Why Christians Call Mary the Mother of God.

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Moonwood

Member
Aug 24, 2026
460
60
28
Washington
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, says to Mary:

"And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)


In Luke's Gospel, "Lord" is a divine title:

• Luke 1:17 - "the Lord their God"
• Luke 1:76 - "go before the Lord"
• Luke 2:11 - "Christ the Lord"

Later, the Apostle Thomas says directly to Jesus:

"My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28)

Elizabeth calls Mary "the mother of my Lord."
Thomas calls Jesus "My Lord and my God."

Thomas makes explicit what Elizabeth had already recognized: the child Mary carried is God the Son incarnate.

That is why Christians call Mary the Mother of God.

The title does not mean Mary created God, existed before God, or is greater than God.

It means the one She bore is truly God in the flesh.

Ultimately, "Mother of God" is not primarily a statement about Mary. It is a confession about who Jesus is.
 

Moonwood

Member
Aug 24, 2026
460
60
28
Washington
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Female
The Word Who Was God Became Flesh
John begins his Gospel with a remarkable declaration:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)

A few verses later, he tells us who this Word is:

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." (John 1:14)

The Word is not merely a messenger from God.

The Word is God.

And the Word became flesh.

That flesh was not an illusion. The eternal Son truly entered human history, taking a real human nature from a real human mother.

Scripture never says Mary gave birth to a human person separate from the divine Son. The one born of Mary is the same Person John identifies as the Word who was God and who became flesh.

This is why Christians call Mary the Mother of God.

Not because She originated God's divine nature.
Not because She existed before God.
But because the child She conceived, carried, and gave birth to is the eternal Word made flesh.

If the Word was God, and the Word became flesh, then the child born of Mary is none other than God the Son incarnate.

The title "Mother of God" follows from the truth of John 1:1 and John 1:14. It is ultimately a confession about the identity of Jesus Christ.
 

Moonwood

Member
Aug 24, 2026
460
60
28
Washington
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Where in the Word of God is Mary ever referred to as the mother of God? In fact where do we ever read that God has a mother? God is SPIRIT, and it is Spirit that gave the Son of God, Jesus, natural mortal human life. The question you're trying to make this about is why we worship Christ Jesus our Lord. The question is about Mary, and why some denominations are compelled to pray to and worship HER! It is not about the FACT that Jesus the Son of God is both fully man and God in the flesh.

That's not really responding to the argument I made.

Your original claim was:

"Mary is the natural mother of Jesus, the man!"

But Jesus is not a human person separate from the divine Son.

Scripture does not present us with two sons, one human and one divine.

The one born of Mary is the eternal Son made flesh.

That is why Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, calls Mary:

"the mother of my Lord" (Luke 1:43).

And that is why Thomas says to Jesus:

"My Lord and my God" (John 20:28).

My argument is not that the Bible contains the exact English phrase "Mother of God."

My argument is that Scripture teaches:
  1. Jesus is truly God.
  2. Mary is the mother of Jesus.
  3. Therefore, Mary is the mother of the Person who is God the Son incarnate.
The title "Mother of God" follows from those biblical truths.

You keep saying, "God has no mother."

If by that you mean that the divine nature is eternal and uncreated, I completely agree.

But no Christian who uses the title "Mother of God" is claiming Mary is the source of God's divinity.

The question is simpler:

Who was Mary the mother of?

If your answer is "Jesus," and if Jesus is God incarnate, then how can Mary be only "the mother of Jesus the man" without dividing Christ into two persons?

The issue is not whether Jesus is God. We both agree on that.

The issue is whether the One born of Mary is a merely human person, or the divine Son Himself in the flesh.
 

rwb

Well-Known Member
Nov 11, 2022
6,449
2,642
113
75
Branson
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Moises Pinedo
Doctrinal MattersCatholicismWorship
Catholics have recited the “Hail Mary” prayer for many years. It includes the words, “Holy Mary, Mother of God.” These words represent one of the most treasured doctrines of Catholicism. In A.D. 431, the Council of Ephesus proclaimed Mary “to be the mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her” (“Formula of Union…” n.d.). One of the arguments used extensively to support this doctrine is presented as follows: (1) Mary was the mother of Jesus; (2) Jesus is God; (3) therefore, Mary is the “Mother of God.” This syllogism may seem logical, but the conclusion is superficial. Consider the following.

