Mariolatry (Pt. 3) Mother of God?

Should Mary be called the “Mother of God”?

No!

It was in 431 A.D. at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus that Mary was proclaimed to be the “Mother of God”. Yet, for 400 years after Christ’s death, Mary was NEVER called the “Mother of God”.

Theotokos

From the very beginning, in the council of Ephesus at Ephesus about 431 A.D., the term “Theotokos” (Literally, God bearer), from which the phrase “Mother of God” is based on, was completely Christological in nature. The term was meant to protect from the Nestorian heresy, which taught that Christ’s two natures were separate, and thus, there were two Christs. And this is why Mary was proclaimed to be “Theotokos” the “God-bearer”, in order to protect the unity of the two natures in one Christ. Essentially, the term “Theotokos” served as a useful term to affirm the deity of Christ even in the womb. Yet as time passed, instead of trying to define who Jesus was (as was the purpose of the term “Theotokos”), some Christians began speculating about who Mary was. By calling Mary “Mother of God” it seemed to unintentionally intensify this speculation, setting off the development of many non-Biblical false assumptions about Mary which continues to grow ever worse in our times. Dr. Ludwig Ott, a highly respected Catholic theologian, testifies to this in his book, The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, saying “The veneration of Mary was greatly promoted by the definition of her dignity as Mother of God” (p. 216). Hence, neither the phrase “Mother of God”, nor its implied Catholic assertions, is in harmony with the original intent of the term “Theotokos”.

It’s also important to note that during the time of the council of Ephesus and the council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.), another, more precise term, “mater theou” (Mother of God) was in use as a supplemental term by Cyril of Alexandria, who led the council of Ephesus. However, this supplemental term was never accepted by the framers of both councils.

But, since in our times the title “Mother of God” has altered its purpose from one that maintains the deity of Christ to one that glorifies Mary, the original intent of the title has faded away from use, and for this reason the title should be abandon.

“Mother of God” creates a False Syllogism

Yet, since the Catholics won’t discard the title any time soon, then we must discuss whether the title “Mother of God” is logically sound by looking at it syllogistically.

1^st premise: Jesus is God

2^nd premise: Mary is the mother of Jesus

Conclusion: Mary is the mother of God

If we are to accept the conclusion, then we should also accept the logical continuation:

1^st premise: God is Trinity

2^nd premise: Mary is the mother of God

Conclusion: Mary is the mother of the Trinity

If we accept this conclusion (which I don’t), then the final syllogism is as follows:

1^st premise: God the Father subsists within the Trinity

2^nd premise: Mary is the mother of the Trinity

Conclusion: Mary is the mother of God the Father

Obviously, this poses a big problem for Catholics, as the 2^nd and 3^rd conclusions are heretical. Yet, they are simply the logical continuation of the first syllogism. Though they may seem valid conclusions, the question is whether their 1^st and 2^nd premises are true or false. If any premise is found to be false, then the syllogism ends up being unsound. First, we look at the 2^nd premise to the last syllogism. Is Mary the mother of the Trinity? Clearly the answer is NO. Hence, we should examine the 2^nd syllogism that came to this conclusion, that is:

1st premise: God is Trinity

2nd premise: Mary is the mother of God

Conclusion: Mary is the mother of the Trinity

When we look at the 1^st premise (God is a Trinity) we accept this as a true premise. Since the conclusion (Mary is the mother of the Trinity) is false, then we can call into question the truthfulness of the 2^nd premise (Mary is the mother of God), and by extension, we can question the soundness of the 1^st syllogism which led to the conclusion “Mary is the mother of God”.

When we look at the premises of the 1^st syllogism (Jesus is God & Mary is the mother of Jesus), we realize where the fallacy takes place. The 1^st premise “Jesus is God” is put forward as a categorical statement affirming something about Jesus, which is more accurately presented as: All of Jesus is God (properly called an A proposition, “All of S is P”). Though this functions well for other singular propositions such as, “All of John is human”, it doesn’t function well with this one. The premise “Jesus is God” is not actually a categorical statement because it’s not true that all of Jesus is God, for Jesus’ humanity cannot be considered divine. Otherwise, Monophysitism (heretical teaching that Christ’s divine and human natures are actually one nature) would be orthodox. Jesus is both God and man, hence, we must use the proposition “some of Jesus is God” (properly called an I proposition, “some of S is P”). Once we accept this, we come to understand that the 1^st syllogism runs into the fallacy of the undistributed middle. The proposition (some of Jesus is God) is an affirmative and particular statement, and hence the middle term (Jesus) cannot be distributed. In the same manner, Mary cannot be said to be mother of all of Jesus, but only of his humanity.

