Mary as the mother of God: Is it orthodox theology?

Blessed Virgin Mary

(Blessed virgin Mary, courtesy dreamstime.com)

By Spencer D Gear

 

Roman Catholics readily accept the designation of Mary as the mother of God. See:

I got into a discussion on this topic on Christian Fellowship Forum at Christmas time 2011. I as ozspen wrote:

“As for Mary being the mother of God, I consider that is as erroneous as saying that Christmas celebrates the birth of God. Mary was the human mother of Jesus’ humanity. She was not the mother of divinity. She was the mother who enabled Jesus to become the God-man and NOT the mother of God”.[1]

This is Jim’s response on Christian Fellowship Forum:

Of course it is a Biblical doctrine. Jesus is God. (Or, no one can be saved.)
The appellation, “Mother of God” was specifically chosen by the Church to refute the Nestorian heresy that the man Jesus was the Christ but not eternal God. Nestorius taught that God dwelt in Jesus as in a temple, that is, as a totally separate being who indwelt the man Jesus of Nazareth. That notion rendered Jesus “the God bearer” but not the “eternal Word.”

Nestorius taught that the Virgin Mary was, therefore, properly called, Christotokos; the “Christ Bearer.”

The 3rd Ecumenical Council, held in Ephesus in 431, confirmed the dual nature of Christ, that He is wholly man and wholly God, having two natures; human and divine, indivisible yet without confusion or commingling.

The Virgin Mary is, therefore, not the barer of the Christ (Christotokos) but the bearer of the incarnate Word of God. (Theotokos) She is the God-bearer.

The name, “Mother of God,” refers to the fact that Jesus nothing less than the one eternal God. It in no way suggests that the Virgin Mary bore the Godhead, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, or that the name arises from some Babylonian mythology, as some folks would have us believe.[2]

My response to Jim was:

God cannot have a birth, so the language that a human being, Mary, is the mother of God is paradoxical, an oxymoron. God cannot be born. Jesus, the human being, was conceived in Mary’s womb, but that does not make Mary the mother of God. It makes her the mother of the human personhood, humanity, of Jesus.[3]

Jim’s comeback was:

Jesus was never “the human being.” From the moment of His conception He was “the Word made flesh.” (John 1:14). He was never a human being in whom God dwelt. He was always the “God-man.”
It was just as necessary that Jesus be a human being as it was that He be the eternal God.
You cannot separate “the Man Jesus Christ” out from “the Word became flesh.” That was  the error of Nestorius.[4]

Here is my response:

Jesus became a human being. “The Word (Jesus) became flesh” (John 1:14). Jesus was most certainly a human being. That’s what “flesh” is when referring to a child born of a woman.

Your view is that we cannot separate the man Jesus from the Word became flesh. I agree. But it was Mary who gave birth to Jesus’ humanity. She did not give birth to God.

And I appreciate that this hypostatic union is difficult to describe in simple language, but I’m wanting to be careful that I do not convey the idea that God had a beginning. Christmas does not celebrate “the birth of God”. It celebrates the birth of the human Jesus, thus making him the God-man. I am NOT advocating the Nestorian error.[5]

Jim’s reply was:

The term, “Mother of God” does not convey the idea that God had a beginning to anyone who understands that Jesus is God. The Virgin Mary is she who bore “God incarnate.”
It is a logical impossibility for the Virgin Mary to have born the creator of all things eons after He had created all things. God cannot come into existence eons after He created all things.
The only logical conclusion is exactly what the scriptures teach; that the child born of her is God incarnate.
In your care to avoid a logical impossibility, you appear to embrace the teaching of Nestorius even though you do not.
The words “Mother of God” have never, and do not now, suggest that God did not exist before the birth of Jesus.[6]

In 21st century language, a mother is one who gives birth to a human child. So today if we speak of Mary being the mother of God, it conveys a very wrong view of who Jesus Christ is as the God-man.

The biblical view is that Mary was the mother of the humanity of Jesus, come in the flesh, and at his conception-birth, he became the God-man.

We must never forget the prophetic emphasis of Isaiah 9:6, “For to us a CHILD is BORN, and to us a SON is GIVEN”. God the Son is given; Jesus the child is born.

For 21st century people, you will not get me to accept that Mary is the mother of God. It conveys a very wrong understanding to modern people. I understand its historical development, but we need to move to a contemporary statement of the biblical doctrine of the God-man Jesus.[7]

My summary

God, the Son, was God from eternity. Therefore, Christmas cannot be “the birth of God”. That is paradoxical language – an oxymoron. At Christmas, the human Jesus was conceived and born to Mary. She gave birth to the humanity of Jesus and thus the Son, Jesus, the Word, became the God-man.

It is an unbiblical syllogism to say that Mary is the mother of God because God, the Son, is divine and Jesus is the God-man.

See,

If A is B and if B is C then A is C: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, does it follow that Mary is the mother of God? What kind of logic is this? Seriously thinking about it, if this syllogism is theologically sound, doesn’t it also follow that since Mary is the Mother of God, Mary is also God? Or, since God is Triune, doesn’t it follow that Mary is also the mother of the Holy Spirit, or, Mary, the mother of the Father? Of course they’re not saying that but do you see how inconsistent their position is on this matter? Even though Mary to them is not the source of Jesus’ Divinity, they’re still bent on calling her the Mother of God. Why call Mary God’s mother in the first place? How did it come about? And what are the theological consequences of this unbiblical expression?[8]

Notes:

[1] Christian Fellowship Forum, Contentious Brethren, “The Birth of God”, #5. Available at: http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=2&nav=messages&webtag=ws-fellowship&tid=120946 (Accessed 27 December 2011).

[2] Ibid., #7.

[3] Ibid., #13.

[4] Ibid., #14.

[5] Ibid., #15.

[6] Ibid., #17.

[7] I wrote this in ibid., #19.

[8] I provided this example to Jim at ibid., #18.

 

Copyright © 2011 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 15 October 2015.