Is There a Mother of God?

One very bold preacher I heard not too long ago challenged all his listeners to prove to him that Mary was the Mother of God rather than just the mother of Jesus the man. Anyone with any knowledge of church history would immediately recognize that his statement is one born of an ancient heresy, viz., Nestorianism.

This should not even have to be discussed by the Church if today’s Christians were not ahistorical. This subject was decided long ago at the Council of Ephesus in the year 431.

We confess, then, our lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God perfect God and perfect man of a rational soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the virgin, according to his humanity, one and the same consubstantial with the Father in godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures took place. Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy virgin to be the mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her. As to the evangelical and apostolic expressions about the Lord, we know that theologians treat some in common as of one person and distinguish others as of two natures, and interpret the god-befitting ones in connexion with the godhead of Christ and the lowly ones with his humanity. [from http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum03.htm#The%20judgment%20against%20Nestorius]

That should be quite sufficient to quiet any question as to whether it is appropriate to call Mary the Theotokos (Mother of God or God-Bearer). Of course for some, this council was some evil consortium of apostate bishops of the apostate Church. But we will consider if this decision was solely theirs or merely the crystallization of Early Christian thought.

St. Hippolytus of Rome writes in his A discourse by the most blessed Hippolytus, bishop and martyr, on the end of the world, and on Antichrist, and on the second coming of our lord Jesus Christ.

Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, His advent by the spotless and God-bearing Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of His life and conversation with men, and His manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the laver…. [ANF 5: 232; sect. I]

Peter of Alexandria in speaking of his life in The Genuine Acts of Peter refers to Mary as both “Ever-Virgin” and “the Most Blessed Mother of God.”

[T]hey came to the church of the most blessed mother of God, and Ever-Virgin Mary, which, as we began to say, he had constructed in the western quarter, in a suburb, for a cemetery of the martyrs. [ANF 6: 267]

In speaking of Simeon, Methodius makes the following comment in his Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna .

While the old man was thus exultant, and rejoicing with exceeding great and holy joy, that which had before been spoken of in a figure by the prophet Isaiah, the holy mother of God now manifestly fulfilled. [ANF 6: 387; par. VII]

And later in the same oration

Hail to thee for ever, thou virgin mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto thee do I again return. [ANf 6: 393; par. XIV]

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical Lectures, tells us of the many witnesses concerning Christ.

Many, my beloved, are the true testimonies concerning Christ. The Father bears witness from heaven of His Son: the Holy Ghost bears witness, descending bodily in likeness of a dove: the Archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing good tidings to Mary: the Virgin Mother of God bears witness: the blessed place of the manger bears witness. [NPNF 2-07: 61; lect. X; par. 19]

In To Januarius, Bishop of Caralis (Cagliari), Saint Gregory the Great (aka Gregory the Dialogist) writes concerning a domestic disturbance that has been brought to him. Note his very matter-of-fact use of the term Mother of Our God and Lord since it indicates the general usage that had developed.

The Jews who have come hither from your city have complained to us that Peter, who has been brought by the will of God from their superstition to the worship of Christian faith, having taken with him certain disorderly persons, on the day after his baptism, that is on the Lord’s day of the very Paschal festival, with grave scandal and without your consent, had taken possession of their synagogue in Caralis, and placed there the image of the mother of our God and Lord, the venerable cross, and the white vestment (birrum) with which he had been clothed when he rose from the font. [NPNF 2-13: 3; epistle VI]

St. Ambrose also uses the term in Concerning Virgins.

The first thing which kindles ardour in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose? What more chaste than she who bore a body without contact with another body? [NPNF 2-10: 374; bk. II; ch. II; par. 7]

John Cassian, of Conferences fame, powerfully defends the title Mother of God as a safeguard for the divinity of Christ in The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius.

And so you say, O heretic, whoever you may be, who deny that God was born of the Virgin, that Mary the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ ought not to be called Theotocos, i.e., Mother of God, but Christotocos, i.e., only the Mother of Christ, not of God. For no one, you say, brings forth what is anterior in time. And of this utterly foolish argument whereby you think that the birth of God can be understood by carnal minds, and fancy that the mystery of His Majesty can be accounted for by human reasoning, we will, if God permits, say something later on. In the meanwhile we will now prove by Divine testimonies that Christ is God, and that Mary is the Mother of God. [NPNF 2-11: 556; bk. II; ch. II]

And in the closing of the same chapter, he sums up his point.

