Let me say outright that the title Mother of God is at best inaccurate, and at worst blasphemous. Now that all the Anglican, Roman Catholic, and [big-'o'] Orthodox readers have left...
Syllogisms
The title "Mother Of God" is generally understood to be based on the argument that if we really believe Jesus Christ is God, then the Mother of Jesus must be the Mother of God. This is the typical argument that is given by Roman Catholic, [big-'o'] Orthodox, and Anglican believers. We might sum it up in the following syllogism:
Jesus is God.
Mary is the Mother of Jesus.
Therefore Mary is the Mother of God.
It's a fairly convincing argument, but it's invalid.
A valid syllogism has the form:
A implies B
B implies C
Therefore A implies C
More classically, that would be expressed categorically:
All A is B
All B is C
Therefore all A is C.
The idea being that classical logical refers to categories, rather than individuals.
So we could give the valid syllogism:
Socrates is a man
All men are mortal
Therefore Socrates is mortal.
Categorically, this looks like:
All Socrates is ManThat is, we've now created categories to argue about, although the first category ("Socrates") only has a single member.
All Man is Mortal
Therefore all Socrates is Mortal.
Our first syllogism looked like this:
Jesus is God.If we translate it to categories, we end up with something like:
Mary is the Mother of Jesus.
Therefore Mary is the Mother of God.
All Jesus is Born of Mary
All Jesus is God
Therefore all God is Born of Mary
This looks like a valid argument, but it isn't: it has the form:
All A is BWe could make an identical argument that's more obviously incorrect as:
All C is B
Therefore all A is C.
All Men are MortalThis argument has the exact same form: this logical fallacy is called the Undistributed Middle. It's a logical fallacy that's been well known and understood for centuries. In fact, it was probably a well-known fallacy even before the Council of Ephesus declared Mary to be the Theotokos in 431.
All Women are Mortal
Therefore all Men are Women
It's possible to bludgeon this argument into valid form if we reverse the second line:
All Jesus is Born of MaryIn other words, you can only logically say Mary is the Mother of God if you are willing to say "All God is Jesus." This is, of course, a denial of the Trinity.
All God is Jesus
Therefore all God is Born of Mary
Absurdity
But we don't need to play with syllogisms to see the problem with the title Mother of God. It's obviously absurd if we simply consider Scripture. Jesus Christ is only actually referred to as the "Son of Mary" once in Scripture:
"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him. (Mark 6:3, NASB)We have a few examples where Mary is called "His Mother": Matt. 1:18; Matthew 2:11; Matthew 13:55; Luke 1:15; Luke 2:34; John 19:25; and Acts 1:14. We also have "Mother of my Lord" in Luke 1:43. There may be other variations on the theme, but this is a reasonable sample. And the mentions of Mary are entirely in the Gospels and Acts. She's not even named in the Epistles.
On the other hand, we have Christ called "Son of David" something like 16 times in Scripture: in the Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Revelation. So, is David correctly the Father of God? There appears to be a much greater weight of Scriptural support to called David the Father of God than there is to call Mary the Mother of God.
But really, why stop there? Why not refer to Zecharias and Elizabeth as the Uncle of God and Aunt of God? Maybe we could refer to John the Baptist as Cousin of God, and Joseph as Stepfather of God.
It's ridiculous, but exactly logically consistent with the argument used to prop up the title Mother of God.
Nestorianism
The fact is, the title Theotokos was introduced as a test of orthodoxy to counter the teachings of Nestorius. Nestorius taught that Christ was two Persons: there was a human Person and a divine Person in Christ. The Council of Ephesus declared Nestorius to be in error: there is one Person, although He has two natures. The Council of Ephesus used Mary to prove the point: Mary was the Mother of Jesus Christ, not the Mother of Christ's Humanity.
The Council was right to declare Nestorius in error: it is certainly untrue that Christ is two Persons. He is a single Person, although He has two natures. The teaching that Christ has only one nature is Eutychianism, which was condemned about twenty years after Nestorianism.
But Ephesus went beyond Scripture and even logic when they insisted that Mary was Theotokos, the God-bearer. While their intentions were correct---they insisted we cannot divide up the Christ---, their conclusion was wrong: Mary did not bear God, she bore Christ. To say Mary bore God is to deny that God is three Persons, and embrace modalism. And yes, modalism was condemned as heresy long before the Council of Ephesus.
Admittedly, the translation of Theotokos to Mother of God is not exactly correct: there is more implied in the term Mother than in the term Bearer. And this mistake opens the floodgates to paganism.