First, although the Bible documents that Mary became the mother of Jesus and clearly teaches that Jesus is God, it never states, or even implies, that Mary was (or is) the “Mother of God.” For a theological syllogism to explain correctly the relationship between Mary and God, it must be based on biblical truth. We can propose correctly that (1) Jesus is God (Hebrews 1:8); (2) God became flesh (John 1:1,14); (3) therefore, Mary is the mother of Jesus according to the flesh (Romans 9:5), i.e., Jesus’ physical body.

Second, we should keep in mind that Deity is not constituted by a literal family—with fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters—like some of the gods of Greek and Roman mythology. Although we refer to the first and second Persons of the Godhead as the Father and the Son, these titles do not denote a literal familial bond, but emphasize Their united and divine nature. To refer to Mary as the “Mother of God” is to misunderstand the nature of Deity and misapply Scripture.

Third, consider the consequences which develop from such an inappropriate use of the syllogism aforementioned. Since the Bible records that Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18), Catholics conclude that it is correct to refer to Mary as “the daughter of God the Father, Mother of Jesus Christ, and true spouse of the Holy Spirit” (Peffley, n.d., p. 3). If the Holy Spirit is Mary’s “husband” (and, therefore, Jesus’ “father”), and Jesus is God, would not the Holy Spirit be the “father” of God? This is not only a completely erroneous application of Scripture, but also blasphemous theology. Now let us consider some additional evidence from the Bible that further explains Mary’s relationship to God.

God does not have a physical mother.​

Speaking to the Son, the Father declared, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever” (Hebrews 1:8, emp. added). In God’s revelation to the apostle John, the resurrected Christ said, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,…who is and who was and who is to come” (Revelation 1:8, emp. added). The Son did not have a beginning; He is the Beginning. “He was in the beginning with God” (John 1:1-2). Paul pointed out, “He is before all things, and in Him all things consist” (Colossians 1:17, emp. added).

The Son’s existence did not begin with His conception in Mary’s womb. He was alive in eternity (cf. Micah 5:2), and, at the right time in history, He became flesh (John 1:1,14). Paul put it this way: “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law” (Galatians 4:4). On the other hand, Mary came into a time-bound world long after the creation of the Universe. She, like all human beings, was not eternal. She was not divine, not “from everlasting to everlasting” (Micah 5:2). She could not have provided an eternal nature to her Son. He is Deity. He is the “eternally blessed God” (Romans 9:5).

Consider how Jesus explained His divine nature. When addressing the Pharisees, He asked them: “‘What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?’ They said to Him, ‘The son of David.’ He said to them, ‘How then does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord’…. If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his Son?’” (Matthew 22:42-45, emp. added). The Pharisees failed to answer the question correctly because they were thinking about the physical nature of the Messiah. While Christ was a physical descendant of David (cf. Luke 1:32; Matthew 1:1), according to His divine nature He did not have a physical father, since He Himself is before all (John 8:58). In the same way that David could not be the father of the divine Messiah since he called Him “Lord,” Mary cannot be the “Mother of God” since she calls Him “Lord” in Luke 1:38,46-47. The truth is, as Paul explains, “according to the flesh, Christ came” through the patriarchs, David, and, yes, Mary, but according to His deity, He is the “eternally blessed God” who is over all (Romans 9:5, emp. added).

Mary never was considered the “Mother of God.”​

There is not a single verse in the Bible that describes Mary as the “Mother of God.” In fact, none of the inspired writers of either the Old or New Testament gave even a hint that she should be regarded as such. This idea is based purely on human tradition. Mary considered herself as a “maidservant of the Lord” (Luke 1:38, emp. added) and considered God as her “Savior” (Luke 1:47). Sadly, many have distorted this concept.

When speaking about the blessing of being chosen by God to be the mother of the Messiah, Mary declared: “For He [God] has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant” (Luke 1:48, emp. added). Certainly the words “lowly state” would be inappropriate to refer to Mary if she is the “Mother of God.” W.E. Vine has noted that the Greek word for “lowly state” is tapeinosis, which denotes “abasement, humiliation, or low estate” (1966, 3:23). Mary was conscious of the humble state of her human condition.

Additionally, the New Testament makes it very clear Who became flesh. It was God Who took on the form of a man (John 1:14) and was born of a woman (Galatians 4:4). The woman did not become “divine” in order to conceive the Son of God. The Bible mentions Mary as the mother of Jesus, but never as the “Mother of God” (cf. Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; Acts 1:14; et al.).

