Updated and Expanded for Clarity and Biblical Accuracy
Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believers often refer to Mary as the “Mother of God.”
This phrase, while accepted in some traditions, raises serious theological concerns for many Bible-believing Christians. In fact, it can be a stumbling block for those who seek to understand the nature of God through Scripture.
But why does this title—“Mother of God”—cause so much controversy? Why do Protestants reject it? And most importantly, is it biblically sound?
Let’s explore the origin of the term, how it’s used today, and why many Christians, including myself, believe it misrepresents both Mary and the divine nature of Christ.
What Does “Mother of God” Really Mean?
To understand the controversy, we first need to ask: what do people mean when they call Mary the Mother of God?
In Catholic theology, the title is not meant to suggest that Mary existed before God or that she created Him. Rather, it’s used to emphasize that Jesus, whom Mary gave birth to, is truly God in the flesh.
At face value, that may sound logical:
- Jesus is God.
- Mary gave birth to Jesus.
- Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.
But here’s where things get complicated. This phrase—often quoted without context—tends to shift the focus away from Jesus’ divine nature and places undue emphasis on Mary’s role. In practice, it can lead to the elevation of Mary to a status the Bible never gives her.
The Biblical Understanding of God’s Nature
God is eternal. He has no beginning and no end (Psalm 90:2). He created all things, including Mary. As the eternal Word (John 1:1–3), Jesus existed long before He was born in Bethlehem.
Colossians 1:16–17 clearly states:
“For by Him all things were created… all things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.”
So, how can Mary—herself a created being—be the mother of the Creator?
The answer is: she can’t. Not in the way the phrase is commonly understood today.
A Discussion with a Catholic Catechist
In our Christian Facebook group, we once engaged in a respectful conversation with a Catholic catechist. He explained that calling Mary the “Mother of God” was simply a way to honor her for her unique role in salvation history.
But as we gently pointed out, while Mary is the earthly mother of Jesus, she is not the mother of the divine nature of Christ. God didn’t originate from Mary—He entered the world through her, taking on human flesh.
This is a crucial distinction.
The Term Theotokos: God-Bearer, Not God’s Origin
The term “Mother of God” comes from the Greek word Theotokos, which means “God-bearer.” It was introduced in the early church to affirm that Jesus was both fully God and fully man—even from the moment of conception.
The word was first used by Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria, around the 4th century. His teachings eventually provoked Arius, a heretic who denied the deity of Christ.
Later, the term Theotokos was officially used at the Council of Ephesus (AD 431) and discussed further at the Council of Chalcedon. These councils aimed to clarify the dual nature of Christ: one Person with two natures—divine and human.
The term originally had a Christological purpose. It wasn’t about exalting Mary—it was about defending the deity of Christ.
Nestorius and the Christological Controversy
One key figure in this theological debate was Nestorius, a bishop who challenged the use of the term Theotokos. He feared it could confuse believers into thinking Mary had somehow contributed to Jesus’ divine nature.
Nestorius argued that Mary was the mother of Jesus’ human nature only, not His divine essence. But in doing so, he unintentionally introduced another problem—dividing Christ into two separate persons: one divine and one human.
This view was rejected as heretical because it compromised the unity of Christ’s person. The church affirmed that Jesus is one Person with two natures: fully God and fully man, inseparably united.
The Chalcedonian Definition: A Biblical Balance
At the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451), church leaders articulated what’s now known as the Chalcedonian Definition. They declared that Jesus Christ is:
“One and the same Son… perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man… acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.”
This definition helped preserve the truth of the Incarnation without falling into doctrinal extremes. And while the term Theotokos was upheld, it was always meant to point back to Jesus—not elevate Mary.
The Modern Misuse of “Mother of God”
Sadly, in many religious traditions today, the term “Mother of God” no longer carries its original meaning. Instead of pointing to Christ’s divinity, it is often used to promote Marian devotion, veneration, and even prayers to Mary.
This is where we see serious biblical concerns arise.
Prayers like “Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners…” shift the focus away from Christ and wrongly ascribe to Mary a mediating role that belongs to Jesus alone (1 Timothy 2:5). Some even refer to her as Co-Redeemer or Mediatrix—titles the Bible never grants.
This is a far cry from the biblical portrait of Mary, a humble and obedient servant of the Lord (Luke 1:38), who, like the rest of us, needed a Savior (Luke 1:47).
What Does the Bible Say About Mary’s Role?
Scripture presents Mary as blessed among women (Luke 1:42), chosen by God for an extraordinary purpose. But it does not portray her as divine, sinless, or a heavenly mediator.
- Nowhere are we commanded to pray to her.
- Nowhere is she referred to as “Queen of Heaven” in a positive sense.
- And nowhere does the Bible teach that she shares in Christ’s redemptive work.
In fact, Jesus Himself never placed Mary in a position of spiritual authority. When told His mother and brothers were waiting for Him, He replied:
“Who is My mother, and who are My brothers?… Whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:48–50)
This was not a slight against Mary—it was a clear statement that obedience to God’s Word is what matters most.
So, Is Mary the Mother of God?
In the limited theological sense, we might say yes—Mary bore Jesus, who is fully God and fully man. But we must immediately qualify that statement:
- Mary is not the origin of Jesus’ divine nature.
- She did not create or contribute to His deity.
- She is the mother of the Incarnate Christ, but not of the eternal Son of God in His divine essence.
Therefore, using the title “Mother of God” outside of this precise doctrinal context risks confusion at best—and idolatry at worst.
Final Thoughts: Let’s Glorify Christ, Not Mary
Mary is worthy of respect, not worship. She was a faithful woman who said yes to God in a remarkable way. But she is not our intercessor, redeemer, or source of grace.
Jesus alone holds those titles.
So, while we can appreciate Mary’s role in God’s plan, we must be careful never to let tradition overshadow truth. Let’s lift high the name of Jesus—the eternal Son, the Incarnate Word, the Savior of the world.
Let us give Mary the honor Scripture gives her—and no more. And let us give Christ all the glory, for only He is worthy.
Affiliate Disclaimer
This post contains affiliate links. If you click on one of the links and make a purchase, I may receive a small commission at no extra cost to you. I only recommend products I truly believe in and think will be beneficial to my readers. Thank you for supporting Biblical Christianity!
Further Reading:
Mary—Another Redeemer? (eBook)
By James R. White
This important book examines the controversial movement to name Mary as Co-Redeemer with Christ. James White evaluates Catholic teaching in light of Scripture, offering a thoughtful response from a Protestant perspective.
The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and the Word of God
By James G. McCarthy
This clear, detailed critique of Roman Catholic doctrine is written from a Protestant viewpoint, comparing Catholic teachings with Scripture. A valuable resource for understanding where the two traditions differ theologically.
The world deserves to see your answers to my questions. Or will the exposure of the folly that Jesus is God cut into your income stream because the world will see that you and the Roman Catholic Church and many other denominational churches have been teaching and believing a philosophical lie.
The word ‘hypostasis’ does not appear in scripture. It is alluded to in the Council of Chalcedon, 451ad.
The word is believed to have been coined and put to use in the 1600’s
AI otherwise refers to the hypostatic union of two nature of Christ as a concept. Concepts aren’t facts.
