What Did the Church Fathers Believe Aboutthe Blessed Virgin Mary?

What Did the Church Fathers Believe aboutthe Blessed Virgin Mary?

Rev. Canon Glenn E. Davis

Introduction

No subject stirs passionate emotion between members of the Roman Catholic Church and adherents of Evangelical Protestantism thena discussion about Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Recently, this theological controversywas brought to the forefront againby an article featured in Newsweek magazine.This essay pointed out the vast amount of lay support in the Roman Catholic Church for declaring Mary co-Redemptrix and co-Mediatrix with the Lord Jesus Christ:

This week a large box shipped from California and addressed to "His Holiness, John Paul II" will arrive at the Vatican. The shipping label lists a dozen countries--from every continent but Antarctica--plus a number, 40,383, indicating the quantity of signatures inside. Each signature is attached to a petition asking the pope to exercise the power of papal infallibility to proclaim a new dogma of the Roman Catholic faith: that the Virgin Mary is "Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of All Graces and Advocate for the People of God."[1]

The Evangelical world was aghast for it had hoped that the Roman Catholic Church was moderating its position about Mary. Recent ecumenical dialogues with the Roman Catholic theologians had resulted in warm and responsive discussions; Evangelicals looked forward to continued rapprochement. However, Evangelicals were not only grieved that Mary would be elevated to a redeemer status, but also that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility could be invoked in order to establish Mary as a co-Redemptrix and co-Mediatrix with Christ. The mere mention of the concept of infallible Papal authority renewed many old theological anxieties for Evangelicals: tensions, debates, and antagonismsof the Reformation period were renewed. The reaction was immediate and strong from the Billy Graham founded magazine, Christianity Today.

The possibility, however remote, of the pope's responding to the grassroots groundswell by giving Mary titles that blur the New Testament's clear vision of Jesus' unique role in our salvation endangers this uncompromising achievement of clarity [the Evangelicals and Catholics Together Joint Statement on Salvation]. All of which prompts us to say, Don't. Don't give to Mary that which belongs to Jesus. Do keep on the road established at Vatican II. [2]

The Roman Catholic Church already has such an official high view of Mary that many Evangelicals feel such that a belief diminishes the centrality of Christ. The Roman Catholic Church presents Mary as the ever-virgin, sinless handmaid, and heavenly intercessor. Rome encourages the faithful in their devotion to Mary:

Mary is the perfect Orans (prayer), a figure of the Church. When we pray to her, we are adhering with her to the plan of the Father, who sends his Son to save all men. Like the beloved disciple we welcome Jesus' mother into our homes, for she has become the mother of all the living. We can pray with and to her. The prayer of the Church is sustained by the prayer of Mary and united with it in hope.[3]

This statement,and others like it,upset many Evangelicals fearing that the Roman Catholic understanding of Mary distracts from the Lord Jesus Christ’s finished work on the cross, his unique mediatorial position, and his ministry of heavenly intercession. Therefore, the question needs to be asked, “What did the Fathers of the Church believe about Mary, the Mother of Jesus? Did they lay the groundwork for present Roman Catholic doctrine? On the other hand, did the Fathers simply affirm what modern Evangelicals believe today? The purpose of this essay is to answer that question.

Ignatius of Antioch

Bishop Ignatius of Antioch is a good representation of the views of the Fathers during the time known as the apostolic period. This period gets its name from the fact that many of the leaders of the Church had personal relationships with the original Twelve Apostles. During Ignatius’journey to Rome for his trial and execution, he wrote seven letters to churches located in Asia Minor. In one of those letters, Ignatius speaks of Mary for purely Christological purposes. He emphasizes Jesus’ birth through Mary to prove that Jesus was truly human. Ignatius would invoke Mary’s name in order to prove that Jesus was God incarnate in human flesh. Mary’s role is simply defined as being an instrument of God for the birth of the Son of God. “There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, — even Jesus Christ our Lord.”[4]Ignatius is deliberately refuting the error that Jesus was a phantom, not an apparition, but lived as a human in the flesh. If as the Bible says, Jesus was born of a human mother, then he would have to be human. Jesus’ humanity was problematic for those who believed that flesh was evil as ancient Greek Platonic thoughtdescribed. Repeatedly, Ignatius proclaims that Jesus is a descendant of David through Mary.

