Thursday, October 06, 2011

Quick Biblical Argument for "Mother of God" (Theotokos)



Luke 1:43 (RSV) And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord (kurios) should come to me?

John 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord (kurios) and my God (theos)!”

“Lord (kurios) God (theos)”: Lk 1:6, 32, 68; 4:8, 12; 10:27; 20:37.

Therefore, “Lord (kurios) equals God (theos).

Jesus is called both in Jn 20:28.

Mary is mother of the Lord (Lk 1:43).

Therefore, she is the mother of God, since Lord=God.

Case closed.

* * *

We don’t say of mothers that they are the mother of their child’s body, but of the child, and the child has a body and a soul. They didn’t create the soul; God did.


Likewise, with Jesus, Mary was the mother of Jesus, Who is God the Son. Thus, she is the Mother of God. It’s wrong and even illogical  to say she was the mother of His body. No; she was the mother of the Divine Person, Jesus, Who had a human nature and also a Divine Nature (that she had nothing to do with). But she is still the mother of the Person, regardless of that, as any mother is the mother of a person who has a soul directly created by God.



***

8 comments:

Brent Stubbs said...

Dave, great and to the point. I have a question for you, and I could not find a post that covers this (I might have missed it) so feel free to delete this comment. You can answer me here or email me directly.

I'm currently working on a post where I examine the claim that Protestants are fallible. I'm looking for evidence of that claim in a creed or confession that has been significantly revised whereby the Prot would be admitting fallibility. In other words, there is no bite in claiming fallibility if one never actually ponies up to what that implies on a theological point with some weight. Your thoughts?

Dan Marcum said...

Dave, I think a better argument can be made than this one...partly because I don't think this one is completely valid. Lord does equal "God" in Luke 1:43, but I don't think comparative analysis is the way to show that, because there are other places where the same word does NOT mean God.

Here's how I would argue it: Elizabeth called the unborn Jesus her "Lord," but considered in His preborn humanity, strictly speaking He was not. It was in His divinity that He was her Lord. So she was referring to His "divine lordship," or His divine status as God. And thus, Mary is the mother of the "Lord," the divine Lord, the Lord God, not just of a human nature.

Dave Armstrong said...

Hi Brent,

All Protestants are fallible by self-definition, because sola Scriptura holds that nothing is infallible besides the Bible. I think it is simple as that. So look at statements about the Bible and Church in these creeds and I think you'll nail that point.

Dan,

I'm afraid I don't follow your argument, especially the line, "considered in His preborn humanity, strictly speaking He was not."

Of course He was Lord at all times. He didn't have to be born to be Lord and God; didn't have to grow into that (which would be Nestorianism or some other heresy of that sort).

Brent Stubbs said...

Dave,

I'm sorry if I misspoke. I understand that Protestants hold that they are fallible b/c of sola scriptura (I'm a former one). What I am trying to show is that no Protestant acts like they are fallible. In other words, if there is some bite in the bark of sola scriptura, then we should expect groups following that principle to recant some position that they held previously; ostensibly in their creeds or confessions.

Why is this train of thought important? It's important because it is commonly levied against Catholics that we are obsessed with infallibility. What I want to show is that the human heart is made for truth, and as such, any claim to fallibility is undercut by our strong instinct to acquire truth in an infallible way. We are all fallible creatures--that's given. What we want, and the way we will act, however, points to the fact that we (all Christians, Catholic or otherwise), believe that our basic confessions/creeds are not just not wrong but they are infallibly not wrong. One can say, "No we don't, we believe we are fallible", but that is lip service in the face of hundreds of years of dogmatism in the various Protestant traditions.

Dan Marcum said...

Dave,

You said...
Dan,

I'm afraid I don't follow your argument, especially the line, "considered in His preborn humanity, strictly speaking He was not."

Of course He was Lord at all times. He didn't have to be born to be Lord and God; didn't have to grow into that (which would be Nestorianism or some other heresy of that sort).


Oh definitely He was lord at all times. But He wasn't lord because of His "humanity" -- He was Lord because of His divinity. So for Elizabeth to confess Him as lord, and Mary as His mother, implies His divinity, and thus implies that Mary is mother of God.

Maroun said...

Dan Marcum said .
Lord does equal "God" in Luke 1:43, but I don't think comparative analysis is the way to show that, because there are other places where the same word does NOT mean God.

Hi Dan , not true Lord (Kurios = Adonai) means always God , the lord which does not mean God is not Adonai but adoni .
Sorry but you are terribly wrong.
So in the bible , the jews out of respect for God`s name which God gave to Moses , even when they read the name Yahweh , they read it as Adonai which in the Greek is Kurios which is Lord , so again , onnly God is Lord (Adonai and Kurios)
GBU

Dan Marcum said...

Maroun ::

You said...
Lord (Kurios = Adonai) means always God, the lord which does not mean God is not Adonai but adoni.


You are confusing Greek with Hebrew. "Lord" in Greek is kurios, and it does not always mean God. For example, the second time it is used in 1 Timothy 6:15, it means an earthly sovereign. What I'm saying is this: given that the two meanings of "lord" in the Bible are either "earthly sovereign" or "divine sovereign," and given that Elizabeth referred to the preborn Jesus as her lord, she must have implied His divine sovereignty, because His humanity did not give Him sovereignty; rather, His divinity did. So He was her "lord" because He was divine, and thus...because she called Him that...and because she called Mary the mother of her (divine) Lord, it follows that she basically called Mary the Mother of God.

Dave Armstrong said...

Brent,

Okay; I gotcha now. Yes, i agree that Protestants act like their creeds are in fact infallible, even though formally denying that they are.

I've noted this in making an analogy to Luther and Worms: that someone going to a Calvinist headquarters and denying all five points of TULIP would be run out on a rail. Yet we are supposed to lay down and die at Worms in 1521 after Luther had denied (in his great treatises of 1520) more than fifty Catholic beliefs and practices.

The Protestant assumes his creeds are de facto infallible.

Likewise, Luther assumed his teaching was the same. Not even an angel could judge it, etc. Hence, I have maintained that Luther had a far greater in-effect "infallibility" than any pope ever dreamt of having.