Mary, the Mother of God

Objection: Why do Catholics refer to Mary as the mother of God? God has no mother. He is eternal.

Catholics refer to Mary as "the mother of God" as a consequence of their beliefs concerning the Lord Jesus Christ. Similarly, they recognize that denying Mary to be such (when the title is properly understood, that is) would, if followed to its logical conclusion, lead to denying the essence of the Gospel itself. (While that may seem hyperbolic, it is not, as we shall see. Indeed, it is very important to understand what is ultimately at stake.)

Before attempting to further reply to the objection, however, it is important to clarify what Catholics do not mean by this title. They do not mean that Mary "created God" or is "older than God" or anything of that sort. God in His essence is indeed eternal, while Mary is only a creature. It is true that Catholics recognize that she has been highly exalted by His grace (cf. Lk 1:28, 48), but she is still a mere creature nevertheless. So when they say that Mary is the "mother of God", they do not mean to imply that she is divine. The misunderstanding results from not clearly distinguishing what the actual definition of a "mother" is. Too often when non-Catholics hear the term "Mother of God", they assume it means "creator of God" (which would indeed be absurd). But that's not what the word "mother" means.

What is a mother? The online Collins Dictionary gives a very simple yet accurate description:

Your mother is the woman who gave birth to you. [1]

For quite evident reasons, a mother is usually older than the person to whom she gives birth. This is because such a person does not even begin to exist until the time of his conception. In addition, while the mother may contribute to "creating" (in a secondary sense) the body of her child, she does not create his soul at all, nor his personhood; God alone creates these. Nevertheless, she is still the mother of the person (not just his body), due to the inseperable unity of the person with his soul and body. Your mother, for instance, did not give birth simply to "your body". She gave birth to you, a person. 

But while it is obviously the norm for a mother to be older than the person to whom she gives birth, for the reason stated above, we can see that such is not part of the definition of a mother per se. The only necessary requirement to be a mother is that a woman gives birth to a certain person.  But suppose the Person was eternal, yet united to Himself a human nature at the moment of his conception (instead of such a person being created at that time as the rest of us are ). In that case the Person would pre-exist, and hence be "older" than, His own mother, unique as that situation may be. Being divine, He would obviously be her Creator, not the other way around. Yet she would nevertheless still be His mother when she gave birth to Him. Therefore, coming back around, we must ask ourselves the question: at the Incarnation (an event certainly unique in all of human history) who was the Person conceived by Mary and to whom she subsequently gave birth? 

According to historic Christianity (Protestant as well as Catholic and Orthodox), this Person was the "Word" of God (the Second Person of the Trinity), who has existed from all eternity, but who at the Incarnation united to His divine nature a created human nature, in one divine Person, and therefore was capable of being born of a woman. We see this teaching taught in Scripture.

Thus, we read in the Gospel of John (1:1, 14a):

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [...] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.

Again, we read in Galatians (4:4):

But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law [.]

In other words, this Person to whom Mary gave birth was the eternal "Word", the "Son" of God.  The person of the Word has existed from all eternity, but at the Incarnation, the Word was incarnate in the womb of Mary, uniting to His divine Person a created human nature. As such, things may truly be said of this divine Person that otherwise could not be said had He not been "made flesh".  

For instance, the divine Nature (being all-perfect) is incapable of suffering. Yet the Apostle Paul tells us that the rulers of this world crucified "the Lord of Glory" (1 Cor 2:8). Clearly the "Lord of Glory" cannot be crucified in His divine nature. But this divine Person can be crucified in the human nature which He has united to Himself. 

That, in fact, explains why the Second Person of the Trinity became incarnate in the first place. Since our sins offend the infinite justice of God, they could only be atoned for by an infinite sacrifice. That is why the "blood of bulls and goats" (Heb 10:4) under the old covenant could never take away sins. They would never be able to wipe away an infinite debt, no matter how often they were multiplied.  Indeed, no mere creature (or any number of creatures collectively) could ever atone for the eternal consequences of our sins. No matter how exalted the creatures or how often their sacrifices were multiplied, they would still always be finite sacrifices (both in quality and quantity), and therefore fall infinitely short of what was necessary.

Only the infinite God offering Himself in sacrifice would be able to satisfy the demands of justice. 