AI was asked: is the term ‘hypostatic union ‘ used to describe any thing or condition other than ‘god man’?
And the answer is…..
Yes, the word ‘hypostatic’ is used to describe things and conditions other than the “God-man” in both medical and biological contexts.
In medicine
In medicine, hypostatic refers to the accumulation of blood or fluid in a specific area of the body, usually in the lower, dependent parts, due to poor circulation or gravity.
* Hypostatic pneumonia: This condition affects bedridden or elderly patients and results from the collection of fluid in the lungs.
* Postmortem hypostasis (livor mortis): This is the medical term for the purplish-red discoloration of the skin after death, as gravity causes blood to settle in the body’s lowest areas.
*
In genetics
In genetics, hypostatic describes a gene whose expression is masked or suppressed by the action of a different, non-allelic gene.
* The interaction is called epistasis, where an epistatic gene suppresses a hypostatic gene.
* An example is the coat color of Labrador retrievers, where one gene can mask the expression of a separate gene that determines whether the coat is black or brown.
*
In metaphysics
In philosophy, the noun hypostasis (from which the adjective hypostatic is derived) refers to the essential nature or underlying substance of a thing, as opposed to its attributes. This usage can be seen in:
* Ancient philosophy: Greek and Neoplatonist philosophers used the term to denote the fundamental reality that supports all else.
* Trinitarian theology: This is where the term’s meaning of “God-man” is derived. It refers to a distinct personal being or subsistence. Mainstream Trinitarian doctrine teaches that God is one substance (ousia) in three hypostases (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). The “hypostatic union” of the “God-man” is a subset of this theological application, referring specifically to the two natures (divine and human) of Christ in one person.
Sounds like the description of ‘Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing’
AI was asked: When and who developed the concept of the fundamental reality that supports all else known as hypostasis?
The concept of “hypostasis” as a fundamental reality was developed over time by various thinkers, including the Neoplatonist Plotinus in the 3rd century and later refined in Christian theology by figures like the Cappadocian Fathers (4th century) and John of Damascus (8th century). Plotinus described three hypostases—the One, the Intellect, and the Soul—as the ultimate spiritual principles underlying reality. In contrast, Origen in the 3rd century, and Sabellius in the 4th century, advanced concepts of a single hypostasis for the Trinity, a view which was later contrasted with the Cappadocians’ work which distinguished between “hypostasis” and “ousia” (essence).
* Neoplatonism: Plotinus described the fundamental reality as three hypostases: the One, the Intellect, and the Soul, which are the source of all being.
* Christian theology:
* 3rd Century: Origen conceived of two distinct hypostases within the divine nature.
* 4th Century: The Cappadocian Fathers distinguished between hypostasis and essence, which became the basis for the orthodox understanding of the Trinity as three distinct hypostases united in one essence.
* 8th Century: John of Damascus built on this by creating an ontology where hypostases were the fundamental entities upon which all other things subsist.
There is your Roman Catholic Church for you. Pretty cheesy compared to scripture.
Final not on that: The Holy Scriptures are like County Clerks records. If it isn’t in the records it doesn’t exist.
Question: Is AI properly representing what the ‘church’ really believes? If so, It’s very telling.
Q: The doctrine of the Trinity says that Jesus and God are con-substantial. To whom will Jesus be delivering the kingdom if Jesus and God are the same substance and the same essence according to the Nicene Creed? 1 Corinthians 15:24,28
A: The seeming contradiction between Jesus being “consubstantial with the Father” and delivering the kingdom to him is resolved by understanding the distinction between the eternal nature of the Trinity and Christ’s temporary, mediatorial role. Christian theology holds that while the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one divine being, they are also distinct persons with different roles.
Eternal and mediatorial roles
* Eternal equality: As the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ is fully and eternally God, possessing the exact same divine substance as the Father and the Holy Spirit. In this sense, he is equal to the Father in authority.
* Temporary mediatorial role: During his incarnation, Jesus willingly took on the role of mediator to accomplish God’s plan of redemption. This role, as the God-man, involved a functional subordination to the Father, though it did not diminish his ontological equality as God. This is the context for verses where Jesus refers to the Father as greater than he (John 14:28) and voluntarily submits his will to the Father’s.
*
The culmination of Christ’s mediatorial reign
The verses in 1 Corinthians 15 describe the end of Christ’s mediatorial reign, not the end of his divinity or ultimate kingship.
* Victory over enemies: Verses 25–26 state that Jesus must reign until all enemies are made subject to him, with the last enemy being death itself.
* Delivery of the kingdom: Once this final victory is complete, verse 24 says he will “deliver the kingdom to God the Father”. This signifies the completion of his redemptive work as mediator.
* Subjection to the Father: Verse 28 says that “the Son himself will also be made subject to him who put all things in subjection under him”. This is not a subjection of an inferior being but a willing act of submission, demonstrating the perfect unity and harmony within the Godhead.
*
The final goal: “God may be all in all”
The ultimate purpose of this handover, as stated in 1 Corinthians 15:28, is “that God may be all in all”. This phrase describes the perfect, unhindered reign of the Triune God.
* Restoration to Edenic perfection: This moment marks the restoration of creation to a state where God’s authority is exercised directly and without opposition.
* The end of mediation: With sin and death fully defeated, the need for Christ’s specific mediatorial role has been fulfilled. The direct, perfect relationship between God and humanity is restored.
* The Triune God is supreme: The delivery of the kingdom does not mean Jesus stops reigning. It means that the full, unmediated glory of the one divine essence—Father, Son, and Spirit—is fully and finally manifested without opposition.
*
Q: So, Christ is temporary. But God is eternal. So, how is Christ both temporary and eternal?
Christ is both temporary and eternal because he is seen as having two natures: divine and human. His divine nature is eternal, while his human nature experienced temporary, earthly life and suffering. The theological concept of the two natures of Christ explains that his divinity is eternal and immutable, while his humanity is the temporary part of his existence that includes his life and death on Earth. However, even in his glorified human body after the resurrection, his human nature is permanent and united with his divine nature forever, as described by Randy Alcorn in this Facebook post.
* The eternal nature: Jesus is understood to be eternally God, the second person of the Trinity. His divine nature is outside of time and remains the same “yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8).
* The temporary nature: Christ’s human nature, which existed on Earth, is described as temporary. His life, death, and sufferings were temporary events in time.
* The permanent nature: After his resurrection, Christ rose in a glorified human body, which is a permanent, eternal human nature united with his divine nature, as explained by Randy Alcorn in this Facebook post.
Q: So, Christ will live forever as God in his glorified human body?
Yes, the widely held Christian belief is that Christ lives forever as both God and man in a glorified, resurrected human body. He retains his full humanity while also possessing divine attributes, a concept sometimes referred to as the God-man. This glorified body, the same one he was resurrected in but perfected, is considered eternal.
Key aspects of his continued existence
* He is forever the God-man: Christ’s humanity is not temporary; he is eternally God and man. He will return in this same glorified human form, as stated in Acts 1:11.