Let’s look at these two premises:

1^st premise: Some of Jesus is God

2^nd premise: Mary is the mother of some of Jesus

Can we then conclude that Mary is the “mother of God”? No, because the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the two premises. It could very well be that Mary is the mother of only the non-God part of Jesus, and in fact she is.

(I must ask that you forgive me for using terms such as “some of Jesus” and “non-God”. It’s not my intention to be disrespectful, rather, I’m merely using the language of logic)

“Mother of God”, Mother of a Nature or of a Person?

Now, Catholics might object, saying that Mary is not the mother of a nature (divinity/humanity), but of a person. That’s true, but the moment one asserts that Mary is the mother of God, one has broken that distinction because one is stating that Mary is the mother of deity but not of humanity. That is to say, “God” is merely describing Jesus’ divine nature. The person of Jesus is not just God, and the person of Jesus is more than just a man. In other words, Mary gave birth to the person who is both God and man, but she did NOT give birth to the pre-incarnate form of the Logos. It’s appropriate then to call Mary the “mother of Christ”, but not the “mother of God”. In fact, what Catholics seem to keep on ignoring is the purpose for giving Mary the title “Theotokos” at the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and it’s that the title “Theotokos” was meant to confirm and maintain the divine nature of Christ, NOT to establish his personhood.

Besides, in the strict sense, God is not a person, but a being that subsists in three persons. God is a Trinity, yet one cannot say that since Jesus is God then Jesus must be a Trinity. Theologically speaking, all Christians can agree that our Triune God is Eternal and is without a beginning. Thus, God has no mother, just as Jesus Christ had no earthly father. Christ’s human nature had no father and Christ’s divine nature had no mother. So, Mary added nothing to Christ’s divine nature.

Roman Catholics have failed to make the necessary theological distinction between person, nature, and being. Some Catholics argue that Jesus is an exception to this distinction, claiming that Jesus is a “divine person” who took on a human nature. However, such an argument is faced with countless problems. First, the moment one uses the phrase “divine person”, one has already violated the distinction mentioned above: “Divine person” is simply another way of saying “person with a divine nature”. Still, the moment the incarnation happened, the “person” in question was something more, that is, he was a “person with a divine nature and a human nature”, and it was to this person that Mary gave birth to. Furthermore, if one maintains that we have to view Mary as the mother of God on the basis that she gave birth to a “divine person”, we should then ask several probing questions. In Luke 2:52 we read that “Jesus grew in wisdom”; Can it be said that God grew in wisdom because Jesus is God? In Matt. 24:36 we read that Jesus doesn’t know the day and hour of His return; Can it be said that God doesn’t know this information because Jesus is God? In Heb. 4:15 we read that Jesus was “tempted in every way just as we are”; Can it be said that God was tempted because Jesus is God? Since Jesus died on the cross, can it be said that God died because Jesus is God?

Certainly, the Scriptures reveal that God has always possessed all wisdom. God knows all things, and that includes the time period of the return of Christ (Matt. 24:36), God cannot be tempted with evil (Jas. 1:13), and God cannot die because death is a bodily condition that affects all humans (1 Cor. 15:22; “in Adam, all die”), but not God (Ps. 82:6-7; “I said, ‘you are gods’...but you will die like mere men”), nor even the angels (Luke 20:36; “they can no longer die, for they are like the angels”). Clearly, the reason as to how Jesus grew in wisdom, was limited in knowledge, was tempted, died, and of course was born, is only because of his humanity, NOT his divinity. God, in His divinity, cannot be conceived and born just as He cannot die. Therefore, it cannot be said that Mary bore God (and thus, carries the title “mother of God”), any more than it can be said that the Jews killed God. Jesus in His humanity had no mother; Jesus in His divinity was “without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life” (Heb. 7:3).