Ignatius does speak of the importance of Mary in that; God placed her virginity and the virgin birth of Jesus in a mystery hidden from the devil. These truths were grouped with the death of Christ as being of utmost significance. However, Ignatius does not explain why they are mysteries or why they are as important as a grouping. “Now the virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world, as was also her offspring, and the death of the Lord; three mysteries of renown, which were wrought in silence by God. How, then, was He manifested to the world?”[5]

Ignatius will agree, as will all the Fathers without exception, that the Biblical account of the virgin birth of Christ is true and that it is essential to true faith in Christ. As Origen would say at a later time, “Those who believe in Jesus who was crucified in Judea under Pontius Pilate, but did not believe that he was born of the Virgin Mary, believe and do not believe in the same Person?”[6] This fact of Patristic consensus in regards to the virgin birth will remain unchanged throughout the first six hundred years of the Church.

Justin the Martyr

Patristic writing in the Second Century is named after its most predominant style of discourse—the Apology, the defense of the Faith. The Apologists put forth a number of treatises defending Christianity from its detractors and persecutors. Justin the Martyr was the foremost of these authors and his three documents: the two Apologies and the Dialogue with Trypho each contain references to Mary. In the first Apology, Justin defends the uniqueness of Christ by his unusual birth. That Jesus was born without marital relations and that the Holy Spirit conceived the child in Mary creating that uniqueness that sets Christ apart from all others. Thus, Mary was a mother without taking away her virginity. Justin insists that Isaiah 7:14 should be translated virgin not handmaiden. “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”[7]The controversy over the correct translation of the Hebrew word, ha’almah, is still reflected today in liberalversus conservative debates. Is ha’almah to be translated: virgin or handmaiden? Compare the Revised Standard Translation (RSV) with New International Version (NIV) quoted above: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Without exception, the Fathers affirmed, “virgin” to be the correct translation.

The New Eve

Justin confirms traditional Marian teaching, but also broaches a fresh theological idea in a concept now called “The Eve-Mary Parallel.” Justin is the first to conclude that Mary is the “new Eve.” In 1 Cor. 15:21-22, the Apostle Paul talks about Christ being the “new Adam.” Therefore, Justin to draws a soteriological connection between Eve and Mary. Eve is a virgin, but listens to Satan’s words and becomes defiled. Mary is a virgin, buthears God’s words through an angel and responds in obedience. Mary righteous choices undo the sinful work of Eve’s selfish pride. John Henry Newman wrote that though this Eve-Mary parallel is a very rudimentary doctrine in Justin, the parallelism is extremely important in Roman Catholic theological development.[8]

Justin states in Dialogue with Trypho:

For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her. And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him.[9]

For the apologists, Mary’s obedience triumphs over the sins and failings of Eve and this triumph isaccepted as dogma during the Patristic period. Scholars deduce this early patristic commitmentfrom the fact thatno known refutations of the Eve-Mary parallel were written by any early church writer. It was Justin’s belief in his Dialoguewith Trypho, that he was simply stating the obvious: Mary’s obedience undid Eve’s sinful disobedience.Justin was attempting to conveyonly what the church universally believed. Justin was not speculative writerdeveloping new theological concepts like an Origen. However, the historian must be cognizant that for Justin the center of redemptionis still the person and work of Jesus. Justinis adamant that a sinner should repent and believe in Jesus, not Mary.

Irenaeus of Lyon

Irenaeus of Lyon is the first of the great Patristic thinkers. Polycarp of Smyrna trained Irenaeus around 150 A. D. Irenaeus later moves to Gauland there he becomes thefirst major articulator of the ancient faith. Irenaeus is tragically martyred around 193 A. D. Irenaeus’ thinking concerning Mary is considered groundbreaking by the Roman Catholic Church, “In his age the theology of Our Lady was truly born.”[10] Irenaeus developed a soteriology named the theory of recapitulation: all humankind was taken up in Christ, with the result that all that was lost in Adam is regained in Christ.[11]The Book of Romans states,“For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.”[12] The work of Christ on our behalf accomplished two things: the conquering of sin and death and the restoring of fallen humankind to the image of God.

Mary and Salvation

Along with the redemptive work of Christ, Irenaeus draws on Justin’s application of the Mary-Eve parallel. Irenaeus goes on to say that as Eve brought failure through her disobedience with the Serpent, then Mary brought salvation through her obedience to the word of God brought by the angel, Gabriel, at the Annunciation.

But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin, having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation (emphasis mine), both to herself and the whole human race.[13]

Irenaeus’ takes the Adam-Christ parallel and makes the same association to Eve and Mary. As a result, Irenaeus creates a completely new wayof thinking in regards to Mary: Maryis thought of in terms as having contributedto the redemption of humankind. “The knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the Virgin Mary set free through faith.”[14]

Advocate

Later in Irenaeus’ argument, he uses the Latin word advocata in reference to Mary being the advocate of Eve.[15] This use of the word advocata is the beginning of the theological idea that the person of Mary has intercessory qualities. The use of the word advocata is treading on dangerous ground for when Latin is translated into Greek the word becomes Paraclete, which is a title for the Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John. Currently, scholars do not have a Greek copy of Against Heresies to know if this would have been Irenaeus’ intention. However, in later centuries, this concept of advocata would open the door for Mary being an intercessor for the church. Before Irenaeus, this conceptof priestly intercession was not discussed in terms of Mary’s life and ministry.[16]

