In April 428, a man named Nestorius became Archbishop of Constantinople, a position which was, and is, one of great honor and influence within the Church. During his tenure, he took issue with, and began to preach against, use of the title Theotokos (Θεοτόκος: "God bearer") for Mary, claiming that the divine and human natures of Christ were separate, and so Christotokos (Χριστοτόκος: "Christ bearer") was a more appropriate term.
Other Church leaders, including Cyril, the Archbishop of Alexandria, rejected the teaching that Christ's natures were separate, and convened a Church council in Ephesus in 431 to define, once and for all, the proper understanding of this vital aspect of the Incarnation. They determined that while Christ did, in fact, have two natures, they existed together in hypostasis (ὑπόστᾰσις). Therefore, they reasoned, while Mary was certainly the mother of Christ, to call her simply Christotokos leaves too much room for error with regard to our understanding of Christ's Incarnation. Ultimately, the Church condemned Nestorius as a heretic and declared that Mary is, and shall be, properly referred to as Theotokos.
So, why didn't the Church just define Mary as Mήτηρ τοῦ Θεοῦ (Mother of God)? Because one can mother a child without necessarily bearing him. "Theotokos" actually refers to physical childbirth, while "Mother of God" implies nurturing and rearing. Mary certainly did raise and nurture Christ, but one can to that to an adopted child as well. To say Mary bore Christ leaves no room for doubt that Mary, a virgin, did in fact give birth to a child as prophesied, and that that child was, in fact, God.
Theotokos is a title that the Church has used for more than 1500 years, and that is, in fact, entirely consistent with Scripture (see Lk 1.43), and yet I never once heard it while I was a Protestant. Is there something objectionable about this title? The Church is very clear that it is not intended to imply that Mary is greater than, or equal to, God, or that she is the mother of the Christ's deity or of the Holy Trinity. The title Theotokos is not meant to elevate Mary, but to safeguard a proper understanding of the Incarnation. As Matthew Gallatin writes, "when you face the fact that Mary is Jesus' mother, you realize that what you call her must be entirely consistent with who you believe Jesus to be" (Thirsting for God, p.160).
If the Church felt, and has taught for more than fifteen centuries, that calling Mary Theotokos was necessary in order to affirm the doctrine of the Incarnation, what reason could I have to ignore or reject it? And could I do so and truly hope to affirm the Incarnation myself?
The Mother of God
Other Church leaders, including Cyril, the Archbishop of Alexandria, rejected the teaching that Christ's natures were separate, and convened a Church council in Ephesus in 431 to define, once and for all, the proper understanding of this vital aspect of the Incarnation. They determined that while Christ did, in fact, have two natures, they existed together in hypostasis (ὑπόστᾰσις). Therefore, they reasoned, while Mary was certainly the mother of Christ, to call her simply Christotokos leaves too much room for error with regard to our understanding of Christ's Incarnation. Ultimately, the Church condemned Nestorius as a heretic and declared that Mary is, and shall be, properly referred to as Theotokos.
So, why didn't the Church just define Mary as Mήτηρ τοῦ Θεοῦ (Mother of God)? Because one can mother a child without necessarily bearing him. "Theotokos" actually refers to physical childbirth, while "Mother of God" implies nurturing and rearing. Mary certainly did raise and nurture Christ, but one can to that to an adopted child as well. To say Mary bore Christ leaves no room for doubt that Mary, a virgin, did in fact give birth to a child as prophesied, and that that child was, in fact, God.
Theotokos is a title that the Church has used for more than 1500 years, and that is, in fact, entirely consistent with Scripture (see Lk 1.43), and yet I never once heard it while I was a Protestant. Is there something objectionable about this title? The Church is very clear that it is not intended to imply that Mary is greater than, or equal to, God, or that she is the mother of the Christ's deity or of the Holy Trinity. The title Theotokos is not meant to elevate Mary, but to safeguard a proper understanding of the Incarnation. As Matthew Gallatin writes, "when you face the fact that Mary is Jesus' mother, you realize that what you call her must be entirely consistent with who you believe Jesus to be" (Thirsting for God, p.160).
If the Church felt, and has taught for more than fifteen centuries, that calling Mary Theotokos was necessary in order to affirm the doctrine of the Incarnation, what reason could I have to ignore or reject it? And could I do so and truly hope to affirm the Incarnation myself?
The Mother of God
No comments:
Post a Comment