And when the maiden understood not, he gave a reason for this great thing, saying: “Because the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and because the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee, therefore also that holy thing which shall be born shall be called the Son of God;” that is to say: That thou mayest not be ignorant of the provision for so great a work, and the mystery of this great secret, the majesty of God shall therefore come upon thee completely; because the Son of God shall be born of thee. What further doubt can there be about this? or what is there further to be said? He said that God would come upon her; that the Son of God would be born. Ask now, if you like, how the Son of God can help being God, or how she who brought forth God can fail to be Theotocos, i.e., the Mother of God? This alone ought to be enough for you; aye this ought to be amply sufficient for you. [NPNF 2-11: 557; bk. II; ch. II]

I can see no way in which I can make it any clearer than John Cassian already has!

What about the Brothers?

I am quite certain that the reader of the last post was left with a plethora of questions. The truth of the matter: I intended it to be that way. I wanted to present the beliefs of the Early Church Fathers without the reasoning that backed up these ideas.

The questions that I envision being asked are as follows:

1. What about the New Testament passages that speak of Jesus’ siblings?
2. What about the passage that says Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary “until” she brought forth her firstborn son?
3. What about the term “firstborn?” Does it not imply that there are more “borns?”

To answer these questions appropriately, we need to establish a foundation first. There are some things that must be clarified before we can dive into the foregoing.

First, the people who wrote the passages in the last post did read the Bible. It was, for the most part, the same as the one we read. They are not relying on some other books nor are they relying on the English translation (as many of us must do). Many of them could read it in the original Greek. And to make it perfectly clear: theirs said essentially the same things as ours does today. So, the answer to the question of whether they had read those proof passages that are generally offered is a resounding “Yes!”

Secondly, these men were not trying to invent doctrine nor were they attempting to falsify the things that had been handed down to them. To say otherwise would be to level a vicious accusation at some of the people who gave us, for instance, the Nicene Creed. To say they were purposefully trying to change doctrine or deceive is too daring for any but the boldest gap theorist to attempt.

Now let’s deal with the issues raised by the questions above. It should be obvious that the word “firstborn” does not necessarily imply that there are more children. Regardless of whether one has additional offspring or not, the firstborn is still the firstborn.

All the first-born in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first-born of Pharaoh who sits upon his throne, even to the first-born of the maidservant who is behind the mill; and all the first-born of the cattle. (Exodus 11:5 RSV)

It is clear that God was not referring solely to the people (and animals) that had more than one child but to all the persons who had even one child. The following verse gives us a definition of how the Scriptures define a firstborn.

"Consecrate to me all the first-born; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine." (Exodus 13:2 RSV)

The use of firstborn when applied to Jesus does not necessitate that there be other children but Romans tells us about the other children of which Jesus is the firstborn.

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. (Rom 8:29 RSV)

So if there were no other children of Mary (as the Fathers teach) who are these brothers and sisters of which the New Testament speaks?

Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him for the crowd. (Luke 8:19 RSV)

The Greek word for brothers used here is "adelphos." The range of meanings for this word covers much more than two boys born with the same parents. It can mean a half-brother, someone of the same nationality, a fellowman, a person in the same employment or office, or a fellow believer. It can be cousins, brothers, or even just a kinsman. (Note that the range of the word sisters is much the same.)

While many believe these brothers are either cousins or children of Joseph by a previous marriage, it makes no difference either way. Since the semantic range of the word leaves the possibility open that there were no other children of Mary, it is unnecessary for us to say dogmatically that she had other children because it contradicts the clear teaching of the Church through the ages. The words used do not narrowly define a “brother” and neither should we.

If there were other reasons to think that we should narrow the range of this word, then we would do so. The weight of the ancient evidence and of the Church’s tradition, however, militates against it.

But what about the word “until” in Matthew 1? Surely that shows us that after the birth of her firstborn, Mary was engaged in sexual relations with Joseph. Well, certainly we can say that the semantic range of the word leaves that as a possibility. But again, as with the word “brother,” it does not necessitate it.

When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus. (Mat 1:24-25 RSV)

But does the word until mean that it ceased being that way afterward?

Certainly not. For example, are we to assume that God the Father is speaking to Christ and telling Him to sit at His right hand only until His enemies are made His footstool and that thereafter Christ will be forced to get up or sit elsewhere in this verse?

But to what angel has he ever said, "Sit at my right hand, till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet"? (Heb 1:13 RSV)

Or that Christ will stay with us until the end of the age and thereafter is he will leave us?

Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to [same Greek word as until and till] the close of the age." (Mat 28:20 RSV)

The absurdity becomes clear. So why should we assume that there was some sort of change in the Blessed Virgin and Joseph’s relationship after she brought forth her firstborn? Let me say it again: the possibility exists within the words used but the necessity does not.