Mary never was worshipped as the “Mother of God.”​

Catholics worship Mary, claiming that she has “divine maternity” (“Dogmatic Constitution…,” 1964, 8.3). But if Mary is to be worshipped as the “Mother of God,” we should expect to find a biblical command to do so, or a biblical example of approved action. However, such commands and examples are nowhere to be found. From the first moment Mary appears in the biblical record, there is no indication of her being the object of worship of any kind. When God’s angel announced to Mary that she would give birth to the Messiah, the heavenly messenger did not worship her (Luke 1:26-38). The shepherds, who came to the stable, praised God—not Mary—for what they had witnessed (Luke 2:16-20). Later, the wise men came to a house and “saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him” (Matthew 2:11, emp. added)—not Mary. Simeon and Anna, who had waited their entire lives for the Messiah, recognized Jesus as the One sent by God. They did not offer any special acknowledgement or praise to Mary (Luke 2:21-38). Additionally, Jesus’ disciples never gave Mary any preeminence during their gatherings, much less worshipped her as the “Mother of God” (cf. Acts 1:14-26).
When Mary asked for Jesus’ help at the wedding in Cana, He said, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me?” (John 2:4, emp. added). He used the word “woman” not in a derogatory way but as an expression of respect and affection (cf. Matthew 15:28; John 19:26; 20:15; Lyons, 2004). He may have used “woman” instead of “mother” to emphasize that “in his calling Jesus knows no mother or earthly relative, [but] he is their Lord and Savior as well as of all men” (Lenski, 1961, p. 189).

Jesus made it clear that Mary had no preeminence among His followers or before God. On one occasion, “He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, ‘Here are My mother and My brothers!’” (Matthew 12:49, emp. added). Jesus wanted His disciples to understand that anyone who believed in Him and obeyed the will of the Father would be blessed as part of His family. But He did not say that any member of that family was worthy of worship or adoration.

Another incident in Jesus’ ministry is worth mentioning. While Jesus was teaching the multitudes, “a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!’” (Luke 11:27). Jesus responded, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it” (11:28, emp. added). Again, Jesus made it clear that there was nothing about Mary that elevated her above anyone else who heard the Word of God and obeyed it. Jesus Himself taught us not to consider His mother as the “Mother of God,” a person to be worshipped.

The title “Mother of God” is unbiblical, as are other titles given to Mary, such as “Mother of the Church,” “Mother of Mercy, Life, Gentleness, and Hope,” “Door to Heaven,” etc. Worship directed toward her (or any other mere human being), rather than to Almighty God, not only denigrates appreciation and respect for Deity, but also leads further into apostasy.

References listed below:

​

 

rwb

Well-Known Member
Nov 11, 2022
6,449
2,642
113
75
Branson
Faith
Christian
Country
United States

REFERENCES​

“Dogmatic Constitution on the Church” (1964), Second Vatican Council [On-line], URL: Vatican archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_ council/documents/vatii_const_19641121_ lumen-gentium_en.html.
“Formula of Union Between Cyrill and John of Antioch” (no date), The Council of Ephesus [On-line], URL: http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/EPHESUS.HTM.
Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
Lyons, Eric (2004), “How Rude!?,” [On-line], URL: How Rude!? - Apologetics Press.
Peffley, Francis J. (no date), “Mary and the Mission of the Holy Spirit,” [On-line], URL: http://www.legionofmary.org/files/marymission.pdf.
Vine, W.E. (1966), An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell).
 

Moonwood

Member
Aug 24, 2026
460
60
28
Washington
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Moises Pinedo
Doctrinal MattersCatholicismWorship

References listed below:

“Dogmatic Constitution on the Church” (1964), Second Vatican Council [On-line], URL: Vatican archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_ council/documents/vatii_const_19641121_ lumen-gentium_en.html.
“Formula of Union Between Cyrill and John of Antioch” (no date), The Council of Ephesus [On-line], URL: http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/EPHESUS.HTM.
Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
Lyons, Eric (2004), “How Rude!?,” [On-line], URL: How Rude!? - Apologetics Press.
Peffley, Francis J. (no date), “Mary and the Mission of the Holy Spirit,” [On-line], URL: http://www.legionofmary.org/files/marymission.pdf.
Vine, W.E. (1966), An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell).

The article still doesn't address the central argument. It repeatedly says that Mary is only the mother of Jesus "according to the flesh," but that is precisely the point under dispute.

No Christian who calls Mary "Mother of God" believes that Mary is the source of Christ's divinity, existed before God, or somehow created the divine nature. That's a misunderstanding of the doctrine.

