Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: The Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her.- Martin Luther
From antiquity, Mary has been called “Theotokos”, or “God-Bearer” (Mother of God). It is a relatively recent phenomenon among some Christians that this term has even become controversial. Yet since the Protestant reformation – it has. So, sadly, it is this title which prevents some Christians from experiencing Mary as the gift that she is meant to be for the whole church and for the world. The word in Greek is “Theotokos”.
The term was used as part of the popular piety of the early first millennium church. It is used throughout the Eastern Church's Liturgy, both Orthodox and Catholic. It lies at the heart of the Latin Rite's deep Marian piety and devotion. This title was a response to the early threats to 'orthodoxy' or the preservation of authentic Christian teaching. A pronouncement of an early Church Council, The Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D., insisted “… If anyone does not confess that God is truly Emmanuel, and that on this account the holy virgin is the “Theotokos” (for according to the flesh she gave birth to the word of God become flesh by birth) let him be anathema.” The Council of Ephesus, 431 AD,
I believe that this division over Mary need not and should not continue. First, the historical reason for the Council’s insistence on the use of the title reflected a an effort to preserve the teaching of the Christian church that Jesus was both Divine and human, that the two natures were united in His Person. Not only was that teaching under an assault then, it is under an assault now. This teaching lies at the heart of the Christian claim and the implications of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ for all who bear the name Christian. It must be protected as the unique distinctive and contribution of Christianity.
The reason that the early Church Council pronounced this doctrine was “Christological”, meaning that it had to do with Jesus Christ. No one has ever claimed that Mary gave birth to His Divinity but rather that His human and divine nature could not be separated.One of the the threats to orthodoxy in that day was an interpretation of the teachings of a Bishop of Constantinople named Nestorius. Some of his followers insisted on calling Mary only the “Mother of "the Christ””.The Council insisted on the use of the title (in the Greek) of “Theotokos,” (“Mother of God” or “God-bearer") to reaffirm the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.
Continued disagreements concerning this term through Christian history have led to a diminution in the role of Mary in some Christian circles. Subsequent reaction and counter reactions have made it all very complicated. This has impeded some Christians from grasping a deeper truth concerning the very meaning of Mary’s life - her humility and her deference to God's Will. Perhaps it has also impeded a fuller understanding of the call to every Christian to live our lives for God as Mary did? Maybe it has also undermined our mission to bring “the world” to the new world, recreated in her Son, the Church which is His Body on earth, continuing His redemptive mission?
When we fail to receive the great gift of Mary and learn to pray her prayer and live like her we may miss the call of every Christian to bear Jesus for the world as she did. It is time to re- examine the deeper implications of the treasure that is found in the life example and message of the little Virgin of Nazareth. This wonderful title, Mary, the Mother of God, “Theotokos”, reveals a profound truth not only about Mary, but about each one of us. We are now invited into the very relationship that she had with her Son. We can become “God-bearers” and bring Him to all those whom we encounter in our few short days under the sun. [source]
Related: Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God
Posts
17 comments:
Linda, the only thing preventing me from disagreeing is that Martin Luther (and the other reformers) accepted the creeds and the teachings of the early church theologians. The only thing preventing me from agreeing is how this title leads many Catholics to actually worship Mary; plus, I have a soft spot for the Nestorians because they took the gospel to China hundreds of years before anyone else did.
Jeff,
Catholics who worship Mary are, unfortunately, poorly catechized, but the fault lies not in titles such as Theotokos, but rather, with each person who makes that error. In this day and age there is certainly no excuse in not knowing exactly what the Church teaches, and informing oneself accordingly!
As Scott Hahn puts it:
"Well then, why give glory and honor and devotion to Mary?" Because we do whatever Jesus tells us. And we do whatever Jesus does because the fundamental axiom of Christian morality is the imitacio Christi, the imitation of Christ, and he is the best of the best when it comes to being a son. Not only a Son of his heavenly Father but a Son of his earthly mother. When he accepts the mission of his Father to become a man and to obey the law, he obeys it more perfectly than anybody could have ever imagined it being obeyed. And when he gets to that commandment, "Honor your father and your mother," that Hebrew word, kabodah, means bestow glory, comes from kabod weight, glory. So he honors his Father and obeys his command by bestowing unprecedented glory upon the one that he has chosen from all eternity to be his mother. The only time that the Creator created a human creature, created the one destined to be his mother. And he filled her with his own life and grace because he began honoring as soon as she was created his mother.
