Cory Thompson
When we think about Mother’s Day, our thoughts often turn to the women who have nurtured, taught, and loved us. As believers, when we consider mothers in the Bible, who stands out? Most likely, we immediately think of Mary, the mother of Jesus. But how should we understand Mary’s role in God’s redemptive plan? What does Scripture teach us about the mother of our Lord?
Evangelicals in general and Free Will Baptists in particular have a somewhat apprehensive relationship with Mary. The title “Mother of God” sounds wrong and feels dangerously close to the Roman Catholic teaching of Marian devotion. Yet as Free Will Baptists in the context of the Great Tradition, we should embrace the biblical and theological necessity of affirming Mary as the Mother of God for a right understanding of the person of the Lord Jesus.
The Mother of My Lord (Luke 1:42-43)
In the first two chapters of Luke’s Gospel, there are twenty-five references to “the Lord.” This title is unmistakably used for God. In Luke 1:17, “Lord” is substituted for Yahweh in a quotation from Malachi 4:5. Throughout his Gospel, Luke demonstrates that he is deeply embedded in Old Testament language and theology, consistently using “Lord” to refer to God’s covenant name. Of the twenty-five references, two refer directly to the Christ-Child.[i]
The first time Jesus actually appears in Luke’s narrative is through Elizabeth’s acknowledgment of Mary as “the mother of my Lord” (Luke 1:43). Prior to this scene, we’ve heard great pronouncements through angelic messages about the baby to be born through angelic messages, but Jesus himself had not yet entered the narrative because he had not yet been conceived. In Luke 1:42, we learn that Mary is pregnant. Then, in 1:43, Jesus is identified as “Lord.” With Mary’s visit to Elizabeth, two significant developments occur: Jesus now exists in the narrative, and he is spoken of on the human plane, through a greeting from Elizabeth to Mary.
It is as “Lord” that Luke first identifies Jesus and brings him into the human realm. With the twenty-five references to God as “Lord” in the first two chapters, what then is meant by the title “mother of my Lord”? This means that from the very conception of his life, Jesus is Lord. This is not merely an anticipation that he will become Lord someday, but from his very existence, the child is Lord.[ii]
Consider the significance of using the title “Lord” for the unborn child from Isaiah’s perspective. In Isaiah 6, the prophet tells us that he saw and heard the seraphim saying, “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory.” In Philippians 2, we are told that all creatures, including demons and Satan himself, will confess Jesus as Lord to the glory of God. From his very conception in Mary’s womb, Jesus is the Lord; he is Yahweh.
From this biblical perspective, Mary is called “the mother of my Lord.” This usage needs to be understood in its fullest meaning in Luke. It means that Mary is the mother of God or more precisely, she is Theotokos (God-bearer).
A simple grammatical point helps us see the appropriateness of this description. Do we believe Jesus is God? Do we believe that at every point in his earthly life, beginning with his conception, Jesus is God? Do we also believe that Mary is the mother of Jesus? If the answer to all these questions is yes, then Mary is the Mother of God.
What this does not mean is that Mary herself is divine or that she produced the divine nature of Jesus. Nor am I saying that Mary was supra-human, without sin, should be venerated, prayed to, or was assumed into heaven. She was simply Mary, a faithful follower of God. Yet God, in his divine sovereignty and grace, chose Mary to be the mother of Jesus. Therefore, since God (the Word) became flesh through virgin birth to dwell among us (John 1:14), it is appropriate to call Mary the Mother of God.
If you feel uneasy about referring to Mary as the Mother of God, you are not the only one. A controversy erupted in A.D. 431 at the Council of Ephesus, related to the refusal of Nestorius to use the liturgical expression Theotokos (God-bearer) for Mary. He preferred anthropotokos (Man-bearer) or Christotokos (Christ-bearer).[iii] 3
This controversy centered on more than a disagreement on which title was appropriate. It revealed a serious theological error regarding the person of the Lord Jesus. The Marian title, “Mother of God,” was not employed to praise her, but to affirm the child as God incarnate. Nestorius’s position represented a division in the nature of Christ, leading to the denial of his unity as a person.[iv]
The Mother of the One Who Is Truly God and Truly Man
Affirming that Mary is the Mother of God means that we hold together the perfect union of Jesus as truly God and truly man. This is called the Hypostatic Union as defined in the Definition of Chalcedon. This is crucial on many levels and has a profound effect on the gospel and our salvation. We cannot separate the two natures or elevate one above the other because it makes us uncomfortable to think of God with human characteristics. Although we must not separate the two natures, it is important to distinguish them.
The two natures in one person create a tension that we must maintain. As God, Jesus is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. But as human, he was limited in knowledge, could not do everything, and was present in only one place at a time. Consider that God is all-powerful, yet God in the flesh grew tired, needed rest, and slept. This highlights the difficulty with the description of Mary as the Mother of God. God does not need to be nursed, burped, rocked to sleep, comforted when scared, or instructed. Yet, as truly human, Jesus needed the tender, loving care of his mother. This is part of the authentic human experience.
