Truth Magazine

By Steve Kearney

The Scriptures forthrightly teach that Mary is the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ. “And the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus'” (Lk. 1:30-31).

It is also clear, from the word of God, that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus. “And Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I am a virgin?’ And the angel answered and said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God'”(Lk. 1:34-35).

As the Son of God, Jesus was God in the flesh. Colossians 2:9 states, “For in him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form.” The Twentieth Century New Testament translates the verse, “For in Christ the Godhead in all its fulness dwells incarnate.” It was just as the angel said to Joseph, “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’ (Matt. 1:23).

There are many sincere religious people who believe that, because Jesus is God in the flesh and because Mary is his mother, Mary is therefore the Mother of God. It is the intention in this lesson to demonstrate, that the title “Mother of God” is: (1) scripturally untrue; (2) scripturally illogical; and (3) scripturally condemned.

Scripturally Untrue

Saying the title “Mother of God” is scripturally untrue, will in the minds of some, cast a shadow over our belief in Jesus as true God and true man. But there is no “mental reservation” on our part when we teach that Jesus is God with us (Matt. 1:23). Like Thomas, I declare Jesus to be “My Lord and my God!”

As God, Jesus existed long before he was born of a virgin in a stable at Bethlehem. In his gospel (1:1), under the influence of the Holy Spirit, John reveals, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Jesus is here called the Word. We know the Word is Jesus from verse 14, “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.” To get the full impact of John 1: 1 in relation to Jesus, let us substitute the name Jesus every time “the Word” is used. “In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God.” Jesus existed before the worlds were created, he worked as one with the Father and the Holy Spirit in creating everything. Colossians 1:15-17 says, “And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities – all things have been created by him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” Jesus says of himself in Revelation 22:13, “1 am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

Psalms 90:2 gives us a measure on Jesus’ claim to being the beginning and the end, “From everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God.” Because God has no beginning and no end, the Word – Jesus Christ – has no beginning and no end.

Since the God part of Jesus had no beginning, can Mary be the mother of the God part of Jesus? The answer is no! Philippians 2:6-11 makes obvious that Mary did not bring the God part of Jesus into existence. Using the Amplified Version of the New Testament the verses read, “Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God (possessing the fulness of the attributes which make God God), did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained; but stripped himself (of all privileges and rightful dignity) so as to assume the guise of a servant (slave), in that he became like men and was born a human being. And after he had appeared in human form he abased and humbled himself (still further) and carried his obedience to the extreme of death, even the death of (the) cross! Therefore (because he stooped so low), God has highly exalted him and has freely bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that in (at) the name of Jesus every knee should (must) bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue (frankly and openly) confess and acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Hebrews 10:5, “Therefore, when he comes into the world, he says, ‘Sacrifices and offerings Thou hast not desired, but a body Thou hast prepared for Me.'”

The body was prepared when the “Power of the Most High overshadowed Mary” and she conceived in her womb and brought forth a Son and called his name Jesus. Truly, Mary is the mother of Jesus. She is called the mother of Jesus in the Scriptures; but the Scriptures, no where, call her the mother of God. The everlasting God has no mother!

To counteract the force of that truth, The Teaching of Christ, a Catholic catechism for adults says (p. 117), “The traditional teaching about Christ is that the Word, the second Person of the Trinity, became incarnate from the first moment of His conception in Mary’s womb. Since the woman who conceives and gives birth to a person is that person’s mother, Mary is truly the mother of God because the Son of God took His human flesh from her.

“We cannot call our own mothers just, ‘the mother of our bodies,’ even though our souls are directly created by God Similarly, we cannot say that Mary is only the mother of Christ’s humanity, even though she did not beget His divinity. Although the divine nature of Christ is eternally begotten by the heavenly Father, by the incarnation He was conceived and born of Mary. She is, therefore, truly the mother of God.”

Although the writer admits that Mary could not be the mother of Christ’s divinity, he nevertheless wants to call her the Mother of God. He thinks that calling Mary the Mother of God is equivalent to calling my mother, the mother of Steve. The following chart should demonstrate the difference.

Steve	Christ
As a person Steve is composed of two parts, body and spirit.	As a person Jesus is composed of two parts, his humanity and his Deity.
God is the Father of my spirit.	The Divine part of Jesus came from the Father.
My mother has given me my body.	Mary, the mother of Jesus, gave him his body.
To call my mother, the mother of Steve, does not confuse my spirit which comes from God and my body which comes from my mother.	In the same way, to call Mary the mother of Jesus, does not confuse the Divine part of Jesus which has always existed, with the body of Jesus which came from his mother.
If however you call my mother the mother of my spirit, it will confuse the distinction between my spirit and body. Such confusion is unscriptural and untrue.	To call Mary the Mother of God also confuses the distinction between his Deity and his humanity. Such confusion is unscriptural and untrue.