Mary, the Mother of the Lord
The problem with most Protestants is, they tend to swing on the pendulum away from worshipping Mary to beating on her. So let's have this out: Mary was the woman chosen by God to be the means through which the Son of God was incarnate by the Holy Ghost. To quote the Nicene Creed:
I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ... Who, for us men, and for our salvation came down from Heaven; And was incarnate but the Holy Ghost of the Virgin MaryShe is, in that sense, intimately tied up with God's plan of redemption. She was chosen by God: Protestants sometimes have trouble admitting this.
But there is no warrant whatsoever in Scripture for us to worship, adore, or pray to her. There is no hint in Scripture that she was without sin, or that she was not as in need of the Son of God to die for her as I am. There is not a suggestion in Scripture that he intercedes for us: quite the opposite! We have one Mediator, the Man Christ Jesus.
And let's be honest, our Roman Catholic, [big-'o'] Orthodox, and Anglican friends have been fulfilling the Scriptural prediction: "All generations henceforth shall call me blessed." She is most certainly blessed.
Just had to get that off my chest.
24 comments:
Mary did not bear God, she bore Christ.
If I may further offend the universe, I really think what you wrote there was precisely what Nestorius was trying (perhaps unsuccessfully) to get at. He proposed christotokos in opposition to theotokos. I for one don't think he was too far off...and I believe the Chuch of the East has believers, too.
Thank God our salvation doesn't hinge on precise Christology (if so, children and idiots would be lost forever). He is God and Man, the promised Messiah and Savior of all who believe in Him. The Spirit reveals Him adequately to the repentant and believing heart -- things that cannot be quantified. The rest just makes your head hurt.
There's something to be said for the idea that theologians and theological dispute are a sign we've gotten fat. One has trouble imaging a persecuted Church embroiling itself in some of the hair-splitting we've seen throughout history.
In fact, I've tried to avoid posting this one, but it seems I'm getting an earful of it almost steadily, so I finally snapped.
I agree that the translation of tokos to Mother instead of Bearer or Birther is problematic.
Although not as problematic as the use of theos where Christos would be more accurate.
BTW I believe you've got a pronoun error in the 3rd to last paragraph...it seems "There is not a suggestion in Scripture that he intercedes for us" should have been "suggestion in Scripture that she intercedes for us".
Let me try to exculpate orthodoxy's construal of divine revelation (i.e., orthodoxy as defined by the ecumenical councils; I do not know what your criteria is for [small 'o'] orthodoxy; your versions appear to be reducible to "clumsy-ox-o-doxy," or "chuck-o-doxy"):
I'll use a hypothetical syllogism:
If there is a biblical way of affirming the proposition
'Jesus is God,' then it is perfectly consistent with the Bible to affirm that 'Mary is the God-bearer' (per orthodoxy).
There is a biblical way of affirming that 'Jesus is God' (e.g., John 1.1; St Paul's reference to Jesus as 'our great God and Savior,' etc.). Therefore, since Mary is the Mother of Jesus, then it is perfectly consistent with holy scripture to affirm that Mary is Theotokos.
So, it seems that we are back to the syllogism that you initially picked apart. At this point, you offer a construal of 'Jesus is God' that goes beyond some of the biblical data concerning the deity of Christ and into orthodox construals of that data (i.e., Nicene trinitarianism).
Except that no orthodox Christian would construe the biblical data, particularly the deity of Christ, the way you did. Your argument is sophistic.
I offer an orthodox construal:
(note: per the traditional square of opposition, if all A is B, then some A is B (per subalternation))
All that Jesus is was born of the Virgin Mary.
All that Jesus is true God and true man.
Therefore, per subalternation, true God was born of the virgin Mary.
Mary is Theotokos.
A bit more strictly:
(1) [All] Jesus is born of the Virgin Mary.
(2) [All] The Incarnate Word is Jesus.
(3) Therefore, the Incarnate Word is born of the Virgin Mary.
(3a) The Incarnate Word is true God and true man
(4) Therefore, (per subalternation) true God is born of the Virgin Mary.
The ambiguity, or mystery, here is essentially trinitarian: we can say that [all] the Word is God, but not that [all] God is the Word. Asserting that Mary is Theotokos does not mean that she is the Mother of [all] God, but that she is the Mother of [all] the Word, who is true God. In other words, Jesus is God, but he is not the Trinity. Mary is Mother of God, but she is not Mother of the Trinity.
And Chuck: forgive me if I say that you sound glib. Orthodoxy is not a lolli-pop, but is not just a headache.
andrew, it looks like you're trying to use subalternation to distribute your middle term. So you're trying to change:
all J is M
all J is G
therefore all G is M (Invalid)
into:
all J is M
some G is J
therefore some G is M (Valid)
If I understand you correctly, then that is certainly a valid transformation, which leaves us with the conclusion I originally stated: Mary is the Mother of One Who is God. This is not at all the same as saying she is the Mother of God. That is, there are demonstrably two Divine Persons of whom Mary is not Mother.