* His human body is glorified: While his resurrected body appeared physical (as shown when he ate and was touched), it is also described as different from his earthly one—glorified, imperishable, and eternal. It is a body perfectly suited for heaven, free from the weaknesses of earthly bodies.
* He is the ultimate image-bearer: His continued humanity is a model for what humanity is meant to be, a reflection of God’s glory and majesty.
* He is the mediator: His ongoing humanity is essential to his role as the sole mediator between God and humanity, as Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 2:5.
Q: Jesus is eternally God according to Christian theology and will dwell in heaven as god-man forever with the father who is God. that makes two gods? correct?
No, according to Christian theology, this does not make two gods. Instead, it describes the doctrine of the Trinity, which holds that there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct, co-equal “persons”: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. This means there is only one divine being or “Godhead,” not three separate gods.
* One God, Three Persons: The Trinity is the belief that God is one in essence or nature but three in person. Each person of the Trinity is fully and eternally God.
* Distinct but United: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct from one another in their roles and relationships, but they are not separate beings. For example, the Father sends the Son, and the Son prays to the Father.
* Jesus as God-Man: In the case of Jesus, Christian theology teaches that as the eternal Son, he is fully God. At the incarnation, he became the “God-man,” taking on a full human nature while remaining fully divine, eternally existing as one person with two natures.
* Shared Divine Nature: Each person of the Trinity possesses the same divine nature, essence, and attributes. Therefore, Jesus is not a separate god from the Father; he is the eternal Son who is one with the Father.
Q: Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. Hebrews 13:8. How is it that he is fully and eternally god but dwells in a human body in heaven forever with God the father
A: The seemingly paradoxical idea of Jesus being fully and eternally God, yet having a human body in heaven, is explained by the Christian doctrine of the two natures of Christ. According to this belief, Jesus is both 100% God and 100% human, with his divine and human natures united without confusion, a state known as the hypostatic union. His humanity, including his body, is a permanent part of his identity, but it does not diminish his divine nature or his eternal existence.
Two natures, one person
* Eternal God: Before his incarnation, Jesus was fully God, the eternal Son of the Father, existing outside of time and space. This divine nature is unchanging and eternal.
* Incarnation and human body: Through the incarnation, Jesus took on a human body and nature to live as a man. This humanity is now a permanent and inseparable part of who he is. It is through his human body that he was able to live, die, and be resurrected.
* Ascension and eternal presence: After his resurrection, Jesus ascended into heaven in his glorified human body. He remains there in that human body, but as God, he is also present everywhere through the Holy Spirit.
* Unchanging nature: Hebrews 13:8 refers to Jesus’s unchanging nature and character, not a physical transformation. While his human form is a new, eternal aspect of his being, his divine nature, character, and purpose remain consistent forever. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever, because his identity as both God and man is eternally fixed.
* Theological concept: This is a central tenet of Christian theology known as the hypostatic union, which holds that Jesus is one person with two distinct, unconfused, and inseparable natures: divine and human. His human body in heaven does not alter his eternal deity; rather, it is a permanent part of his person through which he continues to rule and intercede for humanity.
CONCLUSION: We have gone around in a circle and gotten no answer to the real question of multiple gods in the trinity. Only a bunch of double-talk. The Roman Catholic Church is the culprit for this display of a circular explanation that goes nowhere. satan’s modus operandi on full display. According to ‘Christian theology’ so much for Jesus Christ being the same yesterday today and forever, Hebrews 13:8. And so much for the Scripture of truth that says that all of the faithful believers who abide in Christ Jesus will receive glorified bodies, Philippians 3:21, and that they will see Jesus as he is because they will be like him, 1 John 3:2. So, according to twisted ‘christian theology’ all believers are going to be god-men if they are going to be like him?
Not in the true theology of the true and living God. There is one God and Jesus is not Him.
If in fact AI is reporting what the ‘church’ believes. Wouldn’t you, for conscience sake, want to know the truth. John 4:24.
Hi Doug,
I appreciate your passion for wanting to defend what you believe Scripture teaches. But I do want to clarify a few things so the conversation stays rooted in the Word, not in assumptions about AI, church history, or motives.
First, I’m not basing my beliefs on AI, church councils, or philosophical systems. My convictions about the nature of Jesus come directly from Scripture itself. Before any later theological terms ever existed, the New Testament writers consistently spoke of Jesus in ways that only Scripture uses for God:
– Jesus forgives sins (Mark 2:5–7).
– Jesus receives worship (Matt. 14:33; John 20:28).
– Jesus is called “God” explicitly (John 1:1; John 20:28; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1).
– Jesus is the Creator of all things (John 1:3; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:10–12).
– The Father commands the angels to worship Him (Heb. 1:6).
– God says His glory He will not share with another (Isaiah 42:8); yet Jesus receives that glory (John 17:5).
These are not Catholic doctrines.
These are Bible verses.
Regarding hypostasis and the Trinity, you are right that the words came later. But the doctrines came from careful reading of Scripture. The same is true for terms like omniscience, incarnation, or even the Bible; all concepts we believe, even though the English words came later.
Biblical truth does not depend on what year a vocabulary term appeared.
As for 1 Corinthians 15, Paul is describing Christ’s mediatorial role, the role He willingly took on in His humanity to accomplish redemption. Scripture consistently shows Jesus submitting to the Father during His earthly mission (Phil. 2:5–11), yet being exalted as Lord of all with the very name of Yahweh (Phil. 2:9–11).
Submission in role does not mean inferiority in nature.
Even within the New Testament itself:
– Jesus says the Father is greater than Him (John 14:28).
– Yet Jesus also says He and the Father are one (John 10:30).
– And the Jews understood that statement as making Himself equal with God (John 5:18).
Both truths appear side by side.
Not contradiction; two natures.
As for the claim that believers becoming glorified means we become “god-men,” Scripture itself answers that:
We shall be like Him, because we shall see Him as He is.
(1 John 3:2)
“Like Him” does not mean “identical to Him.”
We share glory, not deity.
We reflect the image.
We do not become the God whose image we bear.
Finally, regarding your closing statement:
“There is one God and Jesus is not Him.”
That is exactly the same claim made by the Pharisees when Jesus said,
“I and the Father are one” (John 10:30–33).
They understood the implication.
Jesus did not correct them.
He confirmed it.
Doug, I’m happy for respectful dialogue, but I’m not going to turn this comment section into an endless debate zone. My goal here is simply to point people back to what the Scriptures actually say, not to defend AI, church councils, or anyone’s assumptions about denominational motives.
If you’d like to continue discussing Scripture in a Christlike tone, I’m glad to.
If the purpose is to argue endlessly, I’ll step back.
Unity died on the doorstep of denominationalism.
Which ‘holy spirit’ are you hearing from? The Catholic one? The Baptist one? The Mormon? The Amish? The Pentecostal? Presbyterian, Lutheran, Jehovah’s Witness, Puritan, Orthodox, Reformed? Or do you each have your own ‘holy spirit’? Or do you prefer a blend such as Universalist?
Any one who asks their spirit if theirs is the right one, all get the same answer from each one of their spirits: Sure, the right one is talking to you.
God is going to sort it out for every one. Most won’t be ready.
