The second and most important reason we know Luke 1:43 is referring to Mary as the Mother of God is summed up nicely in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 495:Ĭalled in the Gospels “the mother of Jesus,” Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as “the mother of my Lord.” In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father’s eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Given the revelation we have received from God, it-or she-is the Ark of Almighty God. Thus, the New Covenant “Ark of the Lord” could not be an ark of an earthly potentate, or a mere man. New Covenant fulfillments are always more glorious than their Old Covenant types (see Heb.
If this is true, then the more glorious New Covenant Ark of the Covenant could never be said to be inferior to its antecedent. The question is: Was the ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament the ark of an “earthly potentate,” or was it the ark of almighty God? The answer is obvious. Moreover, Mary “remained with for three months (Luke 1:56),” just as “the ark of the Lord remained in the house of Obededom the Gittite for three months” in II Sam. John the Baptist “leaped for joy” at the salutation of Mary (Luke 1:44), just as King David “danced before the Lord” in the ark of the Lord in II Samuel 6:14. If this one parallel leaves you unconvinced, there are more that may tip the scale for you. Elizabeth’s words make this clear as they hearken back to a text from II Samuel 6:9 wherein David exclaims concerning the Old Covenant “ark of the Lord:”Īnd David was afraid of the LORD that day and he said, “How can the ark of the LORD come to me?”
Was it being used to describe Jesus with regard to his humanity alone, or with regard to his divinity? Old Testament Typeįirst, when Elizabeth “exclaimed with a loud cry… why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me” (Luke 1:42-43), Mary was revealed to be the New Testament Ark of the Lord. The key to our discussion then is to ascertain how kurios is being used of Christ in Luke 1:43. It can be used to denote an earthly potentate or even false ‘lords’ or gods” (see Matt. “The Greek word kurios or ‘lord’ can indeed be used to denote divinity but not necessarily so. “Not so fast,” so often says my Protestant interlocutor. Mother of the Lord means Mother of God, right? Isn’t Jesus our Lord and God? Though we don’t have the words “Mother of God” as such in Scripture, we do have something very close in Luke 1:43, when Mary’s cousin (or relative) Elizabeth greets Mary shortly after she has conceived our Lord:Īnd why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
All gone! The canon of Scripture, the nature of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and so much more we believe as Christians would be out the door because none of these things are made explicit in Scripture.Īnd this is not to mention “justification by faith alone.” Can anyone agree there is just a bit of irony in the fact that the same fellow who tells me he will not accept Mary as “Mother of God” because those words “are not found in the Bible,” will accept justification by faith alone when the only time those words are found in the Bible the words “not by” are right in front of them (cf. Essential terms we use to do theology, like homoousios (Gr.- same nature, Jesus has the “same nature” as his Father), hypostatic union, the circumincessions of the persons of the Blessed Trinity, etc. The Incarnation would fall by the wayside. This line of reasoning fails in dramatic fashion when carried to its logical conclusion when we consider the central mystery of the Christian Faith, the Trinity, is not found in Scripture verbatim as well. Therefore, I will not accept it as true.” The most common objection I get to Mary as Mother of God, especially from Fundamentalists, but not limited to them, is, “The words ‘Mother of God’ are nowhere to be found in the Bible.