Jacob
of Serugh Against the Immaculate Conception:
Syriac
scholars, who from the time of J. S. Assemani have dealt with Mar Jacob’s
Mariological thoughts, have focused attention on the stance on the doctrine of
the Immaculate Conception. In interpreting Mar Jacob’s expression that Mary was
“without blemish”, C. Vona opines this way:
"Noi
chiamiamo la Vergine, Immacolata, e diamo a tale termine un significato esteso,
si da comprendere l'esclusione di ogni colpa sia originale che personale. [. .
.] Nel contesto, in verità non si parla di peccato originale, ma,
implicitamente, dalla dottrina del Sarugense sembra doversi escludere anche la
colpa di origine. (C. Vona, “La dottrina di Giacomo di Sarug sulla santità di
Maria”, in Euntes Docete 6 [1953], 36) (English:
"We call the Virgin, Immaculate, and we give this term an extended
meaning, so as to include the exclusion of any fault, both original and
personal. [. . .] In the context, in truth we are not talking about original
sin, but, implicitly, from the doctrine of Serugh it seems that we must also
exclude the guilt of origin)
When we
read carefully the original text, we understand that an interpretation of this
text in favour of Mary’s exclusion from original sin is not plausible. There is
no ambiguity in the Syriac text in this respect. Mary is spoken of as humble
pure, limpid, and “without blemish” (On the Virgin). It is in the Syriac
expression dlo mumo that is translated as immacolata in Italian
and “without blemish” in English. J. Payne Smith gives the following meanings
for dlo mumo: flawless, faultless and unblemished. (A Compendious
Syriac Dictionary, 258). Hence the textual evidence is far from the truth
in assuming even “implicitly” her exception from original sin and the taking for
granted that it corresponds to the concept of the Immaculate Conception.
(James Puthuparampil, Mariological Thought of Mar Jacob of Serugh (451-521) [MŌRĀN
'ETH'Ō Series 25; Kerala, India: St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute,
2005], 84-85)
Mary:
The “Pure Temple”
It was
since the Son of God dwelt in her that Mary became a “pure temple.” According
to Mar Jacob the only reason for God to becoming man, was that the Great One
wished (zbo rābo) to do so (Second Homily on the Nativity). This
is a mystery which a human cannot understand. Just like Solomon wondered at the
presence of God in the temple he had built (1 Kings 8:27), Mar Jacob is also at
a loss to explain the mystery of the incarnation and Mary’s motherhood.
Blessed
is she in whose small and barren womb dwelt
the
Great One by whom the heavens are filled and are too small for him. (On the
Virgin)
Just as
Solomon’s temple was adorned lavishly with gold, silver, rare wood and precious
stones, for God to dwell in it, “in the new dispensation, God adorned Mary as
His temple - with all the riches of His grace and virtues.” (A. Buono, “Marian
Typology” in Dictionary of Mary, New Hersey, 1997, 308) Mar Jacob
describe how Mary became the living temple in which god was pleased to dwell:
She
gathered and removed all (such) reckonings from her mind.
She sprinkled her pure temple with love before the Holy One. (On the
Nativity of our Redeemer)
The
Holy Spirit “sanctified her, purified her and made her blessed among women” (On
the Virgin), and this was what made her a pure temple. The Holy Spirit
vivified Mary and enabled her to pursue God’s plan til the end of her life.
Because of the Spirit who inundates her, she always remains “full of grace.”
(Ibid., 123)
Mary’s
Holiness
Mar
Jacob presented Mary as the holiest person in humanity. Mary’s holiness is
exemplary in comparison with the rest of humanity. Mar Jacob said that:
If
there had been a spot in her soul or a defect,
He
would have sought for himself another mother in whom there is no blemish. (On
the Virgin)
Many
modern scholars try to see, in the writings of the early Church Fathers, the
concept of the Immaculate Conception. This attempt seems to be quite arbitrary.
For instance, when Mar Jacob spoke about the holiness of Mary, he did not use
the same concept as in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Mar Jacob’s
understanding of her holiness can be delineated as 1) her holiness is in
comparison with the rest of humanity, 2) this is in connection with her divine
motherhood 3) the basis of her holiness is her cooperation with God’s grace.