Hi Doug,
I hear your concern about division, and you’re right that denominationalism can create confusion. But the presence of denominations doesn’t mean there are multiple Holy Spirits or multiple versions of truth. Scripture is clear:
“There is one body and one Spirit… one Lord, one faith, one baptism.”
(Ephesians 4:4–5)
The Holy Spirit is not Baptist, Catholic, Pentecostal, or any other label we’ve created. Human traditions vary, but the Spirit of God remains the same, bearing witness to Christ (John 15:26), leading believers into truth (John 16:13), and producing the same fruit in every life He indwells (Gal. 5:22–23).
Rather than asking which denomination claims the Spirit, the real question is:
Does the teaching align with Scripture, and does its fruit reflect the character of Jesus?
That’s the standard the apostles gave us (1 John 4:1; Acts 17:11), and it’s the standard I follow.
I agree with you on this: God will sort out what’s true in the end.
But He has also given us His Word and His Spirit so we can walk in clarity now—not confusion.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Doug.
Well the whole problem is with the doctrine that Jesus is God.
Where it was said that in the psalms when David mentions ‘The king’ it is not speaking of himself specifically but all believers who are of the godly seed, that is Christ.
Nowhere it is said in the King James, Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 1 John 3:9
The seed is by the baptism of the Holy Ghost I.e. ‘born of God’. Otherwise, Born again. Psalm 18:50 says: Great deliverance giveth he to his king; and showeth mercy to his anointed, to David, and to his seed forever more.
Very many, that is, too many versions of scripture change the singular of seed into plural I.e. descendants, offspring.
But the King James has the seed as singular in sense. Galatians 3:16. Paul went to great lengths to express this as being error to change the word of God here to say plural for the seed instead of singular. As shown: Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ. Gal. 3:16
Jesus said that it is the Spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing. John 6:63 Nothing is quickened, that is, given life, but by the Holy Ghost and the baptism thereof.
That is the cause for which Jesus also said that: except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5.
Now to Acts 13:22-23 which says; Vs. 22, And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfill all my will. Vs. 23, of this mans seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Savior, Jesus:
The sense for seed is singular in Vs.23 of Acts 13.
Having clarified that the seed is Christ by Galatians 3:16 and that salvation is by the baptism of the Holy Ghost in John 3:5 and John 6:63 and 1 John 3:9. And seeing Psalms 18:50, Acts 13:23, ( and reference also Psalm 16:10 and Peters explanation of Psalm 16:10 in Acts 2:29-34, that the psalmist was not speaking of himself, but of Christ).
These prerequisites show the proof that in Psalm 21:4 which states that, he asked life of thee, and thou gavest it him, is speaking of the one who asked for life was Jesus who, upon his baptism in the Holy Ghost, would be made God’s Christ.
For which cause it is written in Acts 10:38 that is is God who anointed Jesus with the Holy Ghost and with power. And it is confirmed that it is God who baptized Jesus with the Spirit that quickens in Luke 4:18-19. Where it is said: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me , because he hath anointed me….And and again it is written in Psalms 110:1, The Lord said unto my Lord. Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. This signifies that it is God who made Jesus enemies Jesus’ footstool.
Jesus could not have been given this power except that he had been quickened by God, given the power of God by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Where it is also written in the Psalms where the Spirit of Prophesy ( see Revelation 19:10 ) said this: Thou, which hast showed me great and sore troubles, shall quicken me again, and shalt bring me up again from the depths.
The depths refers to the lower parts ( Ephesians 4:9 ). Made in the likeness of sinful flesh. ( Romans 8:3 ), by becoming a man, and Philippians 2:7 says that he was made a man, not that he made himself into a man. Use the King James Version which the unlearned reject.
How much lower can you get then the depths of the fall brought on by the sin of Adam. That is what deliverance God gave Jesus when He asked life of God and God gave it him Psalms 21:4.
He needed to be quickened again because he died spiritually when he was born by coming to this present fallen world in the flesh. 1 John 4:1-3.
For which cause Jesus said, Quicken me again, Psalms 71:20. He said quicken me again. Same as he said Glorify me again, John 17:5,
Coming to this fallen world in the flesh is the last stop before eternity in the pit of hell except for the salvation of God by the quickening of the baptism of the Holy Ghost. It was the same for Jesus as for every man. A doctrine of devils to say that Jesus was not saved by God. That is why Jesus said by the hand of the psalmist, Thou dids’t not leave his soul in hell, Psalm 16:10. Every creature born of a woman is destined for hell without the saving grace of God, Jesus included.
(That is why he is the head of the church. Because he is a member of it, I Corinthians 12:27, Colossians 1:18. Now, where it says firstborn from the dead in Colossians 1:18, that means born again from the spiritual death of the fall of all mankind. All men are saved by the baptism of the Holy Ghost or they are not saved. They are not saved when they get out of the grave, they are saved while they are still alive. Other wise why would obedience to God in this present life make a difference?)
For which cause Jesus went to the river Jordan to be baptized by John, But he received the Holy Spirit from God not from John. Luke 3:21-22. Where it specifically says that Jesus was already baptized in water before that he was given the Holy Ghost by God. The heaven was opened. Signifying that the way into the holy of holies was now blazed for Jesus, and for all who would abide faithful in him as joint-heirs, Romans 8:17, the body that God had prepared him, Hebrews 10:5, not just his own flesh body, but the entire body of Christ, every member of those who abide faithful in him by obedience to God.
And so, if God had not given salvation to Jesus first as the firstborn of many there would be no flesh saved. As saith the Lord Jesus Christ after his initial return to this present world: Touch me and see that it is I myself, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have, Luke 24:39. Not that fallen flesh body that he was born in, but it is changed into a glorified body, Philippians 3:21, the hope of every member who abide faithful in his pattern that he left us, the example to follow. For which cause he said follow me.
To all who abide faithful in Jesus as he abides faithful in God, the blessings of God to know His truth. And the truth of God make them free from sin, Romans 6:18.
Jesus in a, seemingly arbitrary way, Said to the Pharisee: why do you call God’s Christ ‘the son of David’?, ( Luke 20:41-43 ). It is David who is in Christ, not Christ who is in David, David called Jesus Lord because there is no salvation but by Christ Jesus.
Therefore when David speaks of himself in the Psalms, he is speaking of the salvation of Christ as himself included and every other believer also, Jews and Gentiles alike who would be saved. The Psalms are speaking of the body of Christ as Christ Jesus the firstborn, and after Christ, every member who should believe on the name, ( pattern ) of Jesus, and abide in him by following that example that he left us, and that specifically being, receiving the baptism of the Holy Ghost from God, ( Acts 10:38 ), and subsequently obeying the voice of The One God who made every Creature including Jesus, ( Galatians 4:4 KJV ) whom God made to be both Lord and Christ, ( Acts 2:36 ).
And so the correction of the error of saying godly descendants, or godly offspring, was accomplished by Christ in Luke 20:41-43, and confirmed by Paul in Galatians 3:13-26. A godly seed ( Malachi 2:15 KJV ) is speaking in the singular sense by using the word ‘A’. If it had been speaking of the descendants of David then the phrase would have said ‘THE’ godly seed. But it did not because the scripture designated one seed, that is Christ.