So what do we do? We honor Christ and we glorify him and we imitate him. If we really imitate him, we do what he does and we honor and bestow glory upon his mother. Not instead of him. It isn't undermining devotion to Christ. It's to express our devotion of Christ, our worship of Christ by imitating him. And if we do it we're going to be able to see in her face, the face of our mother, because Jesus has taken on her flesh and blood and given us his own Divine nature. Peter says, "We are partakers of Divine nature through Christ" so that his mother can become our mother, spiritually, supernaturally, but actually and really. And so in devotion to him, we can be devoted to her without any compromise, without any tug of war, without any diminution or decrease of our honor to Christ.
As for Nestorius, Rom. 8:28 puts it so well, "And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose." Thanks be to God for that - if He waited around for me to get it right each time, I wouldn't be of much use - grin!
Speaking personally I fully agree that the Virgin Mary was "the God Bearer". I reject her being the "Mother of God". It is essential to our salvation that Mary be completely human ie she had a human mother and a human father. Should Mary, as some Mariologists argue, be born of Immaculate Conception then Jesus was less than fully Man while being fully God. This would result in a lack in our Salvation. For as sin entered this world through one man, Adam, so also righteousness entered the world through one Man Jesus Christ.
Joe,
I think you're a bit confused over the meaning of "immaculate conception": it means merely that she was conceived without the 'stain' of original sin - she was born of two human parents - Anna and Joachim. A good explanation of the doctrine is found here. Mary, like all humans, needed Jesus as her savior - that and other common objections are dealt with in the linked article.
Linda, Scott Hahn says, "If we really imitate him, we do what he does and we honor and bestow glory upon his mother." It's a logical extrapolation to arrive where he does; and the Catholic Church over the centuries has built an elaborate focus on Mary all of which is based on this extrapolation rather than on a direct command from Scripture. That said, among believers found in the Bible and in the history of the church, she deserves more attention from evangelicals because whereas Zechariah couldn't believe God would answer a decades-long prayer, Mary said, "May it be to me as you have said" -- when told a virgin would have a baby!
And to Joe's comment, I'm much more comfortable with "the God bearer."
Linda I respectfully hold that it is you that is confused about immaculate conception. Had Mary been born without original sin then she would not have needed Jesus as her Savior as she would have been without sin. Had she been without sin then righteousness did not enter this world through Jesus it entered through Mary who consequently bore Jesus. Indeed I hold Mary in highest esteem for the very fact that she was born of the line of Adam yet bore God in her womb and yielded her flesh to Him and His Divine Purpose.
Jeff,
(OK - we've dug out from the blizzard, and I got the laundry under control, so I'm back!)
What you call 'logical extrapolation' is what I understand as something both Catholics and Protestants do all the time - the theological discipline of exegesis. For Catholics, "the primary task of the exegete is to determine as accurately as possible the meaning of biblical texts in their own proper context, that is, first of all, in their particular literary and historical context and then in the context of the wider canon of Scripture."
And Scott Hahn is eminently suited to the task: he is a former Presbyterian minister with ten years of youth and pastoral ministry experience, a BA from Grove City College with a triple major of theology, philosophy, and economics (Magna Cum Laude), a MDiv in Systemic Theology (Summa Cum Laude) from Gordon-Conwell Seminary, and Ph.D. from Marquette University in Systematic Theology, (Summa Cum Laude , Phi Beta Kappa), where his dissertation was on: Kinship by Covenant: A Biblical Theological Analysis of Covenant Types and Texts in the Old and New Testaments.
As for needing "a direct command from scripture" for something to be authoratative, well, I discovered some time ago (during my journey as a born-again-Catholic) that the doctrine of sola scriptura is itself unbiblical. The reasons can be found here.
As for evangelicals and Mary, it would appear that there has been a flurry of interest in that area of late, which is certainly encouraging. For example, Timothy George, an ordained minister in the Southern Baptist Convention, dean of Beeson Divinity School of Samford University and a member of the First Things editorial board, wrote in this article:
"The third title of Mary to consider is Theotokos, the “God-Bearer,” a title for Mary as the Mother of God. Evangelicals can and should join Catholics in celebrating the Virgin Mary this way. In the Reformation, Calvin (unlike Luther and Zwingli) balked at the title Mother of God but not at the doctrinal truth it was intended to convey. Barth, however, was faithful to the deepest intention of Reformed Christology when he acknowledged that Mother of God is “sensible, permissible, and necessary as an auxiliary Christological proposition.”"
