St. Paul says, is parallel to the inbreathing of the “breath of life” into the nostrils of Adam, causing him to become “a living being.”  So we are revivified by the Holy Spirit, as Adam was brought to life at the dawn of time.  Adam was king of the universe, as it says: “Have dominion over the over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth” (Gen 1:28).  The word “dominion” (Heb radah) evokes the context of kingly rule: later it will be used of Solomon’s imperial reign (1 Kings 4:24; Ps 72:8; 110:2; 2 Chr 8:10).  So the Holy Spirit makes us royalty in Christ: as St. Paul says, “no longer a slave but a son … also an heir, through God.”  No longer a slave to what?  Sin, death, and the devil.  If we live controlled by lusts, in fear of death, and swayed by the suggestions of Satan, than we are still slaves.  If we are free of these things, then we are walking in the Spirit, as children of God.  This is a theme in the First Epistle of John, which is read during daily mass all through the Christmas season.

4.  The Gospel is Luke 2:16-21:

The shepherds went in haste to Bethlehem and found Mary and Joseph,

and the infant lying in the manger.

When they saw this,

they made known the message

that had been told them about this child.

All who heard it were amazed

by what had been told them by the shepherds.

And Mary kept all these things,

reflecting on them in her heart.

Then the shepherds returned,

glorifying and praising God

for all they had heard and seen,

just as it had been told to them.

When eight days were completed for his circumcision,

he was named Jesus, the name given him by the angel

before he was conceived in the womb.

We note several things: Mary “kept all these things, reflecting on them in her heart.”  This is not only an historical indication of where St. Luke is getting his information about these events (so John Paul II [in his Wednesday audience of Jan. 28, 1987] and the Catholic tradition generally), but also a model of the contemplative vocation to which all Christians are called.  Especially during this Christmas season, up until the Baptism (Jan 13), we should carve out some time for quiet prayer, to meditate on the incredible events we celebrate and allow their meaning to sink into our hearts. 

Then we see the shepherds “glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen …”  This, too, describes the Christian’s vocation.  Pope Francis in particular has been calling us to return to the aspect of praise and joy that characterizes the disciple of Jesus.  Our faith is experiential, it is not just a philosophy.  It is an encounter with a person.  All of us should know what it means to come into contact with Jesus, to “hear and see” him.  In his First Epistle (which we are reading right now in daily mass), St. John sounds much like the shepherds:

1John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life —  2 the life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us —  3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.  4 And we are writing this that our joy may be complete.

Observe the connection in this passage with “seeing” and “hearing” and the culmination in proclamation and joy.  This is what disciples of Jesus do: they experience Jesus and then proclaim in joy what they have encountered.

Finally, we see the naming of Jesus at his circumcision.  Christians no longer practice circumcision, because Baptism is the “circumcision of the heart” promised by Moses that surpasses physical circumcision (cf. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Acts 2:37; Col 2:11-12).  Yet at our Baptism, the “circumcision of our heart,” we still receive our Christian name.

The name given to Jesus is the Hebrew word y’shua, meaning “salvation.”  In the Old Testament, we are more familiar with the name under the form “Joshua,” who was an important type of Christ.  Just as Moses was unable to lead the people of Israel into the promised land, but Joshua did; so also Jesus is our New Joshua who takes us into the salvation to which Moses and his covenant could not lead us.

Salvation is now found in the Name of Jesus, because salvation means to enter into a relationship of childhood with God the Father.  It’s not that other great religious leaders (Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius etc.) claimed to be able to lead us into divine childhood, but couldn’t. It’s that they did not even claim to be able to do so.  Jesus is unique.  So Jesus says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6).  This is not arrogance.  Jesus is the only great religious founder in human history to proclaim that God is a Father and we can become his children.  This concept of divine filiation is at the heart of the Gospel.  In a sense, it can be said to be the heart of the Gospel. 

On this Solemnity, let us give thanks to God that he has, through Jesus, made a way for us to become his children and receive a new name which he has given us (see Rev 2:17).  This intimate, personal relationship with God has been made possible by the cooperation of Mary, who became the mother of the one whose Name is Salvation. 

[omegatoo]

Both the ‘Did God die?’ question and the ‘mother of God’ debate turn on definitions which the opposing sides do not seem to agree on. What is death? What is a mother?

Mary is the mother of God. “Mother” is an earthly, human term. It does not mean creator. Your mother did not create you; she participated in the creation of your earthly body. Your soul was created by God, before you were ‘knitted’ in the womb. Mary participated in the creation of Jesus’ and thus God’s, human body. That is what being the ‘mother of God’ means. The idea that Mary created God is valid only to those who believe mothers create their children. Since I don’t think anyone really believes that, this entire argument is pointless. There really is no disagreement, there are only people trying to assign to Catholics beliefs that they don’t hold.

As far as God dying goes, death is also an earthly construct. It is the separation of the soul from the human, earthly body. Jesus did die in the manner of humans, because He was fully human. His being was separated from His earthly form, just as our soul will be separated from our body when we die. Our souls never die (unless going to hell is considered death), and the being of God will never die. The only way Jesus’ death is a problem is if God is limited to the earthly plane, which I think we all agree He is not. Jesus suffered death. His being left His human body and then returned, precisely because God, in any of His persons, is not constrained to earth or human limitations.

Love,
O2

[MamaB]

Jesus said to follow Him not some church. A church can not save anyone but Jesus can.

[metmom]

While I appreciate your explanations, did it not occur to you that if you have to go to such lengths to explain what is meant by more ambiguous terms or statements, perhaps they are not the best to use?