David knew that if Christ Jesus was not saved first, Then nobody would be. That is why David called God’s Christ that was to come, Lord, in Psalms 110:1. And throughout all of the Psalms God’s Christ is Lord. The beginning of life, by the Holy Ghost, and the end unto salvation by obedience to that Spirit of life.
That is why all of the Psalms speak of Christ. Particularly when the Spirit of prophesy, Jesus, ( Revelation 19:10 ) testified of being quickened again, ( Psalm 71:20 ), Because Jesus was alive in heaven with God before he came to this Earth as a flesh man, (Philippians 2:7-8, Romans 8:3) and he asked life from God and God gave it him., as was prophesied of God’s Christ in the Psalms, (Psalms 21:4), David being a prophet, ( Acts 2:30 KJV )
To the Most High God, Maker of Heaven and Earth and the seas and all that are in them be the glory, the honor and the praise forever and ever, Amen.
As far as Mary? Jesus only said to John Behold thy Mother, and to Mary behold thy son, because Jesus perceived at that moment that Mary believed that Jesus was God’s Christ, John 19:26,27. And so following Jesus own saying, those who are his mother and brother and sister are those who do the will of God, Mark 3:31-35. Not calling any on earth father because as the head of the church, the body of believers, of which he is one of them, 1 Corinthians 10:17, John 6:35, Ephesians 5:30, he would call no man on Earth father, Matthew 23:9.
Look no farther than the scriptures for truth. Strong recommendation to the King James Version, or Early Modern versions from the 1500’s available as references on Bible hub which all Bible researchers use frequently.
Hi Doug,
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.
I can see you’ve put a great deal of study into this, and I appreciate your desire to honor Scripture. That said, the view you’re presenting here is very different from what the Scriptures themselves reveal about the Person of Christ and has never been held by the apostles, the early church, or historic Christianity.
In the passages you referenced, the central issue is not that Jesus became the Christ by the Spirit, nor that He needed to be “saved,” but that He was already the eternal Son who took on flesh (John 1:1, 14). The Spirit’s anointing affirmed His mission, not His identity. Scripture is consistent on this:
a. Jesus existed before His birth (John 17:5; John 1:1–3; Col. 1:16–17).
b. He was holy from conception (Luke 1:35), not spiritually dead or in need of salvation.
c. He is worshiped, not as a creature, but as Lord and God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:6–8).
d. He did not become God’s Christ by regeneration; He came as the Christ (Luke 2:11; Matt. 16:16).
e. He “knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21) and was “without sin” (Heb. 4:15), not spiritually fallen or in need of new birth.
Regarding the “seed,” Paul makes a theological point in Galatians 3, but that doesn’t change the reality that Scripture repeatedly affirms the Messiah would come from David’s physical lineage (2 Sam. 7:12–16; Rom. 1:3). The singular/plural discussion in Galatians is about the promise, not denying physical descent.
Most importantly, the Psalms speak prophetically of Christ precisely because He is the eternal Son who took on humanity, not a man who needed to be saved before saving others. Psalm 16, for example, points to His bodily resurrection, not a spiritual new birth.
I do appreciate your interest in Scripture, but this interpretation overturns the very foundation of the gospel:
“In the beginning was the Word… and the Word was God… and the Word became flesh.” (John 1:1, 14)
That is the consistent witness of the apostles.
For the sake of clarity for other readers: the post presents the historic Christian understanding affirmed across the New Testament: that Jesus is both fully God and fully man, and therefore Mary is the mother of His humanity, not the originator of His divine nature.
I’m grateful you shared your perspective, Doug, and I pray the Lord continues to lead all of us into a deeper understanding of His truth through His Word.
Doug, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.
I can see that you’re very passionate about these theological topics. However, I need to clarify something important in kindness: my site is not a debate forum, and I’m not able to continue approving or responding to long doctrinal arguments or repeated challenges.
My goal here is to encourage readers through clear, biblical teaching, not to host extended back-and-forth discussions or private debates. For that reason, I won’t be able to publish further comments of this nature.
I truly pray the Lord continues to guide you as you study His Word and seek His truth.
The way you combined a compelling writing style with deep insights into this controversial topic made the content both enjoyable and enlightening.
I particularly enjoyed how you used engaging anecdotes and thought-provoking ideas to illustrate your points.
Thank you.
Thanks for your encouraging comment.
Is anybody’s guess at this point that this debate is likely to continue for quite some time?
At least that gives researchers something to do.
Yup, no doubt it will.
But the fact remains the same. Mary is the mother of Jesus, not God. There’s a huge difference and we will continue to correct this error.
Thanks for stopping by.
There is no debate: The Council of Chalcedon defined the title “Theotokos” and anathematized anyone who contradicted them.
Whoever denies this title to the Virgin Mary is as much a heretic as those who require Christians to be circumcised, for it is on the same authority that the Apostles dispensed with the requirements of the Torah that the Church judged the doctrine of Divine Maternity.
It’s quite simple: If Mary is not the Mother of God, then God didn’t die on the Cross, and the redemption is a sham.
The Church has spoken; the matter is settled.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment, Andrew.
I appreciate your emphasis on the Council of Chalcedon’s affirmation of the title Theotokos and its role in safeguarding the doctrine of Christ’s dual nature.
As I mentioned in the article, while Mary is indeed the mother of Jesus, she cannot be considered the mother of God in the sense that God, being the eternal Creator, has no origin and thus no mother.
The term Theotokos, meaning “God-bearer,” was historically used to affirm the unity of Christ’s divine and human natures .
However, some Protestant traditions, including my own, are cautious about using this title for Mary, as it can be misconstrued to imply that she is the origin of God’s divinity, which contradicts the biblical understanding of God’s eternal nature.
The concern is not with denying Christ’s divinity or the significance of the Incarnation but with avoiding potential theological misunderstandings that could arise from the use of certain titles.
As such, while recognizing the historical context and intent behind the term Theotokos, I prefer to refer to Mary as the mother of Jesus, emphasizing her role in His humanity.
Thank you for engaging in this important discussion. Your insights contribute to a deeper understanding of these complex theological issues.
Blessings!
Hi,
It doesn’t seem to align with the concept of the Hypostatic Union.
Jesus was not born as a “human with a divine nature” nor was his human and divine nature born separately – they all came forth from Mary’s womb as a complete person, and He was complete man and complete God, so it feels we are forcibly separating His being when we say Mary cannot be called the mother of God.
He was not two persons, one divine, one mortal, sharing the same body. As the Athanasian Creed proclaims: “that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood.
Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; ”
There are no two Christs, just as our body and soul does not make us two humans.
The fact that someone decided to manipulate the concept to fit his own heretic agenda does not invalidate it. Even the doctrine of the Trinity had been twisted numerous times by cultists – should we then consider saying that God is not a Trinity?
In Luke 1:41-43, “When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”
“The mother of my Lord” – who was Elizabeth’s Lord? Was it not God? Did she serve more than one master? And she was filled with the Holy Spirit when she exclaimed those words. I would be very concerned if what she said was blasphemous – claiming a mortal foetus to be God (her Lord) and the Holy Spirit allowed it, especially when she was saying it to the woman chosen by God to bear the child.
