Mary, the mother of God
- Thread starter Scott Bushey
- Start date
- Status
Thanks, interesting article on how we can regard Mary either too highly, or not enough.
Jack K
Puritan Board Doctor
I feel it's an oddity of the Bible that it occasionally uses a title fitting Jesus' divine nature when it speaks of things that fit his human nature. Things that otherwise could not be said of God nevertheless get attributed to God—in the person of Jesus.
One example has already been mentioned: Acts 20:28 says God (divine title) ransomed the church "with his blood." Another that's especially relevant to this discussion is Luke 1:43, where Elizabeth calls Mary "the mother of my Lord." If we take Lord in this context to be a divine title (and I think we should), it means the divine title is paired with having a mother. And it means Mary is, in a certain sense, the mother of God.
Do I suggest we should usually speak this way? No. It too easily leads to confusion and requires much explanation. I think it's smarter to stick to personal titles, like Jesus, when discussing things that fit his human nature.
But neither do I want to correct Paul and Luke on their usage. Scripture puts things in this odd way now and then, so it must be acceptable. Perhaps it has something to teach us about the unity of Jesus' person.
One example has already been mentioned: Acts 20:28 says God (divine title) ransomed the church "with his blood." Another that's especially relevant to this discussion is Luke 1:43, where Elizabeth calls Mary "the mother of my Lord." If we take Lord in this context to be a divine title (and I think we should), it means the divine title is paired with having a mother. And it means Mary is, in a certain sense, the mother of God.
Do I suggest we should usually speak this way? No. It too easily leads to confusion and requires much explanation. I think it's smarter to stick to personal titles, like Jesus, when discussing things that fit his human nature.
But neither do I want to correct Paul and Luke on their usage. Scripture puts things in this odd way now and then, so it must be acceptable. Perhaps it has something to teach us about the unity of Jesus' person.
Not necessary! I know few have access to the new Rotelle translations of Augustine, which made that one familiar.
I agree with another person here that the term Θεοτόκος means "God-bearer," and was originally used with the intention to affirm the deity of Christ, not to elevate Mary. The early church fathers who rejected the term were attempting to deny that Christ became God (or that his deity originated) in Mary's conception and his birth, per Augustine and others.
While Θεοτόκος is a perfectly acceptable term, so also (in my humble opinion) is the term Χριστὸκος, for Mary did indeed give birth to the God-man (Christ), which puts me at risk of being charged with Nestorianism. Romanists love to toss around that charge.
Last edited:
SavedSinner
Puritan Board Freshman
I don't care how historic the title of the post is--- to any believer it should be offensive to say or read in any language that God has a mother. Why should we restrict our words to the four used by the Catholics?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
If you read the links I posted, you will find the term not so offensive. I understand your attitude-it was the same fueling mine. I am now more comfortable with the terminology. You don't want to fall into Nestorianism, do you?
It all depends on what is intended in that term used, as Mary did bear and bring forth the Son of God, but she was not the Mother, as in the source of God.
- Status