Scripturally we can call Mary, the mother of Jesus. To call Mary the Mother of God is unscriptural and untrue!

Scripturally Illogical

In 2 John 9 we read, “Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.” 1 Peter 4:11 says, “Whoever speaks, let him speak, as it were, the utterances of God.” Galatians 1:8 says, “But even though we or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed.”

By keeping ourselves within the confines imposed upon us by these passages we are constrained by the teaching of the Bible to make a distinction between the flesh and divinity of Jesus.

Paul, in Romans 9:4-5, identifies his kinsmen according to the flesh. “Who are Israelites, to whom belong the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, andfrom whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all. God blessed forever. Amen.”

By refusing to acknowledge the distinction between the God part of Jesus and the fleshly part of Jesus, we are forced into this illogical stand.

Mary is a descendant of Israel.

Mary is the Mother of God.

Therefore, God is a descendant of Israel.

In logic this is called a syllogism. It’s a form of argument in which a conclusion is deducted from two propositions.

Every pious Jew delighted in Abraham as his father. They seemed to have believed that just being a child of Abraham was sufficient to get one into the kingdom of God. John the Baptist had to correct such superstition. In John 3:7-9 he said, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance; and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our Father’; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.”

Every Jew identified with Abraham as “our father.” Jesus even admitted John 8:37, “I know that you are Abraham’s offspring.” By refusing to make a distinction between what Jesus was according to the flesh and what he was according to the Spirit (which is what is done by insisting that Mary is the Mother of God) we end up with this absurd proposition: Mary is the offspring of Abraham. Mary is the Mother of God. Therefore Abraham is the father of God. How could Jesus possibly say, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am” (Jn. 8:58). Scripture does not contradict itself, nor is it illogical. Scripture harmonizes all these truths about Jesus, Mary and Abraham. Mary is the mother of Jesus. Abraham is Christ’s forefather according to the flesh. As God, Jesus could say, “Before Abraham was born, I am.”

Jesus shows again and again that he is the Son of God and the Son of Man. Without this duality we would not be able to answer the difficult question Jesus asked the Pharisees about himself and David recorded in Matthew 22:41-46. Jesus is David’s son according to the flesh. He is David’s Lord through his divine pre-existence.

By accepting that, on occasions there has to be a distinction made between the fleshly side of Jesus and his divine side (simply because the Holy Scriptures make that distinction), then we can see that Jesus as a man has a genealogy which can be traced back from Mary through David and Abraham, even as far back as Adam (Lk. 3:38). By calling Mary the Mother of God we are forced to believe that God has a genealogy which can be traced back through David and Abraham. It would also mean that Adam is the father of God.

The term Mother of God is scripturally illogical!

Scripturally Condemned

Let us not be fooled by such a seemingly innocent title as Mother of God. This notion is the Trojan Horse for Mariolatry. It contains all the other titles and honors bestowed on Mary. I am even convinced that it allows for her full deification sometime in the future. Michael O’Carroll, in a Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin (p. 257) admits, “It is not stated explicitly in Sacred Scripture that Mary is the Mother of God.” The term theotokos (meaning Mother of God) was first officially recognized at the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D., far too late for it to be apostolic.

Yet, once it was accepted everything else followed naturally: Queen of Heaven, Mother of the Church, Coredemptorist, Mediatrix, Mother of Mercy. In DeMontfort’s book, The True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, the author brings what is the unofficial conception of Mary’s greatness (p. 3); “Yet they exclaim that the height of her merits, which she has raised to the throne of Divinity cannot be perceived . . . that the greatness of her power, which she possesses over even God Himself, is beyond understanding.” Officially she is a created being, who was preserved without sin. Unofficially she has even the Father himself under her control.

Janus, was a Latin god represented with a double face looking both in front and behind. The Catholic Church can, like Janus, hold two totally opposite views at one time. This is definitely so on Mary. In a book called Father Smith Instructs Jackson (p. 83), Jackson remarks, “Then Catholics do not worship the Virgin Mary?” The priest answers, ‘No, that would be idolatry.'”