The human nature of Jesus is crucial because if he is not truly man, then we still have a serious sin problem. Jesus came as truly human to live a life that you and I could not. The virgin birth set the trajectory of a sinless life for us. His sinless life, lived on our behalf, makes him the perfect and acceptable sacrifice for our sins.[v] His bodily resurrection is the first fruits of our own bodily resurrection. His bodily ascension into heaven sets the direction for our own bodily existence into eternity.
For all these to be a reality, the Lord Jesus must be truly human. Furthermore, if he is not truly God, then the life he lived and the death he died would not be sufficient. Only God himself could bear the eternal judgment for our sins and satisfy it once and for all. Only God himself can raise from the dead. Jesus’ own statement in John 10:17-18 declares, “I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to take it again.” No mere man can make such claims unless he is delusional, and his delusion would be proven when he died. But Jesus speaks emphatically and forcefully. His words proved true because not only was he truly man, he was truly God, and only God can take life and give it again.
One of the purposes of the one true God becoming truly man was to enter into our experiences and identify with us. One of the earliest experiences of our existence is shaped by a mother. Jesus knows what it means to be loved and cared for by a mother; he knows what it means to ensure his mother is cared for. One of the last things he did while on the cross was to commit her to the loving care of John (John 19:26-27).
Jesus also knows what it means to be misunderstood and perhaps even rejected by his own mother. As his ministry began, we are told, “But when his own people heard about this, they went out to lay hold of Him, for they said, ‘He is out of His mind’…Then his brothers and His mother came, and standing outside, they sent to Him calling Him” (Mark 3:21, 31). As truly man and truly God, Jesus is the great high priest who sympathizes “with our weaknesses, being tempted as we are yet without sin.” This allows us to “come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (Hebrews 4:15-16).
The Influence of the Mother of Jesus
Mary stands as an exemplary character. What we learn about Mary from Scripture is that she came from humble agricultural roots. Galilee was not a respected region, hardly the expected place for one sent from God. Luke identifies Mary as a virgin betrothed to Joseph (Luke 1:27). A Jewish betrothal involved two steps: first, the formal engagement, including a contract and exchange of a bridal price, and then, about a year later, the wedding. Mary’s age is not specified, but she would most likely have been in her teens.
Like all participants in the infancy narrative, Mary’s spirituality is noted. The angel greets her with the address: “highly favored” (v. 28) and then states, “you have found favor with God” (v. 30). She is not favored by God because of her own merit or anything she has done, but simply as a consequence of God’s grace. This gives us insight into her character, for grace is not static but actively displayed in people’s hearts, minds, and actions.
Her spirituality is further displayed in her response to all the angel told her: “Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word” (v. 38). What the angel told her was not a simple matter. She is being asked to bear a child as a virgin, which is impossible, and become pregnant without being married, which is scandalous (cf. Matthew 1:19). Despite this, Mary humbles herself before God as his servant and allows God to work through her as he wills. God can place her in whatever difficult circumstances he desires, and she will follow him without reservation. Mary also demonstrated her faithfulness by remaining with Jesus to the very end: “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother” (John 19:25).
Mary’s Influence on Jesus
As we consider Mary’s character, I want to leave you with a provocative thought: What effect did Mary have on Jesus as his mother? I tread carefully here, as we should when considering the unity of Jesus’s two natures: truly God and truly man. When God became flesh, he was born of a woman who became his mother to nurture, care for, teach, and instruct him as any mother would. When born, infants are absolutely helpless (God, helpless?!). They are profoundly shaped by their earliest interactions with those who mother them.[vi]
Infants grow and develop, and the bonds between a child and a mother are some of the deepest that form. Since Jesus was truly human, the mothering he received from Mary must have been formative. In fact, we may be able to fill in the gaps of Luke 2:52, where we’re told the child Jesus “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.” It’s safe to say that he increased in wisdom and stature through his mother’s influence.
His mother was a follower and worshipper of the one true God, which is evident by how she followed God’s word wholly when Jesus was born. But more significantly, Mary came to recognize and believe in Jesus as the only begotten Son from the Father and her Lord and Savior. We find her among the disciples after Jesus’s ascension, as Acts 1:14 tells us that the apostles “all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus.”
In the end, the mother of our Lord worshiped Jesus as Lord. What greater testimony could there be to his divinity than this: that the very woman who nursed him, taught him, and raised him would come to worship him as God incarnate?
________________________________
[i] C. Kavin Rowe, Early Narrative Christology: The LORD in the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 31-32.
[ii] Ibid., 43-44.
[iii] H.D. McDonald, “Nestorius,” in A New Dictionary of Theology, ed. Sinclair Ferguson, David F. Wright, and J.I. Packer (Downers Grove: IVP, 1988), 457.
[iv] Micheal Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 174-176.
[v] Brandon Crowe, Why Did Jesus Live a Perfect Life? (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2021), 87-88.
[vi] Mark Alan Granquist, “Further Implications of Saying That Mary Is the Mother of God,” Word & World 44, no. 1 (Winter 2024): 1–3.
