Jean Cauvin
The Theotokos is a subject of much debate between Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox. One of the people who commented on an earlier post asked me to speak to the Orthodox view of the Theotokos. That person commented that this was one of the areas of conflict/questions between Protestants and the rest of Christianity. So, I think I will speak about the Theotokos.
One would think that it would be natural to start from Scriptures. Barring that, one would think that I would speak of the Orthodox view of the Blessed Virgin Mary. But, that is not where I would like to begin. You see, the person who asked me to comment assumed that there is one Protestant view. But, there is NOT one Protestant view. There are TWO (well, OK, maybe more) Protestant views on the Blessed Virgin Mary, the view of the Reformers and the view of the Anabaptists. Most Protestants in the USA actually hold an Anabaptist view of the Theotokos and assume that this is THE Protestant view. But, it is not.
Let’s take Jean Cauvin, whom we know as John Calvin, and the Calvinists, as an example of the difference between the views supported by the Reformers and the views that many American Protestants “assume” are THE views that are inevitably both Protestant and Scriptural.
Jean Cauvin supports Mary’s perpetual virginity in the Genevan catechism — Is not this the carpenter’s son? It was, we are aware, by the wonderful purpose of God, that Christ remained in private life till he was thirty years of age. Most improperly and unjustly, therefore, were the inhabitants of Nazareth offended on this account; for they ought rather to have received him with reverence, as one who had suddenly come down from heaven. They see God working in Christ, and intentionally turn away their eyes from this sight, to behold Joseph, and Mary, and all his relatives; thus interposing a veil to shut out the clearest light. The word brothers, we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relatives whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned.
Jean Cauvin support calling Mary the God-bearer, or Theotokos. In his commentary on Luke 1:43 he says — [Elizabeth] calls Mary the mother of her Lord. This denotes a unity of person in the two natures of Christ; as if she had said, that he who was begotten a mortal man in the womb of Mary is, at the same time, the eternal God…. This name Lord strictly belongs to the Son of God ‘manifested in the flesh,’ (1 Timothy 3:16,) who has received from the Father all power, and has been appointed the highest ruler of heaven and earth, that by his agency God may govern all things.”
You may be surprised that the Second Helvetic Confession, a very Calvinist confession, states that Mary is ever-virgin:
CHRIST IS TRUE MAN, HAVING REAL FLESH. We also believe and teach that the eternal Son of the eternal God was made the Son of man, from the seed of Abraham and David, not from the coitus of a man, as the Ebionites said, but was most chastely conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the ever virgin Mary, as the evangelical history carefully explains to us (Matt., ch. 1).
So, I have a question. What IS the Protestant view on the Theotokos? Have you been assuming that Anabaptists views are the standard Protestant view? When you have “problems” with the Catholic and Orthodox views of Mary, uhm, are you also having problems with the views of the Reformers themselves? In other words, in order for me to fairly discuss this subject, I need to be sure that you understand that America has some rather peculiar ideas of what the “Protestant” view is. For those of you who may be eager to post, ask yourselves, do you really know what Protestants have said in past centuries? And, are you willing to acknowledge that there is a sharp split on Mary within the Protestant ranks worldwide since the Reformation?
You see, only if you are willing to be honest, can I then honestly discuss the Scriptures and the history of the Church (on Mary) with you. Because, unless you are willing to be honest about Protestant history then I have no faith that you will be willing to be honest about the Scriptures and Church history.
Fr. Ernesto,
(Please note my use of your title, despite my baptistic subculture)
I admit my own lack in knowlege of church history, and history in general. It is good to see you point out these things. Calvinism as it currently exists is a strange thing because of the evolution of the camp. The 16th century Calvinists differ from the 17th century ones, and it is so with today’s stripes. I just love the 5 point Baptists that can trace the opposition of rock music back to the apostles and the opposition to Christmas trees back to Isaiah.
The original Westminster Confession tagged the pope as the Anti-Christ, but we Protestants now know it’s really Obama!
Now, quite honestly, most of what I hear about the Reformers comes not from them, but from people who read their own historians’ take.
Theotokos was a new term for me and aroused some unresolved theological concerns from my youth. I think that like me, so the rest of the protestant christian people will not venture into the assessment the term Theotokos or “Bearer of God” in other words “Mother of God” in our treatment of Mary, or in our daily Protestant Christology. I do not think any church they have attended gives Mary the descriptive title “Mother of God” in their services or liturgies. The very thought raises a Roman Catholic rash in our protestant sensitive skin. Yet if we are asked our biblical and theological reason, many of us will be defeated by the orthodox position that developed in the times of the Fathers of the Church and then became general in the church until our days. Why Protestants don’t freely bestow the title “Mother of God” to Mary if we believe strongly that Jesus is God?