Yet Mary is worshiped in the same way Christ is worshiped. In some cases she is worshiped with more devotion. She has her own prayers, the Hail Mary, the Hail Holy Queen, the Rosary. People kneel before her statue and pray to her. People make altars to worship her. She has her own forms of religious services such as Sodalities, Hymns, Rosaries, wearing of the scapulars. Her special devotees belong to the Legion of Mary.

Peter would not accept worship from Cornelius (Acts 10:25-26). The angel would not accept worship from John (Rev. 22:8-9). When Satan tried to get Jesus to worship him, Jesus replied, “Begone Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.”‘ By worshiping Mary people have got themselves into an unscriptural and idolatrous practice. They have unwittingly fulfilled the words of Romans 1:25, “For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.”

The teaching that Mary is the Mother of God, and all that is implies is condemned by the Scriptures as “going too far and not abiding in the teaching of Christ” (2 Jn. 9). It is condemned by 1 Peter 4:11 because it is not a teaching which is according to the utterances of God. It is another gospel!

Conclusion

We have demonstrated that the title Mother of God is scripturally untrue, because the God part of Jesus is from everlasting to everlasting. We have shown it to be scripturally illogical because it would make Adam the father of God. The title Mother of God is also scripturally condemned because it causes us to worship and serve the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen!

We conclude by this reminder from Deuteronomy 4:35: “To you it has been shown that you might know that the Lord, he is God; there is no other besides him.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 11, pp. 339-341
June 7, 1990

By Clinton D. Hamilton

Question: In view of all religious division, how can we attain and maintain unity upon the “one faith”? Why is true unity so difficult?

Reply: The “one faith” is the body of truth once and for all revealed (Jude 3) and is the faith Paul mentioned in Galatians 3:23. Unity is attained when men believe and obey this body of truth. Faith comes of hearing the word of Christ (Rom. 10:17). Jesus made provision for the attaining of the unity of the faith (Eph. 4:11-16). If we learn Christ and walk accordingly, there will be unity (Eph. 4:17-21). Division is not based on the truth for truth is indivisible. Truth is a unity. If one’s faith flows from this truth, it follows that he reflects that truth if he obeys only it. However, if one has an evil heart of unbelief to arise in him, there is a disobedience and deviation from truth. That divides him from those that walk by faith.

If one walks by sight and not by faith (2 Cor. 5:7), then there will be a deviation from truth. Again, there will result division between this one and the one who is walking by faith. If all held and walked by the one faith, there would be no division. The one faith does not cause the division. The violation of the one faith causes the division.

Truth and error are such that they always contradict. When men espouse error rather than walk by faith, they are separated from, divided from those that walk by faith. The fact of divisions does not argue there cannot be unity but rather argues that unity is destroyed because of unbelief. Causes of unbelief are multitudinous. The cause of unity is adherence to the truth. Unity is the result of adherence to truth. “All religious division” does not argue there cannot be unity. It argues that men do not observe the one faith.

It is asked why unity is so difficult to attain. Basically, it is the selfish will of men expressed against the will of God. If men love God, they will keep his commandments (1 Jn. 5:3). Wherein one’s will asserts itself against the will of God and one does his own will, sin results. This sin divides, separates between man and God. Accordingly, it separates, divides one from those who obey God. Not all love God as they should. Accordingly, they do not properly respond to his will. Wherein they do not, there is a separation or division between them and those who respond properly to the will of God. This is why it is difficult to attain unity. There is no mystery. It is cold logic. When men leave the truth of God, division is the result between them and those who obey the truth of God. Wherein unity is said to be difficult to attain, it is because men will not do the Lord’s will.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 11, p. 325
June 7, 1990

By Steve Wolfgang

Footnote: “None Are So Blind As Those Who Will Not See,” Gospel Advocate, XX (January 3, 1878), 6-7.

Upon reading about a Chinese mother who disfigured the feet of her little girl, Justus M. Barnes, a pioneer preacher in Alabama, wrote: “I know a clever, good girl, who has driven the color from her face, is sickly and cannot walk straight. Oh, but she has the beautiful figure of a wasp. What does she pay for it? Truly her whistle costs her an enormous price. . . . These Christian mothers destroy the breast bone and ribs of their daughters with an eye-letted vice, and then turn them deformed upon society to drag out a miserable life filled with groans, complaints and sighs – a perfect cheat upon a husband and the human family.

Our culture has surely advanced by “liberating” women from vice-like corsets and 18-inch waistlines. But while modern women are more comfortable, I am not sure they are always more sensible.