And Jesus, as noted in Hebrews 2, would call us brothers and sisters before God (declare His name to His brothers and sisters). How can we, as mortals devoid of any divinity, be siblings to the Son of God? Two words – divine grace.
Ultimately I think it boils down to where or who our eyes are on – do we see the mother of God title as something Mary earn by her own merit? Or do we look towards God and recognise that title as the glory that comes upon faithful servants of God by His grace?
I don’t think there’s anybody out there saying Jesus is two persons.
Jesus is one person . But when He was born into this world, He was not born with both the divine and human natures. He existed eternally as divine, God the Son. When He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, He did not stop being God. Rather, He added humanity to His deity.
You may want to check out Dave Hunt’s quick answer to this:
https://youtu.be/pKzEgny76pc
Blessings!
Why do Catholics even find it necessary to give Mary “power and honor.” when in fact. Jesus Christ never gave her any? He referred to her as “woman.”
Hey Pansy, thanks for stopping by.
This has been my question for many years which played a major role in my quest for the truth. Having gone to a Catholic high school, I was taught (and trained) to pray the rosary, to put Mary at a level where she is almost as divine as God, and do so many rituals that are not in line with biblical truth.
I am just thankful that I finally came to realize that Mary is not who Roman Catholics say she is, i.e. the Mother of God.
If the New Testament believers and Jesus Himself did not regard Mary as anything more than a mere vessel for God, why should Christians today do so?
Shalom!
Since I started to attend a Bible Study and personally accepted the Lord Jesus as my LORD and SAVIOR, my perspective was changed and now I agree with your theological stand that Mary is not the mother of God. Instead, Mary was instrument by God to bear and gave birth to the prophesied Messiah the Savior of the humankind, the LORD Jesus Christ, God the Son, the second persona of the Triune God.
Mary is just an ordinary woman obedient to the will of God and became an earthly mother of Jesus but not the mother of GOD.
Hello Teacher Encarnacion,
How are you?
Thanks for taking time to read the article and for your comment.
Having grown up in the “traditional faith or religion” I was taught to believe that Mary is the Mother of God. You know that prayer we repeatedly recite especially during the Black Rosary month? Yeah, I memorized that.
But I praise God for opening up my understanding. When we come to realize that going to heaven has got nothing to do with religion and good works, but has everything to do with placing our faith in Christ and in what He has done for us, that’s when we can truly say that we have been set free.
As John 8:32 says, “And you will know the truth and the truth shall set you free.”
Indeed, Mary was Jesus’ earthly mother. She was God’s instrument in birthing the Lord Jesus but she is not the mother of God.
God bless you more.
Hi,
It might be helpful to get a little clarity on the Catholic teaching about Mary and the traditional title ‘Mother of God.’
“Mother” does not mean “source” of anything more than our Lord’s human physicality in this context. It never ever did. It’s a personal term. God created his soul and the person to whom human body and soul were united in the Incarnation is not created at all. That person is God the Word-Logos-Son.
I would not refer to my own mother as the mother of my flesh or my humanity or my body, although I received some of those things through her; rather I would refer to her as the mother of “me.” MY mother, since “I” am the personal subject of my own flesh/humanity/body.
In the same way the eternal second person of the Trinity, the Logos-Word, would be referring to the personal subject of his own flesh/humanity/body acquired in the Incarnation were he to say to us in reference to Mary: “She is MY mother.”
In fact, the “my” in the following two sentences, were they said by Jesus, would be the exact same person referent:
God is MY father
Mary is MY mother
The personal subject signified by MY is the same (the Eternal Word who became human) although the natures through which it is possible to make these utterances are different, divine in the first and human in the second.
Part of the reason the titles “Mother of God” and “Theotokos” were used in the first place was because they make it clear that there is not more than one personal subject in Christ (not two I’s, one divine the other merely human), since that would be a denial that God the Son truly became the Son of Mary, and on the flip side a denial of our Lord’s true divinity.
Those who deny that Mary is the mother of God usually intend well and don’t mean to profess a counterfeit Christ, but in fact that is the logical consequence of their position and the reason for which the Catholic Church’s use of the title is needed.
Also, “God” in the title “mother of God” refers to the personal subject of the Logos-Word-Son through his human nature, not in his divine nature. “Mother of God” in Catholic theology and devotion always means specifically “mother of the Word Incarnate” because in Trinitarian theology “God” can refer to the whole divine nature OR to any one of the divine persons distinctly depending upon context.
In “mother of God” it refers to the divine Son in his humanity, not the divine nature which the Word has with the Father and Spirit. This has always been the case. The fear that it might refer to the divine nature and somehow make Mary the source of his divinity, or even more bizarrely the mother of God the Father and the Holy Spirit, is not founded upon anything in the Catholic tradition – and in fact would contradict expressly Catholic trinitarian doctrine (see the Nicene Creed).
It is only confusion on the part of those who are unable or unwilling to carefully examine Catholic teaching. Notice that Catholics never refer to Mary as “God the Mother”.
Also, contra James White, certainly the title “mother of God” refers to Mary and says something about her just as the term “church of God” refers not directly to God but to the people of God and says something about them. It says that they are the recipients of God’s grace.
This is the whole view of Mary in Catholic theology as well. Everything else Catholics attribute to her is based not upon the confused idea that she is somehow divine. It is based upon the grace God has given her as his creature, child, and (in the case of his Son through the human nature he acquired) mother.
Thank you.
Hello Thomas,
Thanks for dropping by and sharing with us the stand of the Catholic Church in regards to calling Mary the Mother of God, I appreciate it.
However, I would like to emphasize that Dr. James White based his arguments in his book “Mary, Another Redeemer” from a Catholic publication. Do you happen to have a copy of “Devotions in Honor of Our Mother of Perpetual Help?” Below is one of the prayers in this booklet, please read it and tell me what you think.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the goods which God grants to us miserable sinners, and for this reason he has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, that thou mayest help us in our misery.
Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee. Come then, to my help, dearest Mother, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me.
For, if thou protect me, dear Mother, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my Judge himself, because by one prayer from thee he will be appeased.
But one thing I fear, that in the hour of temptation I may neglect to call on thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, then, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace always to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
See the phrase: “In thy hands I place my eternal salvation and unto thee I entrust my soul.” Really?
What about the book “Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate,” have you read it, Thomas? Here’s just a portion of what’s written in it:
“With filial love, we the faithful wish to humbly petition you, the Vicar of Christ, to solemnly define as Christian dogma the Church’s constant teaching on Mary’s coredemptive role with Christ the Redeemer of humanity. It is our belief that such a definition will bring to light the whole truth about Mary, Daughter of the Father, Mother of the Son, Spouse of the Spirit, and Mother of the Church. Therefore, it is our prayer that the Holy Spirit will guide you, Holy Father, to define and proclaim the Blessed Virgin Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces and Advocate for the people of God.”
As I said, Dr. White is just refuting what Catholics believe about Mary.
By the way, I take it that you agreed that Mary is the mother of the Word-Incarnate, does this mean you agree with Dr. James White that Mary is the mother of Jesus but not the mother of God? Because this is what the article is all about. It is not refuting the fact that Mary gave birth to Jesus. Rather, it is saying that Mary cannot be the mother of God because Jesus as God was uncreated.