He elaborates further on that title in his article. His second last paragraph is an invitation to dialogue: "Perhaps we should ask what Catholics, without ceasing to be Catholics, can learn from evangelicals about Mary. Certainly we should ask what evangelicals, without ceasing to be evangelicals, can learn from Catholics about Mary. If Catholics need to be called away from the excesses of Marian devotion to a stricter fidelity to the biblical witness, evangelicals should reexamine their negative attitudes toward Mary, many of which derive from anti-Catholic bias rather than sound biblical theology. They need to ask themselves, as the Groupe des Dombes suggested, “whether their too frequent silences about Mary are not prejudicial to their relationship with Jesus Christ.” To which I can only say, amen!
Joe,
I must respectfully respond that I am not confused on this point: Mary absolutely needed a savior, just like the rest of us! As the article I linked to in my previous comment to you states: "Think of it this way…if Jesus did not make Mary perfectly sinless, she too would have sinned like everyone else! As was the case with Mary, we too will one day be without sin when we are in heaven. Mary was preserved without sin before she was born, in order that she may hold Christ in her womb. So, Mary fits the "all have sinned" in an indirect way. If God did not intervene with His grace, Mary would be with sin. She needed Christ as her savior to keep her from sin in the first place, just as Christ's death on the cross will keep us from sin in heaven."
Scott Hahn, in his book Hail, Holy Queen puts it this way: "...the immaculate conception is a divine act of preservation--a work of God, and not a work of Mary herself. The immaculate conception, then, was a fruit of redemption applied to Mary by way of anticipation; for the redemption was always in view for the eternal God, Who is not bound by time as we are. Thus, Christ's redemption applies to you and me, though we could not be there at Calvary--and it applied to Mary at the moment of her creation, though Christ's saving death was still years away. Her redemption was an act of preservation, while for all others it is an act of deliverance....If Mary was sinless, did she really need Jesus to redeem her? Yes, she did. Her singular preservation could not have taken place without the redemption won for all men by Jesus. Jesus is God, and so He is both are creator and our redeemer. In the very act of creating Mary, he redeemed her from any limitations of human nature or susceptibility to sin. She is a creature, but she is His mother, and He has perfectly fulfilled the commandment to honor her. He honored her in a way that is singularly beautiful."
Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong puts it this way:
All the Immaculate Conception did was make Mary as Eve was before the Fall (precisely why the Fathers often called her the Second Eve or New Eve): unfallen and sinless; not subject to original sin. As Cardinal Newman remarked: why is it considered such an extraordinary thing that God chose to simply make one person -- the Mother of God the Son, the Theotokos -- the way that all of us would have been, but for the Fall? What better person to choose than the one who bore our Lord Jesus in her own body for nine months?! It makes perfect sense to me. I never had much difficulty with Marian doctrines once they were properly explained to me.
The fullest development of the Immaculate Conception, as formulated by Duns Scotus in the 13th century, was careful to state that the Immaculate Conception does not somehow rule out the need for redemption for Mary. She was saved just like the rest of us, and calls God her Savior in the Magnificat (as St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out). She was saved by grace even more than the rest of us because by this special act original sin was removed. Mary could hardly play any part in that, seeing that it was at her conception (I doubt that a person at the moment of their conception has a will or any knowledge of theology or soteriology whatever!).
So Mary was saved by grace, just like anyone who is saved. God simply performed an extra supernatural act to make her like Eve was before the Fall. God can do anything He wishes, so this is not prima facie impossible, let alone unreasonable, implausible, or immediately "unbiblical." It contradicts nothing in Scripture. Scripture talks about sinless creatures (pre-Fall Adam and Eve, the good angels). So being sinless is not a biblically-incomprehensible position.