Belief of the Early Church Fathers about the Jesus/Mary relationship

This also was the belief of the earliest minds concerning the relationship between Jesus and his mother Mary. Augustine comments on John 2, writing:

“At that time, therefore, when about to engage in divine acts, He repelled, as one unknown, her who was the mother, not of His divinity, but of His [human] infirmity.” (Augustine, Tract. In Ioannem CXIX, 1)

He makes the same affirmation in another place also:

“It was as if [Jesus] said [in John 2], ‘You did not give birth to my power of working miracles, it was not you who gave birth to my divinity. But you are the mother of all that is weak in me.” (Ibid., VII, 9)

Evidently, Augustine differentiates between the relation Mary had with Jesus’ humanity, and the relation she had with His Divinity. In the following chapter, Augustine explains what he means by this:

Why, then, said the Son to the mother, “Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come.”? Our Lord Jesus Christ was both God and man. According as He was God, He had not a mother; according as He was man, He had. She was the mother, then, of His flesh, of His humanity, of the weakness which for our sakes He took upon Him. But the miracle which He was about to do, He was about to do according to His divine nature, not according to His weakness; according to that wherein He was God not according to that wherein He was born weak. But the weakness of God is stronger than men. His mother then demanded a miracle of Him; but He, about to perform divine works, so far did not recognize a human womb; saying in effect, “That in me which works a miracle was not born of thee, thou gavest not birth to my divine nature; but because my weakness was born of thee, I will recognize thee at the time when that same weakness shall hang upon the cross.” This indeed, is the meaning of “Mine hour is not yet come.”...How then was was He both David’s son and David’s Lord? David’s son according to the flesh, David’s Lord according to His divinity; so also Mary’s son after the flesh, and Mary’s Lord after His majesty. Now as she was not the mother of His divine nature, whilst it was by His divinity the miracle she asked for would be wrought, therefore He answered her, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” (Ibid., VIII, 9)

Gregory the Great also comments on John 2 and John 19, stating:

“As if to say plainly, That I can do a miracle comes to me from my Father, not from my mother. For He who from the nature of His Father did miracles, had it from His mother that He could die.” (Gregory, Epist. 41)

Both Augustine and Gregory share the same belief we have asserted above about the distinction between Mary’s relationship to Jesus in His Humanity and the same to Jesus in His Divinity.

A Roman Catholic who rejects this view as ahistorical no longer has any grounds to object it. This view is founded not just on superior logic than the phrase “mother of God”, but is also supported by some of the best thinkers in the Early Church.

“Mother of God” Does Not Distinguish between the Natures of Christ

Another objection to the phrase “Mother of God” is that it does not correctly differentiate between the two natures of Christ. In designating Mary as the “mother of God”, and not “mother of man” there is an implied denial of the Christ’s humanity, or a divinization of His humanity, both of which are heresies. That is to say, it asserts that Mary gave birth to one nature (specifically, deity) stripped of all true humanity. Despite Catholics intensely denying this, the Scriptures over and over again explicitly states that one gives birth not only to a person, but also to a nature. “And the earth brought forth...plants yielding seed after their kind...’Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind.” (Gen. 1:12, 24). Jesus was the “son of David according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3), Abraham is “forefather [to the Jews] according to the flesh” (Rom. 4:1). “It is not the children of the flesh [i.e. descendants by human nature from Abraham] who are children of God” (Rom. 9:8)

Now, the framers of the Council of Chalcedon were aware of the danger that calling Mary “mother of God” would make her the one who birthed Jesus’ divine nature, depriving Jesus of His true human nature. Hence, they used the term “Theotokos” (God bearing one), and made no other reference to Mary. And as I mentioned earlier above, they rejected Cyril’s supplementation “mētēr theou” (μήτηρ θεοῦ), literally “Mother of God”, thus reaffirming that Jesus is one person who has two natures. The work of Chalcedon referred to Mary as “God-bearer”, but not without qualification. The content of the document declares, “...as regards [Jesus’] manhood, begotten...of Mary the virgin, the Theotokos...,” thus being cautious NOT to attribute to Mary the idea of giving birth to Christ’s deity. Paul held to the same belief in Rom. 1:3, in which he says that Jesus is the “son of David, according to the flesh”. Hence, Chalcedon merely reaffirmed what the Bible had already made clear. We, along with Chalcedon, believe that God and man are indissolubly united in the person of Jesus from the moment of conception; but, that there is no transformation or mixture of the natures. We have to uphold the distinction between the two natures of Christ, or we will fall into heresy.