This makes me wonder why, then, do some insist that Mary had other children and that she had normal marital relations with Joseph. Is their reason Biblical or merely polemical? Do they reject the doctrine simply because the Catholic Church espouses it? Why if the semantic range of the words employed leaves us with ambiguity would we automatically gravitate toward the least historically attested way of believing? One needs to seriously question these things and come to some conclusions. Or maybe not. To do so, may very well change the way one believes irreversibly

Ever-Virgin?

One of the “big” issues for Protestants with the Catholic and Orthodox is their beliefs about Mary the Mother of Jesus. Quite frankly, this was a big issue for me also. When, however, I began to read the early fathers of the Church, my opinion changed. Today we will look at one facet of Marian doctrine: the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. (And before anyone goes off for me calling her the “Blessed,” he/she should consult Mary’s own words in Luke 1:48. I am just calling her what she prophesied that ALL generations would call her.)

What do the Fathers teach about Mary’s perpetual virginity? Do they teach, as the Protestants do, that she was the mother of a number of children after Jesus?

St. Hippolytus of Rome in Against Beron and Helix makes an unambiguous assertion of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

But the pious confession of the believer is that, with a view to our salvation, and in order to connect the universe with unchangeableness, the Creator of all things incorporated with Himself a rational soul and a sensible body from the all-holy Mary, ever-virgin, by an undefiled conception, without conversion, and was made man in nature, but separate from wickedness: the same was perfect God, and the same was perfect man; the same was in nature at once perfect God and man. [ANF 5: 234; fragment VIII]

The powerful defender of Nicene Christology, St. Athanasius gives us the following in his work Against the Arians:

Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed. [NPNF 2-04: 386-7; ch. XXI; par. 70]

St. Ambrose of Milan makes the point very plainly in To the Church at Vercellæ.

Imitate her, holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of maternal virtue; for neither have you sweeter children, nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son. [NPNF 2-10: 473; Epistle LXIII; par. 111]

In referring to Ezekiel 44:2, Rufinus tells us that this prophecy applies to the Virgin Mary in his A Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed.

What could be said with such evident reference to the inviolate preservation of the Virgin’s condition? That Gate of Virginity was closed; through it the Lord God of Israel entered; through it He came forth from the Virgin’s womb into this world; and the Virgin-state being preserved inviolate, the gate of the Virgin remained closed for ever. [NPNF 2-03: 547; sect. 9]

In Peter of Alexandria’s That Up to the Time of the Destruction of Jerusalem, the Jews Rightly Appointed the Fourteenth Day of the First Lunar Month, he asserts the same thing as above.

[T]he Creator and Lord of every visible and invisible creature, the only-begotten Son, and the Word co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and of the same substance with them, according to His divine nature, our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, being in the end of the world born according to the flesh of our holy and glorious lady, Mother of God, and Ever-Virgin, and, of a truth, of Mary the Mother of God; and being seen upon earth, and having true and real converse as man with men, who were of the same substance with Him, according to His human nature…. [ANF 6: 282; frag. V, par. 7]

John Cassian speaks of the Virgin Mary’s perpetual virginity in The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius.

For He did not begin to exist from the Virgin, but He who was already in existence, came into the Virgin.” Again on Christmas Day: “See the miracle of the mother of the Lord: A Virgin conceived, a Virgin brought forth. She was a Virgin when she conceived, a Virgin when with child, a Virgin after the birth. [NPNF 2-11: 617-8; bk. VII, ch. XXV]

In the introduction to Ecclesiastical History of Salaminius Hermias Sozomenus, written sometime before the middle of the Fifth Century, we find this very clear statement on this doctrine.

This clearly referred to the reign of Herod, who was an Idumean, on his father’s side, and on his mother’s, an Arabian, and the Jewish nation was delivered to him by the Roman senate and Augustus Cæsar. And of the rest of the prophets some declared beforehand the birth of Christ, His ineffable conception, the mother remaining a virgin after His birth, His people, and country. [NPNF 2-02: 239; bk. I, ch. I]

Finally the words of the Second Council of Constantinople (Fifth Ecumenical Council) in the Anathemas against the "Three Chapters" sets conciliar approval upon the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The “nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her….” [from http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/5ecumen2.htm]

Again as with many of the other subjects which we have examined, it becomes pretty clear that the Early Church believed in something that we have since discounted totally. Strangely, even the Reformers of the Sixteenth Century believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. So the question arises as to why the modern Protestants don’t believe this. Why have we rejected the Early Church and even the Reformers who supposedly brought the Church back to where it was supposed to be? It would be interesting to hear the answers that would be proffered to this query.