The medieval theologians argued that Mary was saved like everyone else (and Jesus died for her, too, as that is where all salvation and redemption comes from), but in a different fashion. They used the analogy of a pit in the forest. If someone falls in and is rescued by a rope from someone up above, they are "saved." But it is also true that if someone reaches out and "rescues" them before they are about to fall in, they are also "saved." The pit represents sin (and original sin), and the rescuer is God and His grace. Mary never fell into the pit, but it doesn't follow that she was not saved or not rescued from it. She certainly was, and it was entirely by God's grace, and must have been, since she had only been in existence for a moment when it happened. But she also had to follow God in her free will. She agreed to be the Theotokos at the Annunciation. God knew all this in His foreknowledge but it doesn't mean that Mary had no free will. God simply knew that she would agree and cooperate in and by His grace, and so chose her, knowing that (because He knows all things). You can read the rest of his article here, and there's more here too.
I hope that better explains what Catholics believe about the immaculate conception, and I appreciate the opportunity to dialogue with both you and Jeff!
Linda, if you're OK with me tying a ribbon around this post, I too appreciate the discussion. As Conservatives and as believers, we need to hang together especially on pro-life matters.
Actually Jeff that is my point exactly. We are on the same side here. We are not our own enemy. It seems so silly to me that Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant remain at loggerheads over something that is at best idle speculation and at worst vile provocation. Since it is not core to the faith, why drag it out and use it like a matador's cape to incite other Christians. To paraphrase St Paul, since then there remains conflict among you, you are already defeated. After having my face punched for proclaiming the Gospel and having been wildly accepted after one sermon and run out of the Church after the next. Having given away all I have in order to follow Christ I find such debates vexations and distractions from the true purpose and calling that Christ has put before us. My greatest desire is that people cast aside everything that impedes their progress towards the perfection found only in Christ Jesus our LORD, including Mariology, Theology, Materialism, Church doctrine and human tradition just to name a few.
In the mean time PEACE my brothers and sisters. God Bless
Jeff,
I have had, and continue to have, wonderful and enriching friendships and fruitful joint endeavors in the pro-life/family areas with my dear evangelical brothers and sisters. We continue to grow and learn from each other. Thank you, and God bless!
Joe,
I did not mean to either offend or provoke you - my apologies if you took it that way. I enjoy dialogue with my evangelical brethren and find it meaningful and important inasmuch as it remains respectful and maintains the goals of enriching our understanding of one another as fellow Christians, and of learning from one another. The touchstone for me is Christ's fervent prayer from John 17: "I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me."
Of course, only God himself can bring about that perfect unity, but I believe that some (but not all) of us are called, each according to the talents we have been given, to engage in these kinds of dialogues. Although I can empathize with the spirit of your "greatest desire", what you deem impediments are, for some of us (minus materialism and human tradition), actually part of a seamless whole that enriches our understanding and ability to make "progress towards the perfection found only in Christ Jesus our LORD." I am also enriched by your obvious commitment and dedication to our Lord, and wish you many blessings in the peace of Christ!
Fear not Linda. You couldn’t offend me if you hit me with a Mac truck. However I would like to explore with you my reasons for saying what I did.
I would say that it stems from my understanding of Christian purpose. What is the purpose to which we have been called? My understanding is that we are called to enter into an ever deepening state of Grace, what is known as Christification. This Grace grows over time through Spiritual experience and interaction with other believers thus we become more Christ like. However this deepening Grace is often interrupted by distractions, spiritual, material and intellectual.
Let me share with you a Spiritual experience I had many years ago. During my evening prayer I was taken in the Spirit and presented with a choice. Before me were two clouds. One cloud was bright and from it rang peals of genuine laughter, intellectual light flashed like lightening and the dwellers therein looked well fed and wanting for nothing. In the other was darkness, silence permeated its very being, if there were others there I could not see them nor could I sense their presence. The Spirit spoke and told me to choose. Beyond my understanding I said that I choose the Dark Cloud. The vision ended and I slept well that night.
I didn’t understand the choice I had made but soon I was given another choice. Did I want to hold on to what I had or would I give it all away to follow Jesus. I chose to give it all away. As I continued to grow through adversity and persecution I went on to seminary. The professors were all nice men and women but they seemed lacking somehow. They could hold forth on the various redactors of the Pentateuch. They could hold forth on Systematic Theology of Thomas Aquinas. They could hold forth on hermeneutics, Church history etc etc etc. but they were all missing something. They were wonderful people, thoughtful, loving and attentive to our struggles but there was something missing.
