Thoughts on Theotokos (Greek for “God-bearer”)

John Calvin “I cannot conceal that that title being commonly attributed to the Virgin in sermons is disapproved, and, for my own part, I cannot think such language either right, or becoming, or suitable. . . . for to call the Virgin Mary the mother of God, can only serve to confirm the ignorant in their superstitions.” ¹

G.C. Berkouwer “Another question is whether the term “Mother of God” is the most acceptable term for the expression of this truth. There is room for a difference of opinion on this point and some may judge that in a given historical situation the term may create misunderstanding. This was the case when in later periods Mary’s halo grew and became brighter, and the term “Mother of God” became an integral part of Mariological adoration. It is our conviction that in one’s use of terms also one is responsible for the life of the whole church and that one does not do anyone any good by using this term (however well intended by the councils in their polemic with Nestorianism) apart from its subsequent development; it is no longer obvious that the term implies a rejection of a dualism in Christology. We know that attempts have been made to break the aversion to “theotokos” and to settle this for good but, since the term may create the impression of elevating Mary and does not add anything to the confession of the church of all ages, it is subject to serious objections.” ²

Wyatt Graham “Nestorius did not want to use the term theotokos since it was not a biblical term, and, he thought, it could lead to misunderstandings. His concern is a valid one.” ³

Theotokos is the standard title for Mary in Eastern Orthodoxy (EO) and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO), which means that she is recognized as the “Mother of God.” The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) also uses the term “Mother of God” and the Catechism of the Catholic Church officially affirms the title Theotokos as dogmatic truth.⁴ In Protestantism, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists officially accept the title as part of the Nicene Creed and the Council of Ephesus (431 AD), though it is less common in everyday speech compared to “Mary” or “Mother of Jesus.” Where then does the Evangelical find himself amongst these groups?

As an Evangelical—who understands the implications of the 5th century debate—it is clear why so many have accepted the term “Mary the Mother of God.” It was meant to be a theological firewall against dividing Christ’s nature. However, the landscape and discussion has shifted greatly since the 5th century, and it is widely accepted now that Jesus has two natures (human and divine) and is one person (hypostasis). This is especially true within the broad Evangelical landscape. With that said, I want to look at concerns with the language, and then move to a slight reformulation of the terminology.

Concerns with “Mary the Mother of God” language

Here are the three main concerns that come with the “Mary the Mother of God” language that are non-Christological in nature.

1.) Liturgical Shift: In traditions (named above) Mary is often addressed with titles like “Queen of Heaven” or “Ark of the New Covenant”. While the Council of Ephesus intended the term to define and set boundaries around Jesus, it inadvertently created a category of “Hyperdulia” (supreme veneration) which is directly tied to an unbiblical form of “honor” given to Mary. The distinction the RCC/EO Church makes between latria (worship) and dulia (honor) is properly seen as a “distinction without a difference” in practice. If you are praying, kneeling, and singing to a creature, the internal posture of the heart is often functionally the same as worship.

2.) Intercessory Language: Prayers such as “Most Holy Theotokos, save us” are common in the EO tradition. EO contends that they “are simply using the phrase as another way of asking for her prayers, through her virtue as the bearer of God and the one who assented to allow Him to dwell in her womb.” ⁵ The elevated status of Mary as the Mother of God has led to her being prayed to. This status is unbiblical and is predicated upon the fact she is seen as the Theotokos.

3.) Development of Dogma: Theotokos provided the logical foundation for later dogmas not found in Scripture, such as the Immaculate Conception⁶ or her bodily Assumption.⁷ It’s also clear that EO believes that Mary did not die “as a result of any personal sin or guilt, for she was personally sinless. Rather, she died because she was a mortal being whose nature was bound up with the corruption of a fallen and sinful world. Because she was truly human, Mary was subject to bodily death.But because she is the Mother of Life, the Theotokos who was never subject to the spiritual death of sin, she was raised up by her Son before the time of humanity’s general resurrection.” ⁸

So, while the term was originally used to protect Jesus from the heretical teaching of Nestorius (known for Nestorianism)⁹, it’s been used to build and develop dogma around Mary.