Hey Alice !
Thank you for this article.
No Mary is not the mother of God .
According to Luke 1:26, The bible tell us the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary the virgin girl and said to her Rejoice highly favored one ,the Lord is with you, blessed are you among women.
The angel said to Mary you have found favor with God, He continued and said to her, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son and shall call His name Jesus.
What I’m trying to say is Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ our savior.
Let people understand the word of God carefully and also meditate in it day and night, that they may observe what is written in it.
Always let’s pray to God to bless us with the blessings of Mary the mother of Jesus Christ, we shall be blessed and highly favored.
Thank you, Alice.
Your beloved sister,
Phidia.
Shalom!
Thank you, Phidia for concurring with me that Mary is not the mother of God; but the mother of Jesus.
My mom is Roman Catholic, a devout one I can tell and there are times when we have discussions about the doctrinal errors of the Roman Catholic church. Although I can tell that she loves the Lord and really wants to please God; I can see that it is very difficult for her to accept the fact that many doctrines of her church is wrong and one of them is referring to Mary as the mother of God.
I just hope that one day she will realize how wrong she is and will start seeking for a spiritual family that will help her to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord. For now, all I can do is to keep sharing with her what the Bible really teaches and pray that God will open up her spiritual eyes and ears to the truth.
God bless you sis, shalom!
Hello Alice!
Indeed, the doctrine of Roman Catholic is different from ours. They always believe their own doctrine even if you convince them, it’s hard for them to believe what you are telling them.
I understand dear to have a mum who is a Roman Catholic, it is hard to convince her but let’s pray one day she will know the truth about the word of God and what it says.
My dear, don’t lose hope, just continue sharing with her, who knows one day she will tell you, “My daughter, now it’s true what you have told me.”
I believe God will open her spiritual eyes, and she will know the truth about His word.
My dear, just thank God; she knows there’s a God, let’s pray one day she will know the truth and be born again and be baptized in much water and also be filled with the Holy Spirit.
You know what dear, nothing is impossible with our God. When there seems to be no way, God will make a way. One day your mum will just tell you, “Now I understand my daughter.”
Thank God you have a mum whom you share the word of God with. I wish I had one.
Dear, I am praying for you and your mum too. God bless you and lift you to another level of destiny.
Thank you! Shalom!
Hello Phidia,
Thank you so much for the encouragement and prayer; it means a lot to me knowing that a fellow believer is praying for me and my mom’s salvation. It can be really frustrating at times when all I want to do is get her to know the truth but she refuses. But I know that in God’s time my mom will also accept Jesus as her Lord and Savior and we will serve God together.
So, thank you, sister Phidia. I will be praying for you as well. Please do keep in touch.
By the way, I hope you do not mind that I have copied our conversations and pasted them into the comment section of the article for all the visitors to read.
God bless and may you have a Merry Christmas.
First of all, thank you so much for this post.
So is Mary the Mother of God? No, Mary is a Mother to Jesus Christ but not to the Holy God.
Thank you again and remain blessed with God’s grace and peace!
I couldn’t agree more, David. Jesus as man had a mother, that’s Mary; but to say that she is the mother of Jesus the eternal God is just wrong. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Be blessed in Jesus’ name!
Bite your tongue, blasphemer!
In your attempt to protect God’s glory, you blaspheme the Cross of Christ.
All your sophistry cannot accommodate Christ crucified, for if Mary be only the mother of the Man Jesus Christ, then only the Man suffered and died.
Where then, is our redemption? Only the infinite God could bear the sins of the whole world.
Andrew, thank you for your passion for sound doctrine and the centrality of Christ’s redemptive work on the Cross.
I fully affirm that Jesus is both fully God and fully man, and that His divine nature was essential for our salvation. Without the Incarnation—God becoming man—there would be no atonement for sin.
That said, I believe it’s entirely possible to uphold this foundational truth while also rejecting the title “Mother of God” as it is commonly understood in some traditions.
As I explained in the post, my concern is not with the divinity of Christ, but with the implications that come with applying the title “Mother of God” to Mary.
Scripture consistently presents Mary as the mother of Jesus in His humanity. God, being eternal, has no origin and therefore no mother. The danger lies not in honoring Mary’s role, but in assigning her a title that could lead to doctrinal confusion or even elevate her beyond what is biblically appropriate.
I also kindly ask that we keep our discourse respectful. Calling a fellow believer a blasphemer for sincerely held convictions—especially when those convictions are aimed at preserving the glory of God—doesn’t reflect the grace and humility we are called to in Christ.
Let’s keep contending for the faith, but always with gentleness and reverence (1 Peter 3:15).
Grace and peace to you,
Admin
Eh Andrew, please provide chapter and verse when Jesus called Mary “Mother” or when Mary and His brothers wanted to pull Him out from the ministry He was doing, while obeying the commands of His Father.
What did Jesus say? Mark 3:32–35 (NASB95)
32 A crowd was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You.”
33 Answering them, He said, “Who are My mother and My brothers?”
34 Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He said, “Behold My mother and My brothers!
35 “For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother.”
God’s word is far important than mere tradition.
Hi,
Good article. If Mary is not the mother of God, we can call her the mother of God the Son. In all your writings I agree but in theology it is right to call her mother of Jesus or mother of the son of God.
I hope you can share your biblical understanding with me on my email.
Thanks!
Hello Kaiririou,
What a difficult name to pronounce, I’m glad I do not have to articulate it, he he! Anyway, thank you so much for taking the time to read the article.
Yes, we can call Mary the mother of Jesus but not the mother of God. One thing we need to understand is that Christ had a dual nature, divine (God) and human. As God, the Son has always existed with the Father and the Spirit, He had no beginning and no end. At the incarnation, God the Son, the second person in the Trinity added to His divine nature a second nature: human.
In order for the Son to become fully human, He needed a human mother and that’s where Mary comes in. Mary became the “God-bearer” (theotokos). Mary is the mother of Jesus who was 100% human.
Maybe this video of Frank Turek explaining the dual nature of Christ will help:
https://youtu.be/jHp4Cp6bp_4
As a human, Jesus had a mother (Mary) but as God He didn’t and didn’t need one. That’s why it’s not biblically and theologically correct to call Mary the mother of God.
Blessings!
Throughout this discussions, no one has mentioned the role of the Father of Jesus. Jesus is God. because He proceeded forth from the Father (Jn 8:42, 13:3, 16:28, 30, 17:8).
Mary, was the bearer of the Messiah who AS MAN came to unite us to the Father by destroying the works of the devil (1 Jn 3:8). He as a covenant representative of all humanity, died on the cross, rose from the dead, and ascended with us to heavenly places (we, being in Christ).
Nowhere in the scriptures do we find anybody mentioning Mary as being the Mother of God. She was handmaiden of the Lord, no more no less,
Luke 1:31–34 (NASB95)
31“And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.
32“He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David;
33and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.”
34Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”
Mary was a vessel of the Lord and her “husband” was not God.