The real question is very simple: Who was born of Mary?

Scripture does not present us with two sons, one human and one divine. It does not present a human person named Jesus who is separate from the eternal Son of God. The child conceived in Mary's womb is the eternal Word who became flesh (John 1:14). Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, refers to Mary as "the mother of my Lord" (Luke 1:43). The One born of Mary is the same Person Thomas later confessed as "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28).

The article continually shifts from the person of Christ to the nature of Christ. But mothers do not give birth to natures. Mothers give birth to persons. Mary did not give birth to a human nature in isolation. She gave birth to Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is the divine Son incarnate.

So when you say Mary is only "the mother of Jesus the man," what exactly do you mean? If you mean that She contributed only to His human nature and not His divine nature, everyone agrees. But if you mean that She was mother merely of a human person and not of the divine Son Himself, then you are dividing Christ into two subjects, which Scripture never does.

The title "Mother of God" follows from biblical truths:
  1. Jesus is truly God.
  2. Mary is the mother of Jesus.
  3. Therefore, Mary is the mother of the Person who is God the Son incarnate.
In fact, Scripture itself points in this direction. Elizabeth does not say, "Why is the mother of a man visiting me?" Rather, filled with the Holy Spirit, she asks: "Why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43). The One in Mary's womb is already identified as her Lord.

The title says something primarily about Christ, not about Mary. It was historically defended to protect the truth that the One born of Mary was not a separate human person but the eternal Son in the flesh.

The article also argues that Mary cannot be called the Mother of God because She called God Her Savior and referred to Herself as His servant. But that doesn't follow. Christians who use the title do not claim that Mary is divine, eternal, or greater than God. The title describes Her relationship to Her Son, not Her own nature.

Likewise, the fact that Scripture never uses the exact English phrase "Mother of God" is not decisive. Scripture also never uses terms such as "Trinity" or "hypostatic union," yet Christians use those terms because they accurately summarize biblical teaching.

Finally, bringing up whether Catholics improperly venerate or pray to Mary changes the subject. That is a separate discussion. The question here is not whether Mary should be worshiped. The question is whether the One She bore was merely a human person, or the divine Son Himself in the flesh.

If the One born of Mary is the eternal Son incarnate, then the historic title Mother of God is simply the logical consequence of who Jesus is. If you reject the title, you still must answer the question: Who exactly was Mary the mother of? If your answer is Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is God incarnate, then calling Her only "the mother of Jesus the man" creates a distinction in Christ that Scripture itself never makes. Scripture presents one Lord, one Christ, one Son, not two persons loosely joined together. And that is precisely why Elizabeth's words, "the mother of my Lord," remain so significant.
 
Last edited:

rwb

Well-Known Member
Nov 11, 2022
6,449
2,642
113
75
Branson
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I've made my position clear and feel certain that you will not receive anything you have not learned from Catholic tradition.
 

Moonwood

Member
Aug 24, 2026
460
60
28
Washington
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Female
I've made my position clear and feel certain that you will not receive anything you have not learned from Catholic tradition.

Respectfully, that's not an answer to the argument I presented.

I haven't appealed to Catholic tradition as the basis of my argument. I've appealed to Scripture:
  • The Word became flesh (John 1:14).
  • Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, calls Mary "the mother of my Lord" (Luke 1:43).
  • Thomas calls Jesus "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28).
My question remains: Who was Mary the mother of?

If your answer is Jesus Christ, and if Jesus Christ is God incarnate, then Mary is the mother of the Person who is God the Son in the flesh.

Nobody is claiming Mary is the source of Christ's divinity, existed before God, or gave God His divine nature. The title "Mother of God" simply safeguards the biblical truth that the One born of Mary was not a separate human person alongside the divine Son, but the divine Son Himself made flesh.

If you believe Mary was only the mother of "Jesus the man," then I would ask you to explain: who exactly is this "Jesus the man"? Is he a person distinct from the eternal Son of God? Because Scripture never presents two sons or two persons in Christ.

So rather than discussing Catholic tradition, I'd genuinely like a biblical answer to the question: Who was Mary the mother of?
 

Rockerduck

Well-Known Member
Nov 7, 2022
4,513
3,566
113
72
Marietta, Georgia.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Mary, whom Jesus called Woman, is the birth vessel who Jesus was delivered into this world by. You stated "Why do "Christians" call her mother of God. That is an error statement as only the Catholic church does. No other denomination does, so it must be norrowed to that one Catholic church denomination.