|
|
"For it was while Eve was yet a virgin, that the ensnaring word had crept into her ear which was to build the edifice of death. Into a virgin's soul, in like manner, must be introduced that Word of God which was to raise the fabric of life; so that what had been reduced to ruin by this sex, might by the selfsame sex be recovered to salvation. As Eve had believed the serpent, so Mary believed the angel."
(Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ:17)
|
|
|
Is Mary's Obedience The Cause Of Our Salvation?
Brian Culliton
Irenaeus did not intentionally introduced ideas that would one day become false doctrine. Irenaeus did, however, write extensively concerning heresy, making him a prominent figure in Christian history. His writings have been studied for centuries, and for those whose doctrine is based on history, he was extremely influential. But to what extent do some people stretch their imagination concerning the teachings of Irenaeus and others?
What we are about to examine is the origins of a modern day belief that is heavily disputed among Christians today. This belief is highly popular in the Catholic Church, and many others seem to be primed to accept it. The belief is the ever-so-popular "Mary: Co-redemptrix." I want to begin with Irenaeus because most proponents of this doctrine like to reference his statement concerning the "new Eve." They also know that Christians who do not support their doctrine consider him a respectable church father, making his writings a potent source for their belief. In his third volume of "Against Heresies," Irenaeus makes the following observation:
"In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, 'Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.' 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, both to herself and the whole human race." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:22:4)
This is a parallel teaching to Paul's teaching on Christ as the new Adam. In Paul's letter to the Romans, he wrote, "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many." (Rom. 5:14-15) It stands to reason when people read this they are inevitably going to ask didn't Eve sin too; didn't she also bring sin and death into the world? It seems inevitable that one would automatically think of Eve as a type of Mary when they learn that Adam is a type of Christ.
Irenaeus certainly satisfies the inevitable questions. But is he correct? Was Eve's disobedience the cause of death entering into the world? Was Mary's obedience the cause of salvation? These are tantalizing questions that deserve an answer. I would like to begin my answer by showing what is probably the origin of Irenaeus' thoughts towards this subject. About 20 years or so before Irenaeus wrote this, the second century Christian apologist Justin Martyr wrote his apologies and other letters explaining the faith.
In his "dialogue with Trypho," Justin wrote:
"…And that He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. 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 the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, 'Be it unto me according to thy word.' 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." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 100)
First note that Justin establishes that the virgin Eve brought forth disobedience and death. We all know the story; God made Adam in God's own image; God commanded Adam not to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree, warning him that if he did he would surely die. Later, God declares that it's not good for Adam to be alone so He made a helper for him that would be a companion to him. God made Eve from Adam, for Adam. Notice, God commanded Adam forbidding him from eating from the tree of knowledge before He made Eve. It was Adams responsibility to pass that commandment on to Eve, which he faithfully did. Also, the devil did not deceive Adam; he deceived Eve. Adam's sin was in obeying his wife who gave him the fruit. Therefore, sin and death entered the world by Adam through the conduit of the serpent and the virgin Eve.
So Justin is saying that Adam's disobedience came by this means; it was through the virgin Eve that sin came. Likewise, the conduit by which salvation came was through the virgin Mary, and it was a sign to men that the Messiah had come. Isaiah said, "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel." (Isa 7:14) So as Justin said, life came into the world by the same means death did, through the virgin.
Both these early church fathers were teaching the same thing; death entered the world by Eve believing the serpent, and life came into the world by Mary believing the angel. Neither man, however, gives credit to Eve for Adam's sin, nor do they give credit to Mary for Christ's obedience. So just as Eve was cursed for believing Satan, Mary was blessed for believing God. No Christian can argue against God's perfect knowledge. Therefore, we must confess that God knew that Satan would tempt Eve and Eve would believe him; He knew Adam would hearken unto his wife and eat the fruit. Likewise, God knew that Mary would believe because He chose her from the beginning. Even Justin said that she received faith and joy from God when the angel visited her. This wasn't a case of Mary agreeing with God, as if the salvation of the world hinged on her answer; this was a humbling honor to Mary, not a position of honor for her.
If the Christians of the first two centuries venerated Mary, why did these men stop here? Why didn't they write that all grace flows through Mary and Mary's role as co-redemptrix? Why didn't they write that Mary was conceived without sin? Surely this would have been important information for the writings against heresies - if it were true. However it wasn't true then, nor is it true now. At the most some in the second century church believed that Mary remained a virgin all her life but only because of a heretical writing called "The Infancy Gospel of James" that was circulating at that time.
Gnostics (those who believed that Christ never suffered in the flesh) were constant opponents of the early Christian church, as evidenced by the volumes of writings against them. As earlier stated, much of these writings focused on Christ's humanity. For this very reason Mary's role as mother of Jesus is often mentioned. The emphasis was on the fact that God became the "Son of Man." This could only happen if He took His fleshly body from man, that is, through Mary who is of the house of David, thus fulfilling the promise: "There shall come forth a Rod from the stem of Jesse, And a Branch shall grow out of his roots." (Isa 11:1)
As the church moved into the third century, heretical teachings seemed to gain strength. All sorts of philosophies and pagan practices began to enter the church by this time, as evidenced by the writings of Tertullian. The making of idols was a common occupation in those days, and it seem that there were many converts to the Christian church who still held that occupation. Tertullian warned them to stop participating in the trade because he viewed making idols the same as worshiping them. But the real danger was in the fact that they started to make likenesses of Christ for the church, and it was evident that there were churches condoning this practice. Tertullian strictly warned them not to do this because it was an abomination to the Lord.
In the early third century the same idea about Eve being the conduit of death and Mary the conduit of life was still propagating undefiled. Tertullian taught that any teaching or philosophy that can't be backed by Scripture is not from God. This idea shows what the Christians of the first two centuries believed concerning traditions - the Scriptures were the authority. The teaching about the roles of Eve and Mary were certainly taught within the context of the Scriptures. Tertullian also taught the following concerning this teaching:
"For it was while Eve was yet a virgin, that the ensnaring word had crept into her ear which was to build the edifice of death. Into a virgin's soul, in like manner, must be introduced that Word of God which was to raise the fabric of life; so that what had been reduced to ruin by this sex, might by the selfsame sex be recovered to salvation. As Eve had believed the serpent, so Mary believed the angel." (Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ:17)
I think it's evident that this teaching remained Scriptural up to the beginning of the third century, as none of the church fathers of that era elaborated about Mary holding any place of special honor in the church. Any attempt to elevate Mary above the saints (i.e. above true believers both past and present) would have certainly been disputed by these early church leaders.
|
|
|