Moving briefly to an important discussion here, the Council of Ephesus was concerned around a concept called “Prosopic Union” ¹⁰ and sought to defend the “Hypostatic Union” ¹¹of Christ. The Council argued strongly that if you say Mary is only the mother of the human nature, you are logically forced to conclude that there are two “who’s” inside Jesus. It can be seen framed like this:

The Son of Mary: A human person who was born, grew, and died.
The Son of God: A divine person who “dwelt” in the human one like a tenant in a house.

Essentially, if Mary didn’t give birth to God, then God wasn’t the one in the manger. This would focus on whether Mary gave birth to a “nature” (but you don’t give birth to humanity) you give birth to a person, and if that person is God, then you gave birth to God. Evangelicals strongly agree that Jesus is one person, and that there aren’t two Jesus’ (human & divine). There is one “HE.”

The current discussion however really stands around this question:

Does the title protect the Son, or does it promote the Mother?

The Council of Ephesus in 431 says that it protects the Son.
The Evangelical community says that it promotes the Mother, and we can protect the Son using better, more biblical language.

Again, reflecting on the Council of Ephesus, it is also our desire to protect the Son, but we can do so with better, more accurate language that doesn’t also elevate the Mother.

An important note to make at this point:

We must distinguish between person and source.

Mary is the mother of the “person” of Jesus Christ. That person is, and always has been, God. Mary is not mother or “source” of the “divine nature.” The divine nature is eternal, uncreated, and has no mother.

Solution: Mary the Mother of my Lord!

Luke 1:43 LSB
And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord¹² would come to me?

Luke 1:43 gives a perfect mediating position where we don’t go toward the RCC/EO perspective and elevate Mary to an unwarranted position, but we also don’t go toward Nestorianism and Jesus existing as two distinct persons.

In a Jewish setting, “Lord” (Κυρίου) identifies Jesus’ divinity, but it also reveals Mary’s submission to Christ without elevating her.¹³ Even as His mother, she recognizes Him as her Lord [Note: all positions listed above, recognize Mary’s submission to Christ, but they also elevate her unnecessarily as we have seen]. The benefit to using this text properly is that we can acknowledge that Jesus is God as a baby without the ‘Mother of God’ construction.

There are also other texts that emphatically teach that Jesus in Mary’s womb is fully God.

Matthew 1:23 LSB
“Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.”

John 1:14 LSB
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Galatians 4:4 LSB
But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law

Jesus is one person—the eternal Son of God—who took on a human nature in the womb of the Virgin Mary. Therefore, Mary is the mother of Jesus, the Christ, who is God manifest in the flesh. We should not call her the ‘Mother of God’ because (a) that title has loaded implications, and (b) better terminology can be used to convey what Ephesus sought out and Chalcedon codified. Jesus’ human nature comes from Mary, but is created by God. This means that Mary is the mother of his humanity, the source of his flesh, the Father is a source of his person (through eternal generation).

For further resources on the Hypostatic Union check out Monergism’s excellent website: https://www.monergism.com/search?keywords=hypostatic+union&format=All

Appendix A: Syllogism for Theotokos

Some have tried to argue for the validity of Theotokos from a syllogism. Here is the syllogism in its order:

Premise 1: Mary gave birth to a person.
Premise 2: Jesus Christ is one person.
Premise 3: Jesus is God.
Conclusion: Therefore Mary is the Mother of God (Theotokos).

On the surface, this seems logical and reasonable, but it rests on the fallacy of equivocation. All three premises can be granted logically and biblically, but the conclusion does not follow.

Matt Slick rightly notes, “In what sense is the term “God” used here? Does it mean God in the divine essence? Or does it mean God as a Trinity? Also, in what sense is the word “mother” used here? Does it mean that she is the mother of the divine nature? If so, it cannot mean that she’s the mother in the sense of being before the divine nature the same way that all mothers are before their offspring. It cannot mean that she is in a superior position than the divine Word since she is a creature. So, how is it meant? The lack of clarity is the problem.”¹⁴

A more biblical syllogism is as follows:

Premise 1: Mary gave birth to Jesus according to His human nature.¹⁵
Premise 2: Jesus is one person possessing both divine and human natures.
Premise 3: Human motherhood concerns human generation in time.
Conclusion: Therefore Mary is truly the mother of Jesus our Lord (kurios)

Appendix B: Is my Position still Just Veiled Nestorianism?

The quick answer is no! Absolutely not, but it warrants contrasting what I believe vs. what Nestorius taught.

