DOES A CHRISTIAN HAVE SEVEN MOTHERS?

I was intrigued when I recently read a short piece in Christianity Today magazine by Andrew Wilson titled “A Christian Has Seven Mothers.” I have always enjoyed Wilson's columns since they are both entertaining and enlightening. But I must admit that in this case he seems to be indulging more in eisegesis than exegesis in order to make his point. Let us consider each of these six “mothers” in turn.

Eve

In a biological sense, we can say that she is of course our original female ancestor. That is spelled out specifically in Genesis 3:20 where she is called “the mother of the living.” That fact alone should give us pause since she was also instrumental for bringing sin into the lives of all humanity. Despite that fact, Wilson notes that whereas “Adam” is a dust-man, “Eve” in Hebrew means “life-giver” whose seed will eventually and inevitably crush the head of Satan.

The Church

In Galatians 4:26, Paul states, “The Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.” This statement comes at the end of the allegory of the two wives, Hagar the slave and Sarah the freeborn, representing the Jerusalem above, the universal church.

I must admit that here I learned something I had never thought of before, namely that the “heavenly Jerusalem” was the same as the church. And when I come across an idea that is new to me, I immediately, like the Bereans, have to check it out for myself. But after consulting numerous sources, I am not sure that I am any closer to understanding the concept as before. Just look at these various comments from the experts:

    Briggs says that here, “Paul draws on the prophets' vision of the pilgrimage of the nations to the restored Jerusalem,” and she points to the phrase “mother Zion” in Psalm 87:5.

    Mikolaski: “The Jerusalem above means spiritual Jerusalem, of God's heavenly kingdom, a community of children of faith.”

    Dictionary of Biblical Imagery in commenting on Revelation 19:7 states that it is the community of saints living in the New Jerusalem that is Christ's bride and that “the new home is to be the New Jerusalem.” And in another article, it says that it is an enduring city to come (Heb. 13:14). “It is the full realization of the imperial destiny of the people of God.”

    D.K. Campbell: Jerusalem above is “the mother of all the children of grace. This heavenly city...is now the 'city of the living God' (cf. Heb. 12:22), the home of departed believers of all ages.”

    Both John Stott and Donald Guthrie say that “the spiritual Jerusalem...represents the Christian Church.”

    Calvert: “The children of promise, who are born of Isaac, are members of the heavenly Jerusalem.”

    Martyn does not really define what the Jerusalem from above means. But he states that “the heavenly Jerusalem guides the true church below divorcing it...from an earth that is closed in on itself. In this way the heavenly Jerusalem is God's servant, calling the church into existence as the new creation.”

At this point, it appears that the New Jerusalem, the Jerusalem above, is either the present or future location of believers or stands for the believers themselves. But the next commentators attempt to remove that confusion:

    Bruce explains that the Jerusalem above “is not primarily the geographical site...but is the community of the new covenant.”

    Cole says that “this was a familiar usage from the Old Testament where 'Jerusalem' can stand for the whole nation, especially in prophetic address. To be her children is to have already entered this eschatological age of fulfillment of all of God's promises; and this the Christian has already done through trust in God's Messiah.”

    Ridderbos: “By this other Jerusalem Paul means not merely the assembly of those who have left the earthly struggle to enter heaven: he means also the central point from which believers are gathered, nourished, and governed, and the manner in which all this takes place...Paul sees the fulfillment of this promise in the gathering of the believers in Christ.”

Thus, we can say that the New Jerusalem, the church, is not only the location where Christians gather to be nourished as a mother nourishes her children, but it is at the same time the community of believers themselves and the final goal toward which we all look forward.

Paul

This is a really strange image, but it appears to be justified by the apostle's address to the church in Galatians 4:19 – “My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you...” And Paul did not limit this metaphorical picture to the Galatian church, but wrote to the Thessalonians in I Thess. 2:7-8 – “But we were gentle among you just as a nursing mother cares for her children, so we cared for you.”

I have a couple of comments to make concerning Wilson's contention. In the first place, Paul could justly state that he was the “mother” of churches such as in Galatia and Thessalonika since he was personally responsible for bringing those congregations into existence. But that by no means infers that he is the mother of all believers today.

Secondly, I Thessalonians 2:7-8 should never be used as a proof text to establish this doctrine. There is a notorious textual problem concerning the word “gentle” since the reading “babes” is equally possible. But that image of Paul and his companions as “babes” scarcely fits with the image of them as mothers as well. Also note that if Paul is called our mother in this verse, then so are his companions who ministered with him. Then there is the phrase “nursing mother,” which is an interpretation of the Greek original simply meaning “nurse.” This is not necessarily a nursing mother. It could be a wet nurse or any person helping to raise the infants.