Nestorianism is not a tenet of clumsy-ox-odoxy: I affirm Christ is one Person with two natures (in other words, Eutyches and Nestorius were both wrong); but all we've managed to prove is, Mary is Christokos, not Theotokos.
Now, if you affirm that Mary is Mother of God because she is Mother of One Who is God; then do you also affirm David is Father of God, as Scripture repeatedly and explicitly refers to One Who is God as Son of David? This is a serious question, I really want to know.
How dare you boys keep up the conversation after an old man has gone to bed.
Andrew -- "chuck-o-doxy" is classic. I need to secure a patent on it!
No, orthodox doctrine is undoubtedly important, particularly in facing down false teachers.
I am not keen for too much "analysis" of the Incarnation (I'm neither accusing Ox nor you of that). Without controversy, God became Man. That's enough for most believers (1 Tim. 3:16). The effect of it is borne out in how they live their lives.
How would I go about getting confirmed as a Clumsy-Oxodologist?
Blast, I did it again. The above post was me, not Ox.
Sadly, I think I got one of those examples syllogisms wrong in my post:
All men are mortal
All women are mortal
Therefore all men are women
is certainly invalid, but it's not logically equivalent to:
All J are M
All J are G
Therefore all G are M
A proper example would be:
All women are female
All women are human
Therefore all humans are female
Still invalid, but it's an Illicit Minor, not an undistributed middle.
My bad.
Man, you had me checking my homework last night (Baum's Logic). Thanks. I missed The Sarah Conner Chronicles.
One who is God is fully God if nothing that belongs to God, per God, does not belong to the one who is God. This is true of Mary's Son. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God. The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus did not intend to assert what you are keen to deny, that Mary is the Mother of the Trinity.
Only if being the Trinity is necessary to being God can Mary be denied the title Theotokos. However, in such case, (H) follows: neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit is God (since no one of these persons is the Trinity). And since (H) is false, per orthodoxy, then the Mother of one of the persons of the Trinity (one who is God) is, for that reason, Theotokos.
David is the kinsman of Our Lord, as are John the Baptist and Elizabeth, and any other related to him by blood. It would be appropriate, I suppose (and I think that there is some precedent) to honor close kindred of Our Lord with corresponding titles of kinship.
The Blessed Virgin Mary is uniquely recognized and venerated in her uniqueness as God-bearer because to her alone was it proclaimed:
'The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.'
And to her did Elizabeth say:
'Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.'
David, etc., are not honored with the title 'Father' of God because the Son of God has only one 'Father,' and he is in heaven.
The relationship of God with his biological Mother is unique among all human relationships, including all of God's human relationships: it is the result of a direct, supernatural act of God. Thus, Mary was constituted a relative of God by the act of God assuming flesh by her and within her; and this belongs to no other.
As I have indicated, other titles of consanguinity with God might be appropriate; one would have to consult the ecumenical counsensus of the Church, which includes her 'rule of prayer.' But these other titles could never reflect, because there does not exist, the supernatural intimacy and immediacy of the relationship between God made flesh and the human one by whom and in whom he was Incarnate.
To summarize: to be Theotokos does not require being Trinity-bearer. If Mary is Christokos, then she is, by subalternation, Theotokos, because Christ is God.
You're exactly right: our disagreement hinges on the word "God".
I assert that Scripture never uses "God" as a title of the Son (notwithstanding the highly debated translation of Acts 20:28). The Scripture never claims God was made flesh, it states the Word was made flesh. Scripture never says God died for us, it says the Son of God died for us. The Son of God (here in human flesh) declared "God is spirit". No man has seen God at any time, but the only-begotten Son has declared Him. The Son is sitting on the right hand of God.
Scripture consistently uses the name "God" to refer to the entire Trinity or the Father. And we've demonstrated that Mary was neither the bearer of the Father, nor of the Trinity.
The Son is God, but God is not the Son.
We can only justify the title Theotokos if we use "God" in a sense Scripture never does: to refer solely to the Son, to the exclusion of the Father and the Spirit.
I'm not just picking nits. French Canadian Roman Catholics absolutely believe Mary is the Mother of the Trinity. It is the plain meaning of the term "Mother of God".
I'm liable to sound like Tevia here ("you're right" and "you're right"...)
There is the verse I referenced above (1 Tim 3:16): "God was manifest in the flesh"; and also Colossians 2:9 "the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (ASV).
Do we have migraines yet.
I'm almost to the migraine stage. But that's ok.