In regards to the Incarnation, Mary certainly had a role in producing Christ’s humanity, but she was in no way responsible for producing Christ’s deity. If one really wants to give Mary credit in producing one of the natures of Christ, then it would be far more accurate to call her the “mother of man” rather than “mother of God”. And if we are to maintain the proper unity of Christ’s two natures as Chalcedon demands of us, then it would be even more accurate to call Mary the “mother of Christ” (a general term embracing both natures). This is precisely what Nestorius tried to accomplish by introducing the term “Christotokos” (Χριστοτοκος), literally, “Christ-bearing one”. What Chalcedon had taught is also what Nestorius also apparently taught. As a matter of fact, Nestorius believed himself justified by the conclusions of Chalcedon (Heresies, 182). His opponents mistakenly believed he was teaching only an apparent unity between the two natures based on a misunderstanding of his use of prosōpon [πρόσωπον], literally, “face” (Heresies, 174).

The misleading term “Mother of God” must then be dropped and replaced with another. A more accurate term would be “Mother of Christ the God-Man”, for Mary was merely the Mother of Christ’s humanity, and nothing more. Yet, Catholics will not give up on the idea that Mary had some significant and supernatural part in producing God in the flesh. Mary did not produce God in the flesh. Instead she produced the human vessel of God. Therefore, Mary is to be called Mother of Christ the God-Man, for God created in her womb the uniqueness of the God-Man Jesus and allowed her to carry and bear Him. In other words, since Jesus is God and Mary is His mother in regards to His human nature, then it is in this way that Mary is the Mother of Christ the God-Man. Mary was simply the earthly mother of Jesus Christ, God-incarnate. The End! Period!

“Mother of God” Implies an Ongoing Relationship

The last objection to the title “Mother of God” is that it strongly suggests a continuing relationship. Let’s suppose for a second that we accept the title “Mother of God”. It is one thing to assert that Mary gave birth to Jesus, and thus WAS the mother of God. It is another thing completely to assume that there is an ongoing relationship, and hence say that Mary IS the mother of God. That is to say, even if the Roman Catholic could prove to us that Mary has a part to play in the hypostatic union, it does not logically follow that she keeps the title or status as the “mother of God”.

Let’s read what Scripture teaches us. First, it teaches us of a spiritual relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ, and hence Jesus broke off all biological bonds with Mary before he went to Calvary. In Matt. 12:47, a person told Jesus that “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You”. Therefore, Jesus Himself taught in Matt. 12:48-50:

"Who is My mother and who are My brothers?"  And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, "Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother."  

This passage reveals two significant things: One, it shows that Jesus did have actual blood brothers. And Two, those who do the will of our Heavenly Father are spiritually as close or closer to Jesus than His own blood family, his brothers and even Mary herself. Essentially, Jesus declares that nobody has special relations with Him because of biological bonds, not even Mary His mother. The true mother, brothers, and sisters of Jesus are those that do the Father’s will, NOT those that gave birth to Him and grew up with Him. If we put our faith in Christ Jesus, accepting His free gift of Salvation which He provided for us through His death and resurrection, then we will be doing the will our Father in Heaven and we will be in a close intimate relationship with Jesus, as Jesus Himself proclaimed.

Also important to note concerning this is John 2:1-4. John gives an account of a wedding that took place in Cana:

On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Now both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. And when they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.” Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.”

Jesus’ response to Mary’s request reads in the Greek as “ti emoi kai soi, gunai” (τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί γύναι), literally “what to me and to you, woman”, which means “what do we have in common with each other”. It’s interesting to note that this saying is always used as a rebuke in the New Testament, and in each passage the same Greek construction is shown, where every one of those passages involves the idea of distancing and/or rebuff (Matt. 8:29; Mark 1:24; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28, John 2:4). 
Indeed, aside from John 2:4, every passage records demons distancing themselves from Jesus. But, one should then ask oneself why John would choose to show this rebuke toward Mary at all. The only logical explanation is that John wanted to make it clear to us that Jesus was indebted to no one, not even Mary His mother. This is very important because John was the apostle who took Mary in to live with him after Jesus’ death on the Cross (John 19:26-27). This means that John knew Mary on an intimate basis, and yet, far from venerating her, he presents her in an undeniably unflattering light. One might even say that an appropriate translation for the phrase “what to me and to you” can be “leave me alone” or “why are you bothering me?”. The Septuagint, the ancient Greek Old Testament, is full of examples using the exact same construction (Judge 11:12; 2 Sam. 16:10; 1 King 17:18; 2 King 3:13; 2 Chron. 35:21).