Nestorius argued that:

“(a) Mary did not bear God in her womb;

(b) That the Word of God, instead, adopted a man instead of uniting humanity and divinity hypostatically (a term that I will explain later);

(c) That, as such, Christ was two persons, splitting Christ into two instead of being the “one Lord Jesus Christ” as the Nicene Creed puts it;

(d) And, finally, as a result Christ can not save us since the Word did not truly sanctify human flesh.”¹⁶

My position is quite different:

(a) I believe that Mary bore God in her womb, I simply reject the terminology read into Luke 1:43. This text nowhere says “Mary is the mother of God” as I have attempted to demonstrate above. So, while I reject the terminology of Theotokos, I affirm that there is a biblical rationale outside of the Luke 1:43 which teaches that Jesus is in fact God born of a woman (Matthew 1:23; John 1:14; Galatians 4:4). I don’t need Luke 1:43 to defend the proposition that Mary bore God in her womb, I have ample reason outside of this to affirm the biblical and confessional position. Theotokos and everything loaded into this term is the issue that I have repeatedly raised.

(b) I do not believe that the Word of God “adopted a man instead of uniting humanity and divinity hypostatically.” As Graham explained, “Nestorius affirmed that each nature of Christ had its own ousia, hypostasis, and prosopon, while also being united in one prospon.” I have affirmed that the two natures of Christ (divine and human) are a part of the one person (hypostatic union)—consistent with Chalcedon. I have not argued that there is more than one person of Christ. There is but one hypostasis/one person—the Lord Jesus Christ.

(c) Nestorius taught that “Christ was two persons, splitting Christ into two instead of being the “one Lord Jesus Christ” as the Nicene Creed puts it.” Contrary to Nestorius, I affirm one Lord Jesus Christ—one person with two natures.

(d) Since I reject the premises above, it would not follow that “Christ can not save us since the Word did not truly sanctify human flesh.” That is not my position, and it does not logically follow from what I have said above.

Therefore, I do not affirm Nestorianism.