I'm still in this one primarily because I can see where andrew's coming from: his specific denial that Mary is Mother of Trinity has gotten my attention.
Like I said, the majority of Catholics I've met have affirmed exactly the opposite... so I'm interested to see where this is going. So thanks for the interesting conversation, andrew.
I'm thinking about 1 Timothy 3:16. I've always read that a little differently... gotta mull that one over a bit.
And the conclusion is what you've already said, chuck. God didn't send His Son so we could dissect Him and try to figure out how He works... He sent His Son out of love.
"plain meaning of the term 'Mother of God'"...
That is, if 'God' can only be truly predicated of the collective Trinity (or the Father).
However, ecumenical orthodox theology declares that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; yet, the Father is not the Son nor the Spirit, the Son is not the Father nor the Spirit, the Spirit is not the Father nor the Son; yet, there are not three gods but one God.
So 'God' can and must (per orthodoxy) be predicated of each member of the Trinity. The Trinity is not a collection of persons which 'add up' to 'God.'
In addition to the verses cited by Chuck, St Paul refers to Jesus Christ as 'our great God and Savior.'
Jesus is not the Father. Jesus is not the Trinity. Jesus is God. It seems like you must deny one of the above in order to credibly maintain your attack on ecumenical orthodoxy ('Theotokos'). But I hope that that will not happen.
The question at hand really seems to be: who is God?
The orthodox answer is:
The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.
Again, these three do not 'add up' to God. Each divine person is fully God. And yet there is one God. This mystery is the essence of the historic Christian faith. 'Theotokos' belongs to that essence. The Virgin's Son is God.
Not 'to the exclusion' of the Father and Spirit, but neither 'with the addition' of the Father and Spirit, as though:
Father + Son + Spirit = God.
Also, I would like you to cite the scripture in which 'the entire trinity' is referred as 'God.'
If you like, you can read St Thomas on the manner is which that which does not pertain to God, per God, does pertain to God, per the person of the incarnate Son (summa theologica, part 3, treatise on the incarnation). e.g., it does not pertain to God to be born, or to suffer death, etc. yet we truly say that God was born, died, etc., with reference to the Son of God made flesh. Likewise, we truly say that Mary is the Mother of God.
hey ox, apparently I was writing over your last comment (thats the thing about being at work, sometimes I have to stop and work).
I don't know any other Catholics. I barely know myself. One of the exhortations of Vatican 2 was to instruct Catholics to make sure that our devotion to Mary is perfectly consistent with orthodoxy. There is more than one way to become a heretic.
now that I think about it, it seems that I have heard "Mother of the Trinity" before. In any case, that is not what was affirmed at Ephesus. I think that the phrase is repudiated by the Catholic Church. More homework I guess.
andrew, I appreciate you taking the time and effort to understand my concerns. I object to theotokos solely because it sounds a whole lot like "Mother of the Trinity," and there is significant evidence that my concerns are not baseless.
But I want to say this explicitly:
Jesus Christ is God. He is God from eternity: He is the Eternal Son. Nicea says He was begotten of the Father before all worlds.
Jesus Christ didn't cease to be God when He became Man. He was God in Mary's womb, He was God when she nursed Him, He was God when She held Him, He was God when sitting on her knee. He was God when He suffered for your sins and mine, and He didn't cease to be God even when He died for us.
Jesus Christ is Man. He is not God enshrouded in a human body: He is not some parlour trick God played to make us think He is human. He is fully Man: He has a human spirit and a human soul. He has a human body. He did not abandon His human part on the cross, He did not let the God part escape. He is not God + Man, nor Man + God. He is God, He became Man.
He is still Man, although in a resurrection body: His body is not like ours, although ours will be changed to be like His when we see Him face-to-face.
Jesus Christ---fully God, fully Man---is the root and offspring of David. He is the son of David, He is the root of Jesse. He is Israel. He is the Seed of the woman. He is the Seed of Abraham. He is the Heir of all the promises made to Abraham. He is the promised One Adam and Eve wanted to see.
Jesus Christ is one Person, but He has two natures. He was God in eternity past, and He is still God, and He will always be God. But He became a Man in this world, in time and space. He will not ever cease to be Man, nor will He ever cease to be God.
I, personally, think that last post was the best.
ditto, ames.
Double-dawg ditto.
In the NT, Jesus is more often referred to as the Son of Man than as the Son of God. That could be the basis of another unorthodox syllogism, leading to the conclusion that Man is the Father of God.
By the way, I think you have made a heretical typing error when you say, “There is not a suggestion in Scripture that he intercedes for us.”
Yeah, that missing 's' is a significant change in meaning....
Post a Comment