Hi there,
I am a foreigner to the Bible. I know few things about the Lord Jesus Christ. I read your beautifully and logically described article about Mary and I support your conclusion.
My rationale is God is the creator of all human being, so all of us including Mary is HIS creation. But as an incarnation (not sure if I can write this word for Lord Jesus, my sincere apology, if this word is inappropriate to use) Mary carried Him. So she can be termed as bearer of Lord not mother in true sense.
It is the same story with Lord Krishna in Hindu religion, Yasoda carried Him (not His own mother) but she has been referred to as Mother of Lord Krishna.
I believe most people understand the meaning Mother and God bearer.
Again my apology in case if I hurt anyone’s religious belief which I never intended to do so.
Hi Anusuya, I hope you’re doing well.
I know that people from different cultures and religious affiliations have some ideas about who Jesus is and must have heard stories about Him. We must admit, Jesus is a very popular figure because of His teachings and the impact He had on the lives of many people from all walks of life.
I am glad we’re on the same page as to who God is — the Creator of all things, including Mary so she could not be the “Mother of God.” You know what? You’re absolutely right in using the word incarnation; that’s exactly what took place when Jesus took on human flesh. The Christian doctrine of incarnation is about the pre-existent divine Logos (Koine Greek for Word in John 1:1-14), the Son of God and second divine Person in the Trinity, became flesh by assuming a human nature and became a man, that is Jesus Christ. Mary carried Him so the term God-bearer or “theotokos.”
I find it interesting that there is a similar story to this in the Hindu religion. But has Lord Krishna also existed eternally as a divine being and just assumed human form through incarnation?
By the way, there’s no need for you to apologize.
Blessings!
Hi,
I am glad that I came across the website that you have been called to create. I have to admit, I found this post to be thought provoking. Like you I grew up in the Catholic church. Then as a young adult, I spent time in several other churches where I learned to read the bible and to experience God working in my life.
The thing that is kind of weird is that within the last year, I now call a catholic church my home. Now that I know more about the bible, I realize they, or at least my church, is not as far off from the bible’s teachings as what I initially thought.
As I read this post, I found myself very thankful that I have never gotten into a debate with anyone about Mary being the mother of God. In fact, I didn’t realize there were so many people that think that she is.
Sometimes people are so convinced in what they think they know or believe that they have a hard time accepting a different view point.
As we approach the Christmas season, I feel that it is important that we realize how challenging it must have been for Mary to realize that she was pregnant even though she was a young virgin. Yet, God is amazing in the ways that He works. I, for one, am so grateful that he chose a seemingly ordinary girl to give birth to Jesus Christ.
God’s love and compassion is not only for the rich, wealthy, or highly educated. Through His son, Jesus Christ, we can be assured that God knows the trials and tribulations that we face. He also knows that we are not and never will be perfect.
Well, my response has gotten long.
I pray that your week is filled with grace and peace.
Shalom Sondra, thank you so much for reading the article and sharing your thoughts in regards to who Mary is to the Catholic church.
You are absolutely right! There are actually Catholics today who do not hold to all the doctrines held and taught by the Roman Catholic church. And this came as a result of regular Bible reading and study. If every Christian would just read and study their Bible and submit to its final authority as the Word of God, I believe there wouldn’t be any need for discussions like this.
Some say that Christians should not focus on their differences, but rather on their similarities. I agree! But let me ask, “If what your neighbor believes and practices is against the Word of God, would you not let them know?” We can talk about love, caring, compassion, etc, all we want but if we do not tell people the truth, God will hold us accountable in the end.
But there is a right way to do things. We cannot just approach somebody and say, “Hey, you’re wrong about this and that!” We need the wisdom of God to make them realize that calling Mary the mother of God is unbiblical and praying to God through her is wrong.
In the same way that God fulfilled His plan to bring a Savior into the world because Mary willingly accepted God’s calling, we too can be an instrument of God in doing His task. All God needs from us is our willingness and submission.
God bless you and may you have a Merry Christmas!
Being raised a Christian and having heard this prior to reading your article I never gave it very much thought. It is a very debatable phrase for a Christian in that “Mother of God” in my opinion could not refer to Mary mother of Jesus Christ.
And as a Christian I believe in the Trinity which means that Jesus Christ is not God but the son of God and the Holy Spirit being the third of the Trinity. But I do believe this would begin another completely different discussion.
Thank you for these views and I am sure you are going to have many people debating this phrases and its appropriate use.
Susan
Hello Susan, thank you for taking the time to read the article.
If you were to really listen to the reasoning of those who call Mary the “Mother of God” you will find it unthinkable how they have come to that conclusion. But hey, they did not come up with this all on their own. They were raised believing this is the proper way to honor Mary, God’s chosen vessel to bring Jesus Christ into this world. So we have to carefully explain to them from a sound biblical perspective why this is a gross misunderstanding.
As to the Trinity, I can refute what you said about Jesus being the Son of God but not God. But I would rather refer you to an article to explain why a correct understanding of the Bible will lead one to conclude that Jesus being the Son of God makes Him God. Here’s the article, I how you will take the time to read and tell me what you think about it.
https://biblical-christianity.com/arguments-against-the-deity-of-christ
Merry Christmas!
Very interesting article about the “Mother of God” which is actually how I was raised, as I was raised Catholic. I do not currently attend the Catholic Church, however, and have come to realize some problems within the church, like all the Mary statues, which God frowns upon. They do tend to idolize Mary for some reason and even have prayers to her directly. So great article. I’d love to show my Mom, but she would probably be pretty upset. LOL.
Hello Babsie, thank you for your comment. Most of us have been raised in the traditional faith (Catholic) so we know what is being taught. Having been raised in the Catholic faith and attended Catholic schools, I literally practiced and followed every doctrine they teach. And just like you, I came to realize that something was “wrong” because a lot of the things they practice aren’t inline with biblical doctrines.
I understand that there are those who call themselves “devoted Catholics” and these are the people who are rather difficult to reach and share biblical truths to. In the case of your mom, I don’t think it’s a good idea to let her read stuff like this before making her understand beforehand that the Bible is the final authority, not the Catholic church led by the papacy, or any other church for that matter.
If we start the sharing (or discussion) by attacking their church about what they believe and teach about Mary, statues, etc., they will become defensive and won’t listen anymore to whatever we are going to say as they are busy thinking about their defense. But we can show them the truth by continuously sharing with them what the Bible really teaches and most especially by loving them the same way Jesus loves us.
God bless!
Thank you for sharing with us this inspiring post. Yes, Mary is not the mother of God because Mary is human and a human being can’t create God.
I know well that there is only one God who is the creator of humanity and I believe in him.
Mary has fulfilled the will of God by giving birth to Jesus who had been with God in the beginning so that he come to save humanity.
Hello Julienne, thanks for stopping by and I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on this rather controversial topic. The Bible is very clear that God created all things in heaven and on earth, and that includes us. We are created beings and so as Mary so she could not be the mother of God. God exists all on His own; He has existed from eternity past and will continue to exist up to eternity in the future.
I know a lot of Catholics who do not hold to this teaching anymore as a result of diligently doing their part of reading and studying Scriptures. I just hope more people will be enlightened regarding this doctrinal error.
Blessings!