Now, Roman Catholics dislike the idea that Jesus Christ rebukes His mother Mary. Some Catholics have even made efforts to mitigate the meaning by interpreting Jesus’ words as either “What has changed between us?”[i], or “What would you have me do?”[ii]. But, they have never shown an example where the Greek construction is used with these meanings.

Others have tried to interpret Jesus’ title for Mary, “woman”, in more affectionate terms than the Greek permits, such as “dear woman” or “mother”. But such terms cannot be justified. Even Catholics admit that the “woman” (gunai [γύναι]) is “unattested in reference to one’s mother”[iii]. Even Jesus Himself NEVER calls Mary by the title “mother”, but rather 'Woman’ as John 2:4 and John 19:26 testifies. Furthermore, the whole phrase that Jesus says (“what to me and to you”) is a “Hebrew expression of either hostility...or denial of common interest”[iv].

In the end, John 2:4 does teach that Jesus rebuked Mary. This is not a matter of interpretation, rather the Greek construction of this passage necessitates this meaning. Jesus did in fact distance Himself from Mary, and thus, He broke off all normal biological bonds and duties. Any other interpretation is essentially baseless because it does not sufficiently deal with the use of the Greek phrase in other places of Scripture. And if Jesus in this passage (and all other passages where He speaks to & of Mary) breaks off biological bonds, then Mary no longer possesses the title and status of “Mother of God” (If she even had that title in the first place, which she never had).

Finally, Scripture teaches that all true Believers are children of God, for “as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name” (John 1:12)

Thus, Mary is NOT the Mother of God in any special, supernatural sense as described in the Marian Doctrines. Jesus Christ Himself denied special status to Mary over other believers, and thus, she does not take priority in the Family of God.

Now, no one anywhere in Scripture calls Mary the “Mother of God”. And it’s obvious why. God has no mother. Instead Scripture merely calls her the “mother of Jesus”, as it is written in John 2:1,3 and Acts 1:14, for Mary was simply the mother of Jesus.

Yet, some Catholics will mistakenly argue that in Luke 1:43, Elizabeth called Mary the “mother of my Lord”, and therefore, Mary is called the “Mother of God”. This is false! First, the phrase “mother of my Lord” is not a supernatural title given to Mary. Mary is the mother of Jesus, who is our Lord, but she is not the mother of Yahweh. Second, the Greek word for “Lord” (κύριος, kyrios) is “kü'-rē-os” and it’s meaning is “one who has supreme authority, to whom a person or thing belongs, about which one has power of deciding”. In other words, what Elizabeth was saying is that Mary was the “mother of my Master”. Third, The word “Lord” is to be distinguished from the Greek word “God” or “theos”  meaning “deity and supreme Divinity”. As Thomas declared in John 20:28 “My Lord and my God”. Therefore, Elizabeth never said that Mary was the “Mother of God”, rather she said that Mary was the “mother of the One who is Sovereign over my life”, because Elizabeth was a servant of the Lord. Hence, the word “Lord” (κύριος) is referring to a position of sovereign power, and NOT to a divine nature.

ENDNOTES

[i] J. Cortés, New Testament Abstracts, III (1958-59), 247. This rendering is fraught with difficulties: (1) contra the proposed rendering, there was a change---since this was Jesus’ first miracle (v.11), he could not have granted this kind of request before; (2) Mary gives no indication that she detected a change in relationship, so what need would there be for Jesus to ask “what has changed between us?”; (3) this rendering does not account for the fact that in every other instance, this Greek construction is a rebuke. If it is argued that this cannot be a denial of Mary’s request since Jesus does eventually grant it, it must also be pointed out that Jesus denies requests elsewhere, only to grant them immediately thereafter (Matt. 15:22-28; John 7:3-10).

[ii] M. Lagrange and R. Schnackenburg, quoted in D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Leicester: IVP, 1991; Grnad Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 171

[iii] Pheme Perkins, notes on John 2:4, Catholic Study Bible

[iv] Ibid.