WELS AnswerMan
Q: When the Angel announced to Mary she was to be the Mother of God, he addressed her: "Hail FULL OF GRACE." Could she be "full of grace" if she had sinned or had original sin on her soul? I find it hard to believe that Jesus didn't keep his Mother pure. Also, I often wonder if she suffered the pains of giving birth. I wouldn't think so.
-------------------------
A: Rather than call Mary the mother of God, it would be better to speak of her as the mother of the God-Man, Jesus. Mary was told by the angel, not that she would be the mother of God, but that the son, the man child, to whom she would give birth would also be the holy Son of God (Luke 1:31,35).
The word the angel used to address Mary does not mean "full of" grace. It only means one to whom God has shown grace. Grace means undeserved kindness or undeserved favor. Mary was not someone who had earned the right to give birth to the Savior, but this was a special undeserved favor which the angel said God would show her.
Mary herself confesses her need of a Savior ("God, my Savior" Luke 1:47), so she like every other sinner needed Jesus as the Savior to pay for her sins by his death. And she praises God for sending Jesus in fulfillment of his promise to Israel (Luke 1:54-55) which Mary rejoiced to know also included her.
Whether Mary suffered pain in childbirth or not is something about which Scripture is silent. But since the Bible describes the birth of Jesus in terms of a normal childbirth, it seems likely that Mary would have suffered the normal pain in giving birth to Jesus.
Certainly Mary is a woman whom we will remember and honor as the woman through whom God brought Jesus into this world as both God and man to save us (Luke 1:48b-49). But it would not be right for us, nor would humble Mary be happy to hear about it, if we honor her beyond this.
***
GJ - The folks at LutherQuest (sic) are lathered about the answer, but they get lathered about every topic. My first thought was, "Bivens is doing the AnswerMan again." Names would help.
First of all, the original term was Greek and it means "The one who gave birth to God." The word for mother was not in the original Greek word. The word Theotokos was used at the Council of Ephesus, 431, after Nestorius tried to split the natures of Christ. Calvin is correctly called a Nestorian because he also divides the Two Natures, which are and continue to be united in the One Person Christ.
The Two Natures of Christ, by Chemnitz, is one of the finest books in theology. Jack Preus translated it; I have a copy signed by him. Two Natures is one of the best books for any serious student of the Bible to read. Chemnitz goes into great detail but he is easy to follow. I remember Preus saying to me, "It takes some capacity to follow Chemnitz."
NPH also has Schaller's Christology, which is a much slimmer volume, more of a summary of all the writings on this topic.
Heretics attack the Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ, and justification by faith. LutherQuest (sic) is a UOJ shop, so they are not qualified to go heresy-hunting.
For many people, the transition from Theotokos to Mother of God is not a natural one. That is why I think AnswerMan went wobbly on this question. For many people, Mother of God implies the generation of the Son of God, or perhaps something more than what the term Theotokos means. And they associate the term with the Roman Catholic expansion of Mary's attributes, which became Christ-like in the Middle Ages. I have a long section about this in Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant.
Ironically, the expansion of Mary's titles took place after the Council of Ephesus in 431. Our loss of historical detail means we cannot answer why this happened. It is still intriguing that the Christian Church of the Middle Ages turned Christ into an angry judge and Mary into His merciful and interceding mother. Starting with Pope Pius IX, Mary officially became Immaculate, without any actual sin, and with Pius XII, assumed into heaven. Both opinions were prevalent long before, but they were officially declared by pious popes in this modern age.
I find the whole AnswerMan answer quite awkward, but really a tough set of issues to address in a few paragraphs. In doing research for CLP, I often used a three-volume work on Mary. Yes, three volumes on Mary alone. Jaroslav Pelikan went nuts over that set of books, so much paper devoted to Mary, but he later joined the Eastern Orthodox Church and died EO. The Eastern Orthodox focus on Mary as much as the Roman Catholics do. The LCMS pastors go Marian before they pope (join Rome) or semi-pope (join Eastern Orthodoxy) or demi-semi-pope (join ELDONA).
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is addressed somewhat by AnswerMan. The Book of Concord mentions this twice. Luther, Calvin, and orthodox Lutheran theologians assumed the Perpetual Virginity of Mary - until recent times. That relates to pain in childbirth. In other words, Mary was a virgin before, during, and after giving birth. The Word of God does not deal with this because Christ is the central message of the Scriptures, Old and New Testament alike. As I mentioned before, the Medieval Church became obsessed with Mary, excluding the work of Christ.
Chemnitz in Examination said we should not go beyond what the Scriptures say about Mary, and that is the best answer of all.
Luther definitely taught the Immaculate Conception of Mary in his early days, but he clearly repudiated that position in his later sermons, as shown in the Lenker sermon collection. The Reformers slowly parted with 1,000 years of Marian teachings, no easy task. Look at how the old Synodical Conference still clings to UOJ, which was invented and promulgated by the Halle Pietists of the 19th century. At this rate the Midwestern Lutherans will still be teaching UOJ in 2850 AD. Someone will say, "According to my ancestor, Rolf Preus..."
Luther prayed to Mary in his fine commentary on the Magnificat. Does that mean we should also? I am very suspicious of people who try to provide their doctrinal quirks from Luther but apart from the Book of Concord. Given that kind of thinking, I could prove something from the Table Talks or a letter he wrote to Katy. No, there is a reason we have a clearly defined set of Confessions in the Book of Concord. The Luther corpus is too large to have people winnow it for their private heresies.
---
From an Eastern Orthodox website:
Nestorius, who was the bishop of Constantinople (428-431 AD), began to preach that Mary should not be called Theotokos, "Mother of God" ", but Mother of Christ". He separated the divine nature from the human nature in Christ as he states, "Mary did not give birth to God. A creature cannot deliver her creator, but only a man who is the instrument of the divinity." St. Cyril of Alexandria clarifies what Nestorius meant by thus, "first, an ordinary human being was born of the holy Virgin, and then the Word descended upon the man...." 82
What does "Theotokos" or " Mother of God", therefore mean?
Once again St. Cyril gives us a clear explanation. "We do not say that the nature of the Word became man by undergoing change; nor that it was transformed into a complete man consisting of soul and body. What we say, rather, is that by uniting to himself in his own person a body animated by a rational soul, the Word became man in an inexpressible way...."
The website quoted uses this issue to magnify Mary, with repeated refrains of "Most Holy Theotokos, save us" from the Greek liturgy. The graduates of The Surrendered Fort want to emphasize the closeness of Reformation Lutherans to Eastern Orthodoxy. They must be kidding - themselves or everyone else.