According to Alister E. McGrath in Historical Theology a great effort was made by the Alexandrian and Antiochene Christological Schools during the first centuries of Christianity to reach a resolution regarding the concept of Theotokos. The following argument was made by the Alexandrian Christological School:
• Jesus Christ is God;
• Mary gave birth to Jesus;
• Therefore Mary is the Mother of God
According to McGrath the Patriarchal Church came to understand that accepting this argument was sufficient to determine between an orthodox and a heretic. The opposite view was the Nestorian view, which refused the use of this term and suggested others regarding this matter; these are anthropotokos (“Bearer of humanity”) or christotkos (“Bearer of Christ”). I think if you asked most of Protestant Christians undoubtedly would feel completely comfortable with using these Nestorian terms for Mary. Does this mean that the modern Protestant Christian Church is Nestorian in principle? It would have no greater consequence to answer this question in the affirmative if the Father of the Church in general, did not rejected the Nestorian positions as heretical.
I think it is necessary to meditate on the subject of how to reconcile the patristic concept of Theotokos with what the modern Protestant Church everyday practices in its worship and theology. I do not know how much time the protestant academy has devoted to the treatment of the issue of Theotokos in Christology, but it is my opinion that is generally a matter is unresolved at the congregational level. For me, the concept of Theotokos, with respect to Mary, brings Protestant uncontably close to “idolatry”, this was not the intention or views of the Fathers of the Church when they used the term. Our negative reaction to using this term, I think comes from our roots in the Roman Catholic Church, at least in the Latino background Protestants. If we meditate a little, we find that we can accept the patristic argument in principle, but we can not sustain biblically the consequence that this concept can ultimately lead, that is the deification of Mary. It is my view that the Theotokos is a term that for a Protestant points to the reality and totality of Christ’s human nature, who is fully human and divine. I think Theotokos has no impact on the nature or essence of Mary, as a human, but exalts her as a chosen vehicle, as the servant of God, for the purpose of the incarnation.
I can concluded, that Mary is the Mother of God, for she was the vehicle chosen by God to give birth to Jesus, and Jesus is God, in an unidirectional relationship. This relationship points to the reality and completeness of the humanity of Jesus. In other words, the fullness of the humanity of Jesus is the main object of calling Mary Theotokos. The relationship between human and divine natures of Jesus is another doctrine or concept in which the concept of the Theotokos should have little or nothing to contribute.
Okay I’m still on the wall with the idea of calling Mary the “Mother of God.” I understand that Jesus is God. I understand that Mary is the Mother of Jesus. So I understand why some would then argue that Mary is God’s Mother. I also understand God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit which is one in the same. Mary may have been the Mother of God’s son or “God the Son” but I do not believe She was the Mother of God the Father who was the personage of God in the Old Testament before Mary was even born. I also don’t believe she was the Mother of the Holy Spirit which was poured on the Apostles and many others. Since the Bible says all things were made threw Jesus which includes Mary that would make Jesus Mary’s Heavenly Father or at least thats how I would say it. This subject is very confusing for me so I try not to take a definate stance on this isue untill I feel that I have completely researched as many theological opinions as there are on this subject. Perhaps that last bit is me chickening out of a debate however I look foward to hearing other peoples feedback God Bless!
The question that had to be answered by the Church Fathers is what was in Mary’s womb. But, it was an outgrowth of the question of who is Jesus. Once it became clear that Jesus has one person but two natures, it was not hard to say:
“Mary the Virgin, the Godbearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us.”
Notice that the Eastern Church calls her the Theotokos, the God-bearer. Nevertheless, various of our hymns say of her, “. . . and the mother of our God.” The reason has to do with what is in her womb and whether she was really the mother of the person of Jesus. If she was the mother of the person of Jesus, then inevitably she was the mother of our God, because we must not so speak of the natures in Jesus in such a way that they are either confused or changed or divided or separated.
Let me put is another way, which is not great but will suffice. When a baby is conceived, it receives half of its genes from each parent. But we do not say of the baby that the mother is only the mother of half of the baby, even though it only receives half of its genes from her. Rather we say that she is the mother of the whole baby. If that baby grows up to be President, we say that she is the mother of the President, not of the pre-President human nature. This is a very bad example, but may be sufficient to explain.
Greetings,
I’m not trying to be a gravedigger by pulling up an old discussion, but, in all truth, this discussion has long existed before the poster presented it here, and will continue to be discussed long after we all depart.
That being said, I plead your grace in responding to a post over a year old.
I have recently begun attending an Eastern Orthodox church, with due diligence, studying Eastern Orthodox theology, and participating in discourse to better understand what the particular church believes and why.
The personal, internal issues I’m experiencing with the theology of Theotokos is, as thinker expressed, I find it incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to accept the wording of Mary as the mother of God. It is clear to me Mary gave birth to Jesus (I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only son, our Lord, who was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary); however, Mary, as far as I can tell, did not precede Christ, as, obviously, Christ is God and, thus, existed from eternity. Mary, on the other hand, did not exist from eternity and, therefore, did not give birth, or bring into existence, God.
Mary was the conduit of the incarnation, but not of God. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us because the eternal, preexistent God, was born into flesh through the person, Mary.
I think if this is all the Eastern Orthodox church is affirming in Theotokos, then I have no issue at all. If, however, the churches believe and teach that Mary brought God into existence through the process of pregnancy, and the act of labor, thus predating God in existence and, in reality, having authority above, beyond, before, after, or on par with God’s, then I cannot accept it.