Mary Recapitulates

The concept of Mary being involved in the salvation history is developed even further in Irenaeus’ work,Proof of Apostolic Preaching.Here, he makes a direct connection between the work of Christ and the work of Mary by statingthat they both recapitulated the devil,“Adam had to be recapitulated in Christ, so that death might be swallowed up in immortality, and Eve [had to be recapitulated] in Mary, so that the Virgin, having become another virgin’s advocate, might destroy and abolish one virgin’s disobedience by the obedience of another virgin.”[17]In summary, Irenaeus stated, there is one divine plan of salvation that Adam disrupted and in which Eve contributed to their disobedience, but Christ is restoring Eden with the contribution of Mary.

Tradition without Foundation

Protestant theologians criticize this salvationdevelopment in Marian devotion for its conclusions were drawn without the explicit, or even implicit, teaching of Scripture. In that all-important chapter five of the Book of Romans, which discusses Adam as our covenant head, there is no mention by Paul of Eve or Mary. During the Patristic Period, the belief that Mary contributed to redemption was widely held in Christian antiquity. Irenaeus writes that it is his express goal in writing is to articulate what the whole Church believed everywhere.[18]Irenaeusdoes not attempt to defend his statements since they were the consensus of the church, “It is difficult . . . to avoid the impression that he cited the parallelism of Eve and Mary so matter-of-factly without arguing . . . because he would assume that his readers would go along with it . . . .”[19]

Origen and Eastern Mariology

Outside of heretical movements, Origen was the most controversial thinkerof the Patristic period. Brilliant yet greatly misunderstood, he was branded a heretic based largely on the behavior of heretics that invoked his name. Increasingly, modern church historians are looking on him with greater favor and respect.[20] There is no doubt that his thinking influenced Eastern Christianity for centuries: his theological reflection is still the centerpiece of Eastern Orthodox thought today. He died approximately 253 A.D. and spent the end of his life in Palestine after leaving Alexandriaover a disagreement with his bishop. Origen was a man who lived out his Christian life with incredible courage and personal holiness.

The Four Truths

Origen affirmed four truths about the Virgin Mary. First, he declared that Mary was indeed the Mother of God(Gk: Theotòkos): a titlewhich emphasizes Christ’s divinity. Second, Origen said that it was essential for someone who claims to believe in Christ to believe in the doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Jesus.[21] Third, Origen affirms the belief that Mary was an ever-virgin. Her perpetual virginity means that Mary had no other children after Jesus, “There is no child of Mary except Jesus, according to the opinion of those who think correctly about her.”[22]Origen’s mention of Mary’s perpetual virginity as a doctrinal belief may be the first, for a century earlier, Tertullian had denied this conviction. Mary’s ever-virginity was the committed beliefof the early church and this conviction continues in Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches today. Fourth, Origen accepts as truethe personal purity of Mary. Origen does not state that she was sinless, but he does affirm that she was ever growing in her spiritual life and progressing toward perfection.[23] Thus, Origen’s theology sets a pattern for Eastern belief about Mary: her title will be Theotòkos, express believe in the virgin birth, affirmation of her ever-virginity and no individual sin (they do maintain that she inherited “a bent to sinning”).[24]

Athanasius of Alexandria

Concerning Marian theology, there was a period of dormancy at the end of the third century up to the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. As the fiery debate over the eternal Sonship of Christ raged between Athanasius and Arius, discussions revived concerning the contributions of Mary in the economy of salvation. Athanasius, the great defender of the Nicene position, advanced strongly the traditional understanding of Mary’s motherhood. In turn, Athanasius affirmed the use of the title,Theotòkos, for the Virgin Mary. The title, Theotòkos, is best defined as “the one who gave birth to the one who is God.”[25] This term “Mother of God,” or “Bearer of God,” was used by the Fathers to declare that Jesus was human, born of a woman,and divinity, that is, the Son of God. The intent of the title “was to affirm that the person Mary bore was truly God as well as truly man.”[26] The purpose of the title “Mother of God” was not for exalting Mary: it was given to her for the purpose of honoring and glorying Christ. During the Arian controversy, it is important that in mentioning Mary, the church fathersweresimply guaranteeing the doctrine of the incarnation. Jesus being God incarnate in human flesh is human if he is born of a woman, but also God, since Mary conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. Athanasius said, “Christ, being God became man for our sake and was born of Mary, Mother of God, Theotòkos, to free us from the devil’s power.”[27]