Mother of God? A Socratic Conversation on Mary’s Role in Salvation
I recently wrote a short socratic dialogue on the Immaculate Conception that pleased at least one Protestant, and upset another.
Today I’ll attempt another socratic dialogue on perhaps a less controversial Marian dogma: Mary as Theotokos, or "Mother of God."
James: Thomas, I gotta say, I don’t get how you can call Mary the “Mother of God.”
Thomas: Alright?
James: I mean, how can a finite human being possibly be the mother of the infinite God? It doesn’t make sense—unless you’re elevating Mary to some sort of divine status.
Thomas: Well, let me ask you: do you agree that Mary is the mother of Jesus?
James: Obviously, yes.
Thomas: And do you agree that Jesus is God?
James: Of course. He’s fully God and fully man.
Thomas: Then logically, Mary is the Mother of God. She isn’t the mother of His divine nature—that’s eternal and uncreated, which I think is where you’re getting stuck. But she is the mother of Jesus, the one person who is both fully God and fully man. The logic is simple and unavoidable:
Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.
James: I don’t know… it feels like another invention by the Church to give Mary too much attention. And it’s nowhere in Scripture.
Thomas: True, the title “Mother of God” isn’t explicitly in Scripture, but neither are terms like “Trinity,” “Hypostatic Union,” or even “Bible.” The title is a theological conclusion drawn from Scripture, not something made up later. Take Luke 1:43, for instance. Elizabeth calls Mary “the mother of my Lord.” In the context of Luke’s Gospel, “Lord” is clearly a title for God.
The early Church Fathers also backed this up. St. Cyril of Alexandria argued at the Council of Ephesus: “If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is truly God and that the Holy Virgin is therefore the Mother of God, let him be anathema.”
James: But why does it matter? Why not just call her the Mother of Jesus and avoid all the drama?
Thomas: Because calling her only the Mother of Jesus risks misunderstanding who Jesus is. Nestorius claimed Mary was just the mother of Christ’s human nature, essentially splitting Jesus into two persons—one human, one divine. The Church rejected that.
At the Council of Ephesus in 431, the Church declared Mary as Theotokos, which means “God-bearer” or “Mother of God,” to protect the truth that Jesus is one person with two natures. St. Gregory of Nazianzus put it bluntly: “If anyone does not agree that Holy Mary is the Mother of God, he is at odds with the Godhead.”
James: But doesn’t all this focus on Mary take attention away from Jesus?
Thomas: No. Not even a little bit. In fact, it does the opposite. The title “Mother of God” underscores Christ’s divinity and the mystery of the Incarnation. By affirming Mary’s role, we’re really affirming that Jesus is fully God and fully man—one person, not two. As St. Athanasius said, “The Word was made flesh, taking flesh from Mary, the Mother of God.”
James: Still, doesn’t this elevate Mary too much? It almost feels like Catholics are putting her on the same level as God.
Thomas: Not at all. The title doesn’t make Mary divine or equal to God. It simply acknowledges her unique role in God’s plan of salvation. She bore the Word made flesh. As St. Augustine said, “Mary is more blessed in receiving the faith of Christ than in conceiving the flesh of Christ.” We honor Mary because of her connection to Jesus, not apart from Him.
James: I’m still struggling with this. Doesn’t Scripture teach that salvation is simple? Adding titles like “Mother of God” just seems to complicate things.
Thomas: The Gospel is simple, but its truths are profound. Try explaining the Trinity and you’ll quickly see what I mean. The title “Mother of God” doesn’t complicate salvation; it protects the mystery of the Incarnation. Denying Mary this title risks distorting our understanding of Christ. The Church Fathers defended this truth, not to elevate Mary for her own sake, but to safeguard who Jesus truly is.
James: Yeah, I don’t know. I’ll have to think about it. I see your point about protecting Christ’s identity.
What a beautiful thing the internet could be if this is how people conducted themselves in comments sections.
As a protestant, I was hoping James would say something like, "Okay, I can easily see that Mary was the mother of the human nature of Jesus, who is the second person of the Trinity and therefore God; but to insist that Mary was the "Mother of God" confuses that relationship. It suggests that Mary would have to be the origin of Jesus' divine nature as well. After all, an effect cannot be greater than its cause. That is, at least until you clarify that you mean she was the mother of Jesus' human nature, not his divine nature.
"At face value, the statement could logically imply that Mary is also the mother of the other persons of the Trinity, which is not correct. Is not the Holy Spirit also God? If Mary is the mother of God, is she not the mother of the Holy Spirit? Clearly not, but the language of the dogma is cause for confusion.
"Even if I understand you're not really saying Mary is greater than Jesus or in some way divine, why should we use that language if it evidently is a stumbling block and cause for confusion, especially given that Scripture never applies that name to Mary. It would be more precise to say that Mary is the mother of Jesus, and then to clarify if necessary that she is the mother of His human nature, not His divine nature. That creates no confusion about Mary's relationship to the other persons of the Trinity, nor creates a logical dilemma about her relationship to divine nature."
I would have liked to see how Thomas would have responded.