Mothers, by nature, predate in existence the children to whom they give birth.
Mary did not predate God in existence.
Therefore she is not the mother of God.
A very limited syllogism perhaps, but, nevertheless, the way I understand the matter.
Mary gave birth to Jesus who is the Word made flesh. She was the vessel used for the incarnation of God who was before her from eternity.
I definitely side with the Nicene Creed on this matter:
“We believe in one God…and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.”
Jesus was begotten of the Father, not Mary. Mary did not give birth to the Trinity, to whom we refer when using the word “God” (theos).
The Word didn’t become through Mary; rather, “The Word became flesh…” through Mary.
I think, having a devout Roman Catholic brother, and many Western and Eastern rite friends, that the language confuses many people. It is the language I have a problem with, and the language I am trying so diligently to understand. The way Mary has been described to me in the past is that she is, in essence, God the Father’s wife, acting still, in Heaven, as Jesus’ mom.
My brother once verbalized the position by saying:
If your father is angry (referring to God the Father), who do you go to to get to speak with him to calm him down? You would go to your mother, right? Well, that is what we do with Mary. When God is angry or upset with us, we go to our mother (Mary) to ask her to speak with our father (God) on our behalf.”
This suggested to me that Mary is in some mother of Jesus, wife of the Father role in Heaven and carried some scary cultish, Mormon-esque connotations to me. It seemed to ascribe a gender to God, as if God were anatomically male, or characteristically more masculine than feminine in nature (whereas the Scriptures ascribe both traditionally masculine and feminine characteristics to God (psalm 131:2, Isaiah 66:13).
Anyway, help me to better understand what the language of Theotokos is meant to convey. Is it meant to be understood as Mary being the avenue by which the Word became flesh? Is Theotokos meant to be understood as God coming into being through Mary? Is Theotokos meant to give Mary an eternal Mother of the Everlasting God role, as well as wife of the Father in Heaven?
To what extent do Eastern and Western rite churches recognize the Trinity as the eternal Family with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in perfect unity (the Spirit acting as the “feminine role” in our human understanding), preceding from eternity the human person Mary?
I’m eager to understand more, as the Eastern Orthodox church is greatly appealing to me for so many reasons. I’m struggling though, because if Theotokos is a foundational doctrine of the church, and accepting Theotokos as the bearer of God rather than Theotokos as the avenue of incarnation is essential, I cannot become Orthodox.
Thanks for any attention you are able or willing to give to my comments and questions.
Peace be with you,
Cliff
Let me quote the Definition of Chalcedon with respect to Jesus Christ since this is the official position of Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.
Following, then, the holy fathers, we unite in teaching all men to confess the one and only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. This selfsame one is perfect both in deity and in humanness; this selfsame one is also actually God and actually man, with a rational soul {meaning human soul} and a body. He is of the same reality as God as far as his deity is concerned and of the same reality as we ourselves as far as his humanness is concerned; thus like us in all respects, sin only excepted. Before time began he was begotten of the Father, in respect of his deity, and now in these “last days,” for us and behalf of our salvation, this selfsame one was born of Mary the virgin, who is God-bearer in respect of his humanness.
We also teach that we apprehend this one and only Christ-Son, Lord, only-begotten — in two natures; and we do this without confusing the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other, without dividing them into two separate categories, without con- trasting them according to area or function. The distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the union. Instead, the “properties” of each nature are conserved and both natures concur in one “person” and in one reality {hypostasis}. They are not divided or cut into two persons, but are together the one and only and only-begotten Word {Logos} of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus have the prophets of old testified; thus the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us; thus the Symbol of Fathers {the Nicene Creed} has handed down to us.
Hi, Fr. Ernesto,
I understand the two natures (Miaphysitism) of Christ. The reality of the situation is that Christ existed before — within our understanding of time as definable linearly (was, is, and is to come, for example) — before He became flesh and dwelt among us.
I don’t see how your response answers my questions or comments at all.
How do we define God?
Are Christians, the word God (theos in the Greek) relates to the Holy Trinity.
Do the Orthodox churches teach that Mary gave birth to the Trinity? That she is the mother of the Trinity, or that she is the vessel of incarnation?
Do the Orthodox churches put forth that Christ did not exist until He was incarnated?
Do the churches teach that Mary preceded Christ in existence, as human mothers precede their human children in existence?
Does the Orthodox church teach that Mary is greater in authority than Christ as human mothers are greater in authority than their human children?
I’m asking these questions again, striving to understand. Please refer to my last post as well.
Thank you. I am trying to get in touch with a local priest as well, to offer these same questions and considerations.
Peace be with you,
Cliff
Cliff, did you get a chance to follow up with a local priest?
Hi Matt,
Yes. As a matter of fact, I have been attending every Sunday an Orthodox church for the last several months.
My understanding has expanded. I’m in a good place.
Thanks for checking in.
Peace be with you,
Cliff
“as” Christians; not “Are” Christians (5th line down).