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. 

[Bayard]

Which makes her the mother of Jesus. And nothing more.

Lk 1:43, Jesus is Lord.

Jesus IS God the Son. God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are all God. Did Mary bear them all? For if Christ is God, the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God, and to claim Mary is the "Mother of God," failing to include ALL of the Godhead would seem to me to be wrong.

The only reason this objection is reasonable is if you are a Modalist. You are not a modalist are you? Because then you are suggestion patripassionim.

[HossB86]

In what way is the person Jesus separated from his body without it being Adoptionism, or Patripassionism. If Nestorianism is your thinking, than this too means God did not really assume humanity.

How about:

Luke 23:46:
"Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" And having said this he breathed his last."

Didn't Jesus die? It said he "breathed his last" -- does the commending of his spirit into the Father's hands denote a separation from his human nature? Or did his body vanish from the cross?

Well, that's not fair; Roman Catholics STILL have Christ crucified on the cross, at least that's what I see on every RCC crucifix.

If he wasn't separated, he didn't die; if he didn't die, our sins are not paid for.

Get it?

Hoss

[Bayard]

Didn't Jesus die? It said he "breathed his last" -- does the commending of his spirit into the Father's hands denote a separation from his human nature? Or did his body vanish from the cross?

You're confusing nature with only the physical body. Jesus had a Human Will in union with His Divine Will.

When we die we are separated from our bodies, but though the flesh dies the nature of our humanity only experiences death which is separation of soul and body. The Humanity undergoes death, But We will also be resurrected in the flesh Just as Jesus restored his body in the resurrection.

At no time even in the tomb, was the death of Jesus a separation from his humanity.

[HossB86]

The only reasonable objection is the heretical error or Roman Catholicism. I believe in the one true living triune God.

God is eternal. He cannot be "born" -- God is not created. Christ is the Second Person of the Godhead -- "very God of very God" -- not created or made... Jesus was indeed born of Mary. His physical body was born of Mary. She is the mother of Jesus. She cannot be the Mother of God, because God must imply the Trinity -- when you say "God" you DO mean the Triune God, right? Because God IS a Triune God. So, if you claim Mary bore GOD, she would have to have borne the Godhead. She couldn't. She didn't. She bore Jesus. Unless you're claiming that God the Son is a different God than God the Father or God the Holy Spirit.

You're not saying that, are you?

Hoss

[Bayard]

The only reasonable objection is the heretical error or Roman Catholicism. I believe in the one true living triune God.

If God is not three distinct persons he is not a Triune God But a Modalistic God. You're really not a modalist are you? In which the case Jesus is God the Father, God the Son And God the Holy Spirit in the same definition. There are not three distinct persons but one in reality.

Mary is the Mother of the Second Person of the Trinity. The persons are differentiated, but the essence is not. The Being of God is one, but the individuals remain.

if you claim Mary bore GOD, she would have to have borne the Godhead. She couldn't.

She did bear the Godhead of the Second Person. Note that to be a Mother is only to supply half. Half of what makes the incarnation. But it also means to carry, to Carry the God of Humanity in her womb. It also means to give birth to the incarnation. And to have raised Him.

These facts are sufficient truths based in scripture to insist that Mary is the Mother of God.

[MHGinTN]

Back up and consider how Jesus The Son of God referred to Mary in person (at the wedding) and when she came with more of the family to speak with Him as He taught in someone’s home. Mary IS the Mother of Jesus. When Jesus was functioning as God with us, He addressed her as ‘Woman’ not Mom or Mother. When she came with others of the family to speak with Him, perhaps to try and persuade Him to stop putting Himself and the family at risk with His teaching, He didn’t address her directly even, just by comparative relationship.

[HossB86]

If God is not three distinct persons he is not a Triune God But a Modalistic God. You're really not a modalist are you?

Nice try. In no way have I said I'm a Modalist or believe that. One God; Three Persons.

Keep at it.

Hoss

[Syncro]

Nice Mormon talking point.

Sorry you don’t trust the Holy Spirit.

Your post reveals your lack of understanding of God and His Power and Word.

Your golden claves will be consumed by fire, don’t stand too close.

[The Cuban]

Do you worship your interpretation of the KJV or just the KJV of the Bible?

[Syncro]

Mary gave birth to the man, Jesus.

It's fruitless to debate with those firmly embedded in Catholicism.