Shortly after I finished seminary I once again was taken in the Spirit and once again I saw the two clouds. In the bright cloud I could recognize faces, some were my friends from Church, some were my seminary professors, some were people I had never met but somehow knew. As suddenly as I was able to see inside the bright cloud I was taken way and placed in the dark cloud. The silence was so abrupt it hurt my ears. My eyes became useless and in the midst of the darkness a sound was heard saying I AM. Instantly my mind was opened to the meaning of “The LORD dwells in a dark cloud”.
What was shown to me was that in our Spiritual walks are distractions. Some are merriment, Some are intellectual wrestling matches, some are intriguing mysteries. Some are mere idle speculation. The fact is that if I wanted to truly know the LORD I would have to forego these bits of dryer lint in order that I might find the real truth.
I then set out, relying on His Grace to ignore what I had been taught and forced to regurgitate in order to pass my courses in seminary. I set out to be obedient to the Spirit by following Scripture not as is often the case a sense of self righteous legalism, but as the Spirit leads and in the hope and trust that my simple act of obedience might allow God’s Grace to flow all the more.
I was prompted to tell my wife that she must submit to me and cover her head in prayer. In short order she graciously said yes and going even farther now refers to me as master. I continued in His Grace to come to understand that my adult, immersion baptism in a flowing stream was an act of obedience that allowed His Grace to flow all the more.
I went to a Pastoral conference one time where foot washing was discussed. A senior pastor stood up and declared that his church didn’t practice foot washing because his church was Baptist. I then stood up and said my church did practice foot washing because we were Christian. Then again we also extend the right hand of fellowship and greet each other with a Holy kiss.
I try to preach as if I wasn’t there and one time while preaching several of the congregants spoke to me saying as I preached I became this little stickman with a voice that rolled on and on. I have seen the shekinah glory fill the church pouring forth from the Cross on the wall behind the altar. I didn’t know what it was until afterward. One night as a devotional I read the book of Colossians and as I read a feeling of love completely enveloped me to where I almost had to say 'enough’!
After preaching one sermon the entire church rose as one, came forward and knelt around the altar except for one man who remained seated. At the end of the service I approached the man to speak peace to him. He punched me in the face.
If this sounds like I’m boasting please forgive me I am saying all of this to make this point. All the speculation that I had been taught in seminary was simply that, speculation, speculation by people who have limited or little experience with things Spiritual. It made for great fun and gave everyone the warm fuzzies because it gave the appearance of granting insight, but it didn’t help anyone grow in that Grace by which we are all saved.
That is what I was trying to say in my previous comment. Casting aside all that hinders let us press on in the race to which we have been called. We can not run that race but by His Grace and therefore let us seek Him that His Grace may flow all the more!
Grace and Peace rest upon you and anyone else who may read.
Thank you, Joe, for sharing part of your journey with me - I do better understand your point now. Christianity is about being transformed by an encounter with the Person of Christ - and impediments to that should of course be avoided. However, I would submit that what might be an impediment to that encounter and transformation for one person might be an aid to another - our journeys will be as unique as each one of us is, and God's grace, love, and mercy are limitless to all those who seek Him with a sincere heart. May His grace continue to abound on your journey, Joe!
You could be right Linda but personally I find myself on the side of St Paul who wrote:
1 Corinthians 2:1-5
When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.
Amen to that Joe!
I know this thread is getting a bit long in the tooth, but if I might beg your indulgence for a moment Linda.
You said "Christianity is about being transformed by an encounter with the Person of Christ".
I have been thinking of what you said and I think if I might tell you my thoughts re Christification. I used to think what you wrote was truest truth but the longer I follow our Master the more I realize that Christification actually means re-absorption. We whom He has called are called not that we might be fulfilled but that He might be fulfilled. He ultimately is fulfilled when we are so thoroughly overwhelmed by His Presence that we become one with Him who is our Lord and Saviour. His Will is our will, His Thoughts are our thoughts, His Being is our being. There is nothing apart from Him and in Him are all things. We become to Him as Eve was to Adam, "Bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh."
Joe,
That's an interesting point of view, but I must respectfully suggest that as God is perfect, He does not need us in order to be "fulfilled" - if He did, it would mean that He is somewhat less than perfect without us. He created us out of love, but does not need us, per se. I maintain my initial position - it is we who are less than perfect and our perfection lies in allowing ourselves to be transformed into "little Christs" - not "reabsorbed" however (which seems to accord more with Eastern mystical religious beliefs), as that would imply a loss of our unique personhood, which God Himself created and deemed good.
Post a Comment