Our Pastors

Wilson argues that as a natural extension of this passage above we should consider our pastors as mothers: “those who bring us to birth in the gospel, care for us when we are [spiritually] sick, and feed us when we are hungry [for God's truth].” This is certainly a possible application of the above (making the very dubious assumption that Wilson is correct in his exegesis of the texts involved) but it certainly is at odds with the overwhelming male imagery utilized in the New Testament for the spiritual overseers in the church. And if Wilson is on target, then his examples indicate that anyone who brings us to Christ should be considered as our mother, whether they are male or female, and not just those who hold official positions in the church.

Jesus

And for another male figure who is said to be a mother, we only have to turn to Luke 13:34 where Jesus compares himself to a hen trying to protect her chicks (in Jerusalem) when they would have not any part of him. This verse does not directly state that Jesus is the mother of all believers, but Wilson believes we can easily infer that fact from the negative example Jesus gives. Basically, Jesus is saying that if the inhabitants had believed in him, then at that point he would have become their mother hen.

On the other hand, remember that Jesus is using a simile here. And with similes and metaphors, one must ask, “Which specific aspect of the comparison is Jesus alluding to?” It is obvious here that the limited comparison refers to a hen's protection of her chicks. But if we go to another of Jesus' pronouncements which would seem to be much more applicable since it specifically mentions “mother” and does not involve other animal species, we get an entirely different image.

Thus, in Matthew 12:46-50 Jesus is informed that his biological mother and (half-)brothers are outside, he makes the astounding statement that his disciples are his mother and brothers. In fact, “whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” This turns Wilson's statement on its head. Using his reasoning, we could say that it is not that Jesus is the mother of all believers, but all believers who are the mother to Jesus.

God the Father

Although He is generally referred to using masculine nouns and pronouns, in Isaiah 49:15-16 God says, “Can a mother forget the baby she is nursing and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you!” God portrays Himself as a super mother, more loving toward his creation than a human mother is toward her own baby.

Since this is expressed an analogy arguing from the lesser to the greater, we should not make any exact parallels here. Thus, what if I were to say that whereas a duck cannot multiply numbers, I can not only multiply but divide also. Am I implying in any way whatsoever that I consider myself to be a super-duck? Of course not.

The Earth

Evangelical Christians are rightly suspicious of the phrase “Mother Earth.” It is a concept seemingly arising from, and properly limited to, animistic religions which personify, and even deify, the Earth. Of course, this designation pops up in a lot more aspects of popular culture, whether it is in the talk of committed environmentalists or the teachings of the neatness-and-simplification guru Marie Kondo who urges us to thank the Earth as well as God before we give away items that we no longer need.

So can we find biblical justification for this controversial image? Wilson believes we can since this image appears in both the Old and New Testaments. Job, in 1:21, states that he will return naked to his mother's womb, a clear reference to the earth where his elements will again be distributed variously. And in Romans 8:22 we are given the well-known teaching that the creation is groaning like a woman in labor who will give birth to a new redeemed world, one no longer subject to death and decay.

Let's start with the OT example. DBI explains, “Womb in Scripture can refer to any place of origin.” They cite Psalm 110:3 and Job 38:29 as examples. But there is no escaping the fact that in Job 1:21 the earth is specifically called his “mother's womb.” But we should keep in mind that the book of Job is basically a play in which each character expresses his or her thoughts whether they are right or wrong, well informed or not. And whereas Job's friends are not always incorrect in their pronouncements, neither is Job always correct. After all, keep in mind that (a) this is an OT document in which the doctrine of the physical resurrection was only dimly expressed and (b) God actually spends chapters 38-41 of Job pointing out to him one area after another of which Job is totally ignorant. So we should certainly not establish the doctrine of “Mother Earth” from this verse alone.

That leaves Romans 8:22 to consider. The physical creation is obviously pictured as a woman in labor pains looking forward to the birth of a new creation in which decay no longer occurs. This “decay” could be viewed in scientific terms as the concept of entropy – the universe is winding down every day. But the question to ask, “Does Paul consider us to be part of this groaning creation?” In fact, the very next verse answers that question in the negative since it clearly distinguishes us from this “mother earth” and her birth pangs: “and not only the creation, but we ourselves...groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.” So I fail to see how this NT passage establishes the earth as our mother either.

Conclusion

From all of the above, my personal opinion is that Andrew Wilson has proved his case in stating that a believer has as “mother” the following: Eve and the Church. But I am a bit dubious about the other five “mothers” he identifies.