Which believes that Mary gave birth to the eternal God,
that she was always sinless,
that she remained sinless and a virgin--(God approved of her marriage to Joseph so denying him the marriage bed world have been a sin if she did so as Catholicism teaches, therefore admitting she sinned)--
every creature must be subject to the pope,
Jesus was a Catholic,
Catholicism started when Jesus walked the earth,
a priest can turn a wafer into the actual body of Jesus, even a priest who just came from the back of the church where he molested a child (proclaimed by a Catholic here,)
Salvation can come from Mary with out Jesus involved etc etc.

If members of a belief system can accept all of that it's going to be difficult for them to break free.

We just have to keep praying that the Holy Spirit will open their eyes.

Knock them off of their high horse like Jesus did to Saul/Paul.

[Bayard]

How is the Motherhood of Mary of the second person of the Trinity who is God, also make her the Mother of the other two persons?

[Bayard]

When Jesus was functioning as God with us, He addressed her as ‘Woman’ not Mom or Mother.

Jesus does not function as God. Jesus is God. At no time Is he ever not God. This is a truth that is not ambiguous, it is precisely who Jesus is.

When she came with others of the family to speak with Him, perhaps to try and persuade Him to stop putting Himself and the family at risk with His teaching, He didn’t address her directly even, just by comparative relationship.

Jesus is illustrating a point to His listeners about the relationship he has with those who follow Him. What's the problem?

[Arthur McGowan]

I’m not insinuating that at all. I am insinuating only what I actually said: Certain opinions or beliefs cannot be believed by people of normal intelligence, and among those are the notions that Mary is the mother of the Trinity, or mother of God the Father.

Thus, the charge that Catholics DO believe those idiotic propositions is clearly preposterous, and is rooted, not in honest theological reasoning, but in malice.

The title “Mother of God” means that Mary, by virtue of her being the mother of Jesus, and by virtue of the fact that Jesus is one divine Person, is the mother of God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, the Eternal Word. The title has never meant anything else.

Those who deny Mary the title “Mother of God” necessarily deny that Jesus Christ is one divine Person, the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity. They will say, “Mary is the mother of Jesus, but not the mother of God.” And if you let them talk a little while, sure enough, they start digging the hole deeper and deeper, talking about Jesus and God the Son as two distinct persons or two distinct beings. They have done so many times in history, and here on FR.

[Syncro]

Wow nice ad hominid

Christians don’t interpret the Bible, they let the Holy Spirit do that.

Worship a translation? You are dead nuts.

What will you do when you run out of straw?

Some day you will have to face Jesus.

[Syncro]

How is the Motherhood of Mary of the second person of the Trinity who is God, also make her the Mother of the other two persons?

Yes, we are waiting for you to explain that.

That ball is in your court.

[HossB86]

Do you worship your interpretation of the KJV or just the KJV of the Bible?

Do you worship your Magisterium's interpretation of the Bible? They're human too. Do you read the Bible at all? In any version?

Really. Nice try.

I read the Bible, in a variety of translations. Personally, I enjoy the ESV, the KJV and the NKJV as well as the NASB. I worship God Almighty. Do you?

Hoss

[MHGinTN]

Did The Son exist before His incarnation? ... Try to step out of magic thinking and be honest with your response. Say 'yes, The Son as a person in the Triune God has always existed, as John 1 testifies under Holy Spirit inspiration.'

Now in human terms being the mother of someone means that the someone came into existence in that mother's body. Jesus The Son has always been with God and Is God, so He did not come into existence in Mary's body, but His physical body did. And ya know what, Scriptures tell us that for a season He made Himself a little lower than the Angels, to be our Savior.

Mary could not be the one in whom even a part of the Godhead came into existence, because God exists before Mary. Mary therefore is not the mother of God, since God pre-exists mary, but she is the Mother of the physical body God The Son of The Almighty Father occupied. Of course, you nor I can say precisely when The Son began to occupy that gestating body, but it had to be pretty early since the six months old nane in Elizabeth's body recognized His Lord's Presence.

Now ask yourself if the body Jesus now occupies had a mother. If you recognize that God made The Son new, in a glorified body, then the answer is that the current body Jesus occupies did not have a mother to gestate in.

[MHGinTN]

Meant to ping you ...

[Mrs. Don-o]

Second shift can be tough. God blesses all our sacrifices.

But venison goulash! Now there's something splendid! Are you the mighty hunter, O Master Verga?

Can you push it through the 'puter somehow so I can have a taste?? :oP

[Syncro]

Now ask yourself if the body Jesus now occupies had a mother. If you recognize that God made The Son new, in a glorified body, then the answer is that the current body Jesus occupies did not have a mother to gestate in.

Excellent point(s)!