For example, changing *mother of Jesus* to *mother of God* does nothing except foster confusion and leave the door open for misunderstanding who Mary is and the nature of God.

The more specific term *mother of Jesus* requires no verbal gymnastics to clear up misconceptions about who Mary is. There’s no need for convoluted explanations about how Mary isn’t REALLY “GOD’S” mother cause God doesn’t have a mother, etc.

*Mother of Jesus* doesn’t need any further explanation of who Mary is. It’s concise, accurate, succinct, beautiful in its simplicity.

[metmom]

Not to mention, the term of choice by the Holy Spirit.

If I have to choose between going with what the Holy Spirit inspired or what man changed it to, I’ll take the Holy Spirit’s version.

I think He knows a little bit better which term to use than man does.

[MamaB]

I will be 72 soon and I have never heard anyone refer to their dad as father. It was always Dad, Pops, Pa, etc. I called my dad Pa since that is what my oldest nephew called him. I am 2 years older than he. Even my great granddaughters refer to him as Pa. They were born years after his death but we all talk about my parents. They have seen pictures of them, too.

[MamaB]

Amen. No man can forgive any sins. None.

[omegatoo]

You have entirely missed the point.

The problem is not whether Mary is mother of God or Jesus, because she is the mother of Jesus who IS God.

The problem is assuming Catholics equate ‘mother’ with ‘Creator’, which we do not do. Being the mother of God does not make Mary His creator or predecessor, it makes her the human vessel by which God’s human form arrived on earth. That is what a mother is. It is not confusing at all.

Any confusion is purposefully being created to cause dissent between Christians by trying to ascribe to Catholics a definition of motherhood that they do not hold. I wonder who might be behind that?

Love,
O2

[Mark17]

Well, someone has to take a hit for the team......

Amen, and amen. It's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it.

:-)

[verga]

And I addressed that in the last paragraph, which you may have seen had you actually read the post instead of having a typical knee jerk reaction and following the prot posse.

Stupid facts getting in the way of ignorance.

[daniel1212]

First, that Mary is obviously not the origin of the deity of Jesus does not make her not a Mother of God.

Or her parents not being the grandparents of God and so forth back to Adam and Eve, and the Jews and Romans murderers of God. You are simply refusing to see the point.

The distinction that Mary is the Mother of God is not undercut by a non-mention of the word Mother in your quote from Romans. Much Like bachelor is an unmarried man a woman who conceives and bears a child is the Child's Mother. There's no way this could not be the case without saying something terribly awkward about Jesus and Salvation.

Of course there is a way to qualify it, as the Holy Spirit does, as this birth was no ordinary birth, yet MoD is almost always used without any qualification and as part of the unScriptural hyper exaltation of the holy Mary of Scripture into an almost almighty heavenly demi-goddess with attributes of deity and which much parallel Christ.

Who is Jesus? He is the Second person of the Trinity. (Heb 1:3) Jesus is God.

And again, this makes Jews and Romans murderers of God, God-killers, which also can be said in a qualified sense as technically correct, but in the case of Rome it is a formal title which is part of a whole host of titles, attributes and glory that is way way beyond what is written of her or is even close to what is said of any created being. In essence they are adding to the word of God.

If you deny this...

I rejection the formal title MoG we are not denying that Mary gave birth to the second person of the Trinity no matter how often you resort to trying to charge this in order to almost demand she be called by this title as well as be given all the hyper-exaltion that Spirit of God nowhere provides in Scripture. But Scripture is only an abused servant for many RCs in wresting it to support of Rome.

f you deny this you deny the same reality that gives value to the meaning "God died on the Cross."

Exactly, and which is also nowhere said, though technically true, but misleading, as God also existed in Heaven while the Divine Lord Jesus died.

Your quotation of speculation from Cardinal Ratzinger, not doctrine, is in reference to a title I'm not discussing. It is a separate issue from the title Mother of God.

You are simply ignoring that the argument is applicable here as well, and that MoG is part of a the unScriptural elevation of a created being which goes way beyond what the Spirit says of any created being.

[metmom]

What is generally ignored in that disobeying the command to call no man Father, is that Jesus is addressing religious leaders and titles assigned to them.

For all Catholics demand context when it suits them, they ignore it when it suits them.

The context is calling religious leaders by the title of *Father*. It does not address at all a child calling his or her male parent *Dad*, *Daddy*, whatever.....

[metmom]

Still waiting for an answer as to why Catholics felt the need to change the work of the Holy Spirit in reassigning a title to Mary placemarker.

[Elsie]

Oh yeah!!

[Elsie]

Note that in Luke 1:43, Elizabeth calls Mary “the Mother of my Lord.”

So, you see, Scripture calls Mary the Mother of God.

Really?

The guy on the TV yesterday said water would fall from the sky.

I got snow.

[Elsie]

I have had multiple bigots DENY that this is a valid syllogism:

I've had EVERY FR Catholic FAIL to show that their pet phrase can be FOUND in the bible.

They have to synthesize it out of bits and pieces of Scripture.

[Elsie]

10 PRINT "Hail Mary, Mother of GOD..."
20 IF awake = TRUE THEN GOTO 10
30 GOTO 20
40 END

[Elsie]

You really don’t want to expose the history of the papcy.....do you??

It mattereth not. They are mere mortals (until sainted).

[Elsie]

Sure it does because only sinners need to be saved.

Sure it does because only sinners need a Lord!

[Elsie]

Every single one of them had human failings, some more than others, but not one of them ever taught heresy, not a single one.

And this is why RC's and EO's preach EXACTLY the same stuff; right?

[Elsie]

The Christians who have called Mary "the Mother of God" have not been morons.

True; just Our Way or the Highway types.