I must have missed something…

Sorry, guess it slipped my mind. You see, I was basically just told by a Protestant that my mother did not give birth to me, Michael, but rather gave birth to my nature. Kinda shocking, really. I mean, we always hear statements like, “Oh, little Jimmy was born two weeks ago! He’s so cute!” and no one bats an eye. Anyone who makes such a claim is under the impression that when a mother gives birth to a child, she gives birth, whole and entire, to the person of the child.That’s not to say she’s responsible for everything which is the child’s, like his soul, but still, she gives birth to the person, right?

https://i2.wp.com/sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/525909_3318906286105_1071690025_3148821_424200063_n.jpg
This jolly chap here is my nephew, Apollo. My sister is the mother of the person–Apollo–and not the mother of his nature only.

 

Aaaaand then we meet the people (Protestants) who say that mothers give birth to natures only. They never say it this way, or indeed  they never say it regarding the whole of humanity, but they say it about one person, and if it applies to this single person, it can apply to all. This person is Jesus Christ, the most important person ever.

The central claim of (most of) Christianity is that God took to Himself a human nature like ours, being born of a woman and everything. Essentially, anything about us that makes us human applied to Him.

Fair enough. But this is where Protestants have trouble: Catholics and Orthodox say that since Jesus is God Incarnate and Mary is His mother, she can rightly be called the “mother of God”.

“But!” Protestants object. “If Mary is God’s mother, doesn’t that mean she had to exist before God? And wouldn’t that make her equal with God, or even *gasp* GREATER THAN GOD? Therefore, she can only be the mother of His human nature.”

A few points: although, in our way of thinking, mothers must pre-exist their children, that is not actually true. Mothers need only exist before their children are conceived, and that is the case with Jesus. And Mary being the mother of God, the second Person of the Trinity, does not mean that she is somehow responsible for His receiving the Divine Nature. He had it from eternity from the Father, without any humanity. Then, at a specific point in time, He assumed a human nature. Since the person born is God the Son, and no one would dare say anyone else is a child by nature only (precisely because no one else is), Mary is, we can rightly say, the mother of God the Son.

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “I must have missed something…”

  1. Interesting, dear Mike. That’s a good way to explain it, that Mary was the mother only of the Son’s human nature. I’ve subscribed to your blog, looking forward to more posts!

    -Tatiana E. Federoff

    Like

  2. Wait, I think you may have missed the point of this entire post. I was specifically trying to say that those who claim she is the mother of the human nature only are in error. She’s the mother of the person, and that person is God.

    Like

      1. Yes. He’s God regardless of whether she’s in the picture, but she can’t be the mother of a nature only. The person is God, and therefore she, being the mother of the person, is the mother of God.

        If you’re still confused, read the Chalcedonian Creed:

        We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

        Like

  3. Mike, you wrote: “Mothers need only exist before their children are born, and that is the case with Jesus.” I would argue that a mother must exist before her child is conceived, not just born. Or did I misunderstand something?

    Like

  4. I’m sorry I hadn’t begun to read your blog any sooner, li’l bro! This is the first post I’ve read and it’s quite intriguing reading the thoughts of my baby brother. I’m almost inspired to begin blogging again myself…
    -JM

    Like

  5. Yes, but it’s been so long I can’t even remember my login info to get back to it lol. However, today marks the birth of a brand new blog: mrstozahj.blogspot.com. I aspire to do great things there. So far I have posted nothing…

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s