References

1. John Calvin, “To the French Church in London,” Letters of John Calvin, vol. 2, ed. Jules Bonnet (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1858), 362. ↩︎
2. G.C. Berkouwer, The Person of Christ: Studies in Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Fourth Printing: 1969), 292. ↩︎
3. Wyatt Graham, “What Is Nestorianism? The Theotokos Debate Explained” May 7, 2025. https://www.logos.com/grow/theotokos-nestorianism/#h-what-can-we-today-learn-from-the-debate-over-nestorianism ↩︎
4. https://marian.org/mary/in-the-catechism ↩︎
5. https://stgeorgecharleston.org/do-orthodox-christians-worship-mary/ ↩︎
6. “The Immaculate Conception is a Catholic dogma that states that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain. That’s what “immaculate” means: without stain.” https://www.catholic.com/tract/immaculate-conception-and-assumption ↩︎
7. “…the Catholic Church teaches a doctrine known as the Assumption, which states that when Mary completed her earthly life she was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.” https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/assumptions-about-mary ↩︎
8. https://cnewa.org/magazine/the-assumption-in-orthodox-tradition-30165/ ↩︎
9. “Nestorianism is a Christological heresy that emerged in the 5th century, associated with Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople from 428 AD. Nestorianism taught that Jesus Christ existed as two distinct persons, one divine and one human, rather than as one person with two natures (divine and human) united in a single hypostasis (person). This belief was condemned as heretical because it divided the person of Christ, undermining the doctrine of the incarnation and the unity of Christ as both fully God and fully man. The heresy was formally condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD and further clarified at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD.” https://www.monergism.com/nestorianism ↩︎
10. “Nestorius taught a prosopic union from two prosopa, but he denied a hypostatic, physic, or ousia union. His union was one of will or dignity and prosopon. For Nestorius, prosopon (usually translated as “person”) meant the external characteristics of a being. He believed every nature had its own hypostasis and prosopon. So he claimed that out of two prospopa (persons), Christ united in one prosopon (see his Bazaar of Heracleides).” Wyatt Graham, FAQ: On Christological Heresy and Orthodoxy, May 6th, 2025. https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/columns/detrinitate/faq-on-christological-heresy-and-orthodoxy/ ↩︎
11. “The doctrine of the hypostatic union, first set forth officially in the definition of faith produced by the Council of Chalcedon (451), concerns the union of the two natures (dyophyses) of deity and humanity in the one hypostasis or person of Jesus Christ. It can be stated as follows: In the incarnation of the Son of God, a human nature was inseparably united forever with the divine nature in the one person of Jesus Christ, yet with the two natures remaining distinct, whole, and unchanged, without mixture or confusion so that the one person, Jesus Christ, is truly God and truly man. Several important Christological issues are highlighted by this doctrine: (1) the unipersonality of the Savior. Nestorianism, which divided the natures as persons, is ruled out. There is only one who is at the same time God and man. Obviously this doctrine excludes any separation between the Christ of faith and the Jesus of history. (2) The continuity of the Savior’s personality. Jesus Christ is the same person who was the preexistent Logos, the Son of God (John 1:1, 14; 8:58). Thus, every form of adoptionism is ruled out, since the hypostatic union excludes the in-dependent personal subsistence of the human nature. (3) The complexity of the Savior’s personality. While there is continuity of identity, there is this difference. It is no longer the divine nature alone which is expressed in his person. The human nature, not an impersonal append. age, has its personal subsistence in the Logos. The incarnate Christ is theanthropos, the God-man. (4) The distinction of the natures. Eutychianism, which confused the natures into a tertium quid, is excluded along with every form of monophysitism. (5) The perfection of the natures, Every Christology which diminishes either the deity or the humanity of Jesus Christ, from docetism to Socinianism, from Arianism to Apollinarianism, would be considered inadequate from the standpoint of this doctrine. Jesus Christ is truly, perfectly, and wholly God, and he is truly, perfectly, and wholly man. Admittedly, this doctrine leaves many meta-physical questions unanswered. However, it should be noted that this doctrine was not produced as the fruit of philosophic speculation on the possible singulary cosubsistence of the finite and the infinite. Rather it was offered as a precise description of the incarnation recorded in Scripture, drawn from the greatest extent of biblical data and making use of whatever language that might help in that descriptive task (such as the introduction of a technical distinction between physis and hypostasis). The considered biblical data include all the major passages on the incarnation (such as Phil. 2:6-11; John 1:1-14; Rom. 1:2-5; 9:5; I Tim. 3:16; Heb. 2:14; I John 1:1-3), as well as the Gospel narratives and epistolary references where the attributes of both natures are manifested in one person, the communicatio idiomatum.” Craig A. Blaising, “Hypostatic Union” in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, Fifth Printing: 1987), 540. Bold added by me. ↩︎
12. There are 3 ways κύριος is used contextually in the NT: in general, of God, and of Christ. Where does Abbott-Smith place Luke 1:43? They place it under “of Christ” not under “of God.” This doesn’t mean that Jesus isn’t God, it means that κύριος must be evaluated contextually for its meaning.
    