But this poses a difficulty. For the divine nature cannot suffer, as we noted above. How, then, could a divine Person offer himself as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind? Only by uniting to Himself a created human nature capable of suffering. And so the eternal Word, the Second Person of the Trinity, united to His person a human nature, coming to us in history as Jesus Christ.

But in order for any sacrifice to be infinite, the union had to be so complete, that what was said of the human nature could be said of a divine Person. If it was merely the Second Person of the Trinity "dwelling" in someone who was nevertheless still only a human person, a "holy" equivalent of a demonic possession, so to speak, (as distinct from this divine Person truly *uniting* to His own person a human nature as His own, so that He really became man Himself), then we are back to square one. After all, then the sacrifice of such a person would not really be that of a divine Person at all, but only that of a finite human person (whom the divine Word merely happened to be dwelling in). All of the problems mentioned above would resurface, since a finite person cannot atone for our sins.

No, the union must truly be that of the divine nature and the human nature completely united in one divine Person, the Second Person of the Trinity.  In that way, whatever was said of this assumed human nature would be said of God. 

And so it was. For instance, when Christ thirsted, it would truly be said that God thirsted, because the Person who thirsted was divine, though He only thirsted in His human nature (not His divine nature.) So, too, when Christ was hungry, it would truly be said that God was hungry. If Christ was tired, then God was tired. In all these instances, it should again be emphasized that the "Word" did not experience any of these things in his divine nature. (Neither did the Father nor the Holy Spirit experience them at all; only the Person of the Word became incarnate.) But He, a divine Person, did experience these things nevertheless in His human nature that He had united to himself, and therefore God experienced these things.

And so when Christ was crucified, then it would truly be said that God ("the Lord of Glory") was cruficied, thus providing the infinite sacrifice needed for our atonement. The sacrifice was accomplished in His human nature, which was able to suffer. But the Person who experienced such sufferings was divine, and therefore gave to the sacrifice its infinite value. God (the Second Person of the Trinity) truly did die according to His human (though not divine) nature.

But such principles as outlined above have consequences. If, in fact, a divine Person can experience death in a human nature that He has united to himself in order to redeem us (and so the "Lord of glory" could be crucified as the Apostle Paul maintained), then He also can experience birth in the same way. We can truly say that "God was born" of a woman, that is, in His human nature.  And thus, the woman who gave birth to Him would properly be called "the mother of God". She gave birth to a divine person who united to Himself a human nature. (Again, she did not "create", but she did give birth to, this divine person who has eternally existed). If a mother is one who gives birth to a person, and the Person that Mary gave birth to (according to the flesh) is the divine Word, then it follows Mary is the "mother of God". 

Indeed, all of what was said above could have been stated much more briefly in a simple syllogism:

1) Mary is the mother of Jesus
2) Jesus is God
3) Mary, therefore, is the mother of God.

Hence, Elizabeth referred to Mary as the "mother of my Lord" (cf. Lk 1:43). Her Lord was a person, the eternal Word, who Mary was the mother of according to the flesh He had united to Himself. 

However, without giving the background information above, such a syllogism would have been open to misunderstandings, since many would have misunderstood what was meant by being a "mother" in the phrase "mother of God". They would have thought it meant the absurdity that Mary created the divine nature.

Moreover, it is absolutely crucial that Christians understand the underlying principles that justify referring to Mary as the mother of God in the first place; that is of supreme importance. After all, Mary was not given the title "mother of God" by historic Christianity simply for her own sake. It was a consequence of maintaining an orthodox Christology.

For the same reason, to deny that Mary is the mother of God also means one has fallen into a heretical Christology. Generally, it is to fall into the ancient heresy of Nestorianism [2], which in turn would logically result in the errors described above, i.e., denying that an infinite atonement has been made for our sins. We would, instead, still be in our sins and eternally damned when we died. That is why I stated up above that to deny her this title (when it is properly understood, I emphasize) is to deny the essence of the Gospel itself.

In other words, the most important reason why Mary is acknowleded as mother of God is as a hedge protecting the reality of the Incarnation, that God truly was "made flesh" in order to save us (Jn 1:14) . Christ truly is Emmanuel, "God with us" (Mt 1:23).

NOTES

____________

[1] https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/mother

(Obviously, the term can also be used in other senses. For example, it can refer to a woman who has conceived, even if she has not yet given birth to her child; cf. Lk 1:43. However, for this discussion the above definition is sufficient.)

[2] To read about Nestorianism, see the Catholic Encyclopedia's article found here.