It has always been difficult for young Christians (both male and female) to realize that beauty is not what our culture tells us it is. Physical beauty and physical attraction are facts of life; the Bible does not teach us that we must be ugly. But while the world is a slave to the physical, a Christian recognizes another, far more important, source of beauty. “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array: but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works” (1 Tim. 2:9-10). A young woman must cultivate the beauty of her spirit, and a young man must look for that enduring beauty.

Brother Barnes also emphasizes the responsibility of parents for the conduct of the young. The sometimes sensuous, frequently ridiculous dress of many young girls is directly chargeable to the vicarious lusts of her mother. Many nineteenth-century mothers probably did damage the health of their daughters in their efforts to make them beautiful. Many twentieth-century mothers damage the spiritual health of their daughters by dressing them in expensive and worldly clothing. The biblical charge to “aged women” was never more needed: “that they teach the younger women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed” (Tit. 2:4,5). – Ed Harrell.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 11, p. 324
June 7, 1990

By Tom Hamilton

Shinto is not a religious system in the usual sense that we tend to think of. It has no founder, no sacred scriptures (such as the Bible or the Koran), and no organization. From a biblical perspective, it has no system of ethical or moral instruction, no absolute right or wrong, no concept of sin and salvation, and no concern for a life after death. This is why most Shinto believers are also Buddhists; Buddhism supplies the religious answers to these issues which are not part of Shinto thought. Shinto is more of a philosophy of living, a way of doing things and thinking of things that pervades Japanese life. Even in a society that is becoming increasingly modern and agnostic, Shinto still is the dominant influence as subconscious, rather than conscious. This may be compared to present day American values, which used to be based upon a biblical foundation, but are now detached from it. On the conscious level, there is no reason for Americans to embrace the values they believe in, but on the subconscious level it is obviously due to the direct influence of our past Judeo-Christian heritage, ethics and religious values. So also in Japan, Shinto is at the very core of the Japanese person’s attitude toward life, his way of thinking and living.

This is not surprising when one recognizes that Shinto is the native religion of Japan, existing even before the historical events recorded concerning the beginning of Japan. When history tells us of the formation of Japanese society and civilization, Shinto already existed – Japan’s form of the world-wide, natural expression of man’s yearning for God. Shinto means “the way of the kami, ” who are spirits or divine beings which are not really adequately translated as “gods.” Shinto is at heart a crude and rather primitive form of naturalistic polytheism, believing in many kami or spirits who reside within or control various natural elements: the sun, trees, mountains, storms, farm fields, etc. Almost everything in nature, especially anything living and active, possesses a kami. Shinto is the unorganized worship of these spirits; Shinto is a mixed collection of common beliefs which were the Japanese people’s crude attempts to explain the relationship of man’s human nature to the living forces of the natural world in which he lived and upon which his life depended.

Shinto, like every other polytheistic religion, has its complex. myths and legends about the various major kami, their origins, histories, powers, great deeds, etc. These are especially reminiscent of the stories told about the gods of Greek mythology, with which we are more familiar. Like the gods of Greco-Roman society, the kami are really made in the image of man, with their own shortcomings, weaknesses, “sins,” and even deaths. This is the result of a people who yearn for God, but do so in ignorance and deception (Rom. 1:18-23). Shrines were built all over Japan, especially where a particular kami was thought to reside, and the kami’s presence is enshrined there. Pilgrimages are regularly made to shrines by millions of people each year, when prayers are offered and other rituals, particularly water purification, are practiced.

The kami have mysterious creating and harmonizing powers, which places an emphasis on peace and harmony. All of the kami cooperate with each other, and Shinto likewise expresses the desire to peacefully coexist with other world religions. The kami express their will, otherwise referred to as the truthful way, and make it known to devoted, sincere followers who ask for guidance in similarly truthful and sincere prayers. One is able to discern the will of the katni by thoughtful, genuine attempts at understanding “truth” as it relates to a particular situation. The more pure and sincere one is, the more perfectly he can discern the will of the kami and thereby live the most pleasant life possible. When one lives in accordance with the expressed will of the kami, one gains the approval, cooperation, and protection of every kami. Therefore, great emphasis is placed upon “sincerity” and “purity of heart,” which is the sincere attitude of mind which causes one to do his best in a particular situation, and thereby approach the ideal of the kami or a more perfect communion or fellowship with the kami. Man himself is the image and offspring of the kami and realizes his full potential and greatest happiness by being kami-like. Also, since all men are the offspring of kami, each individual is worthy of proper respect. Each must respect the rights of others, and each must live up to his social duties and obligations to others.