    “κύριος
    [kyrios] n.
    κύριος, -α, -ον (also -ος, -ον), in LXX
    having power (κῦρος) or authority; as subst., ὁ κ., lord, master;
    1. in general: with genitive of thing(s), Mat 9:38, Mat 20:8, Mrk 12:9, Mrk 13:35, Luk 19:33; τ. σαββάτου, Mat 12:8, Mrk 2:28, Luk 6:5; with genitive of person(s), δούλου, etc., Mat 10:24, Luk 14:21, Act 16:16, al.; absol, opp. to οἱ δοῦλοι, Eph 6:5, Eph 6:9 al.; of the Emperor (Deiss., LAE, 161), Act 25:26; θεοὶ πολλοὶ καὶ κ. πολλοί, 1Co 8:5; of a husband, 1Pe 3:6; in voc, as a title of respect to masters, teachers, magistrates, etc., Mat 13:27, Mat 16:22, Mat 27:63, Mrk 7:28, Luk 5:12, Jhn 4:11, Act 9:5, al.
    As a divine title(freq. in π.; Deiss., LAE, 353 ff.); in NT,
    2. of God: ὁ κ., Mat 5:33, Mrk 5:19, Luk 1:6, Act 7:33, Heb 8:2, Jas 4:15, al.; anarth. (Bl., §46, 6), Mat 21:9, Mrk 13:20, Luk 1:17, Heb 7:21, 1Pe 1:25, al.; κ. τ. οὐρανοῦ καὶ τ. γῆς, Mat 11:25; τ. κυριευόντων, 1Ti 6:15; κ. ὁ θεός, Mat 4:7, Mat 4:10 al.; id. before παντοκράτωρ, Rev 4:8; κ. σαβαώθ, Rom 9:29; (ὁ) ἄγγελος κυρίου, Mat 1:20, Mat 2:13, Luk 1:11, al.; πνεῦμα κυρίου, Luk 4:18, Act 8:39;
    3. of the Christ: Mat 21:3, Mrk 11:3, ★Luk 1:43★, Luk 20:44, al.; of Jesus after his resurrection (Dalman, Words, 330), Act 10:36, Rom 14:8, 1Co 7:22, Eph 4:5, al.; ὁ κ. μου, Jhn 20:28; ὁ κ. Ἰησοῦς, Act 1:21, 1Co 11:23, al.; id. before Χριστός, Eph 1:2 al; ὁ κ. ἡμῶν, 1Ti 1:14, Heb 7:14, al.; id. before Ἰησοῦς, 1Th 3:11, Heb 13:20, al.; Χριστός, Rom 16:18; Ἰ Χ., 1Co 1:2, 1Th 1:3, al.; Ἰ. Χ. (Χ. Ἰ) ὁ κ. (ἡμῶν), Rom 1:4, Col 2:6, Eph 3:11, al.; ὁ κ. καὶ ὁ σωτὴρ, 2Pe 3:2; id. before Ἰ. Χ., ib. 18; anarth., 1Co 7:22, 1Co 7:25 Jas 5:4, al.; κ. κυρίων, Rev 19:16; with prep., ἀπὸ (κατὰ, πρὸς, σὺν, etc.) κ., Col 3:24 al”
    
    Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, Sourced from Tyndale House, Cambridge. ↩︎
13. John Calvin notes: “She calls Mary the mother of her Lord This denotes a unity of person in the two natures of Christ; as if she had said, that he who was begotten a mortal man in the womb of Mary is, at the same time, the eternal God. For we must bear in mind, that she does not speak like an ordinary woman at her own suggestion, but merely utters what was dictated by the Holy Spirit. This name Lord strictly belongs to the Son of God “manifested in the flesh,” (1 Timothy 3:16,) who has received from the Father all power, and has been appointed the highest ruler of heaven and earth, that by his agency God may govern all things. Still, he is in a peculiar manner the Lord of believers, who yield willingly and cheerfully to his authority; for it is only of “his body” that he is “the head,” (Ephesians 1:22, 23.) And so Paul says, “though there be lords many, yet to us,” that is, to the servants of faith, “there is one Lord,” (1 Corinthians 8:5, 6.) By mentioning the sudden movement of the babe which she carried in her womb, (ver. 44,) as heightening that divine favor of which she is speaking, she unquestionably intended to affirm that she felt something supernatural and divine.”
    https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom31.ix.viii.html Bold added by me. ↩︎
14. Matt Slick, “There is a logical fallacy in the argument that Mary is the mother of God” Sep 28th, 2014. https://carm.org/there-is-a-logical-fallacy-in-the-argument-that-mary-is-the-mother-of-god ↩︎
15. I am not saying Mary gave birth to a “human nature” instead of a person. Of course mothers give birth to persons. Mary gave birth to the one person of Jesus Christ. The issue is not who was born, but according to what mode the birth occurred. Birth is a temporal event. The eternal Son did not begin to exist in Mary’s womb. Therefore the birth necessarily concerns the incarnation — the Son assuming human nature in time. Motherhood does not make someone the origin of everything true about that person. Mary did not originate the Son’s eternal existence or divine nature.
    
    No orthodox Christology claims Mary gave birth to an abstract human nature detached from a person. Rather, the one person of the Son entered human life through human birth. Scripture itself speaks this way when it distinguishes what Christ experiences according to His humanity and deity (for example, death according to the flesh). Therefore saying Christ was born according to His humanity is not begging the question — it is simply recognizing what incarnation means. The distinction preserves one person without confusing eternal divine existence with temporal human generation. ↩︎
16. Wyatt Graham, “What Is Nestorianism? The Theotokos Debate Explained” May 7, 2025. https://www.logos.com/grow/theotokos-nestorianism/#h-what-can-we-today-learn-from-the-debate-over-nestorianism ↩︎