Shinto is unconcerned with any concept of life after death and teaches that the world will continue eternally. Man must not be concerned with the past or the future, but only the present. He is a single individual, whose duty is to be a link in the continuing history of man, which passes from one generation to the next. Therefore, rather than being concerned with death, salvation from sin, hell/eternal condemnation, heaven/eternal reward, or any future and other worldly concepts, man should concern himself with his present circumstances and how he can be most happy within such circumstances. Accordingly, Shinto also has no system of true moral values and no basis of authority for determining absolutes of right and wrong. Basically, Shinto’s moral values are situational ethics. “Truth” or “sincerity” is doing your best under the circumstances of a particular situation, and if you fail it is due to a lack of complete knowledge or understanding, and imperfect communion with the kami to have clearly apprehended his will. Sin or evil is not a corruption of the heart or man’s will, but the exercise of poor judgment or the lack of proper awareness. It is merely an impurity, much like dust, which must be washed away at regular intervals. This problem is one which should cause shame, but hardly one in which there is guilt. In regard to all of these basic tenets of Shinto, anyone familiar with Japanese society can recognize the manifestation of these beliefs, whether consciously or subconsciously, in the distinctive attitudes, customs, and lifestyles of the Japanese people.

Obviously, Shinto is commendable (as is almost any religion) for some of its good advice and some of the virtues which it teaches. Many Americans would do well to learn the lessons of responsibility, selflessness, and social obligation which the Japanese have learned so well. But as a system of religion, moral instruction, and the other major aspects that we usually think of when we say “religion,” Shinto has serious weaknesses. Those who believe in Shinto clearly concede this when the vast majority find it necessary to turn to Buddhism for the answers which are lacking in Shinto. Therefore, in regard to Japanese religious beliefs, one must not only be prepared to confront Shinto, but Buddhist doctrine as well.

In dealing with the problems of Shinto itself, it should be very helpful for us to recognize that the form of naturalistic polytheism which Shinto exhibits is little different from the same form of paganism which Paul and the other early Christians confronted throughout the Mediterranean world in the first century. The myths and legends concerning the gods are similar. The multitude of gods behind every natural force or object is the same. The lack of any systematic, organized paganism is parallel; the Greek loosely held common beliefs, built temples to various gods from place to place, with each city and household having their patron god or goddess. The absence of any founder, sacred scriptures, or true moral instruction is identical. All of these striking parallels should not surprise us; such are simply the natural result of what happens when man tries to satisfy his common, world-wide urge to seek after God when he is ignorant of the true God and self-deceived. And one could take no better approach to discrediting this philosophy of life than that which Paul used, as represented in Acts 17:16-34.

1. There is one true God (Acts 17:24). “The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth.” There is one God who created everything, and through creation he displays his eternal power and divine nature (Rom. 1:18-20).

2. This God is all-sufficient (Acts 17:24-25). “. . . does not dwell in temples made with hands, neither is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all life and breath and all things. ” This God possesses no such limitations as man does. God does not need man; man needs God (Isa. 66:1-2). Everything else is secondary and subordinate to God (Eph. 1:15-23).

3. This God is all powerful and authoritative (Acts 17:26-27). . and He made from one, every nation of mankind . that they should seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. ” This God created man for a purpose, which man had better fulfill. Man must respect the authority of God and submit to his will which has been clearly revealed to us (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

4. This God is all divine (Acts 17:29)- “Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. ” This God is not subject to the whims, interpretations, wisdom, or imperfect reasoning of man. He is not the product of man’s imagination. God is not in the image of man, but man is to be in the image of God (Col. 3:1-11; 2 Pet. 1:2-11).

5. This God is all righteous (Acts 17:30-31). “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to man that all everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness.” This God is perfectly moral and righteous, and he expects such of his offspring. There is a judgment day appointed; there is a future to be concerned about; there is a need for salvation from sin; there is an absolute basis upon which to discern right and wrong, a basis upon which we will be judged (Acts 10:42-43; Rom. 3:21-28; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; Jn. 12:44-50).

The way of the gods is vain, deceptive, decadent, powerless, and immoral (Rom. 1:18-32). The gods are mute, deaf, and impotent (Isa. 44:920). Shinto truly does mean “the way of the gods, ” but sadly, what the Japanese and others who are being touched by their culture need to know is “The Way of God” which is true and living (Jn. 14:6).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 10, pp. 314-316
May 17, 1990