Let us
see the difference between the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception and Mar
Jacob’s understanding of Mary’s holiness. Here is the declaration of the Dogma
of the Immaculate Conception:
We
declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the most
Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, by a singular
grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus
Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of
original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be firmly and
constantly believed by all the faithful. (Denz., 1641)
The
Dogma of the Immaculate Conception differs from Mar Jacob’s understanding of
Mary’s holiness in two aspects. The first is that he did not speak about Mary
as being preserved immune from all stain of original sin. Instead, he
presented her as the most pleasing one before God: “how exalted and pure from
evil, nor stirs in her an impulse inclined to lust.” (On the Virgin).
Mar Jacob further describes how Mary had prepared herself so as to be the most
pleasing one before God:
And she
allows no thought for luxury,
nor
worldly conversation which causes cruel harm.
Desire
for worldly vanity does not burn in her,
nor is
she occupied with childish things. (On the Virgin)
The
second difference is that her holiness is presented as a result of the exercise
of Mary’s free will. Mar Jacob presented Mary as the one who pleased God with
her life. We quote three passages which point to the perfection that she
achieved as a result of her free will:
This is
beauty, when one is beautiful of one’s own accord;
glorious
graces of perfection are in her will.
However
great be the beauty of something from God,
it is
not acclaimed if freedom is not present. (On the Virgin)
She was
most fair both in her nature and in her will,
Because
she was not sullied with displeasing desires.
From
her childhood, she stood firm in unblemished uprightness;
she
walked in the way without offenses.
Her
original nature was preserved with a will for good things
because
there were always tokens of virginity in her body and holy things in her soul.
(On the Virgin)
He
chose for himself a virgin who was betrothed and preserved;
she was
holy, modest, and vigilant.
He
descended and dwelt in the blessed one, most fair;
her
womb was sealed, her body was holy, and her soul was limpid.
(On the Virgin)
We may
sum up the difference between the Dogma and Mar Jacob’s understanding in the
following way: the dogma emphasizes Mary’s immunity from the stains of sin from
the moment of her conception in her mother’s womb, while Mar Jacob presents
Mary was the most faithful daughter of God who pleased God by her obedience to
the Law. For he writes:
She did
not turn aside from the justice which is in the Law,
and
neither carnal nor bodily desire disturbed her. (On the Virgin)
Mar
Jacob spoke about the personal integrity of Mary in that she as a wife, mother,
and virgin, was holy. The descent of the Holy Spirit upon Mary, according to
Mar Jacob, was “to let loose from her the former sentence of Eve and Adam.” (On
the Virgin). Mary’s purification was necessary for the Son of God to assume
a body without sin. Mar Jacob’s exegesis of Luke 1:35 makes a distinction
between the “Spirit” and the “Power of God.” The Holy Spirit had “sanctified”
her and “purified” her in order that “He might take from her a pure body
without sin.” (On the Virgin). Let us listen to Mar Jacob’s own words:
He
sanctified her, purified her and made her blessed among women;
He freed
her from that curse of sufferings on account of Eve, her mother.
[. . .]
The Spirit
freed her from that debt that she might be beyond
transgression
when he solemnly dwelt in her.
He purified
the Mother by the Holy spirit while dwelling in her,
that He
might take from her a pure body without sin.
Lest
the body with which He clothed Himself according to nature be sullied,
He
purified the virgin by the Holy Spirit and then dwelt in her.
The Son of God wanted to be related to her,
and
first He made her body without sin.
The
word had descended that He might become flesh; on this account,
by the
spirit He purified the one from whom He had become flesh,
so that
He might become like us in everything when he descended, except for this: that
his pure body is without sin. (On the Virgin)
The
above passage is Mar Jacob’s explanation of “The Holy Spirit will come upon
you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; [. . . ]” (Lk 1:35).
Mary had achieved in her life all the perfection, and holiness that one can
achieve through one’s effort, of which he says: “She rose up to this measure on
her own, until the Spirit, that perfecter of all came to her.” (On the
Virgin) He believed that Mary had achieved perfection before the angel came
to her. The following lines make this clearer:
He
[God] searched her and found humility and holiness in her,
and
limpid impulses and a soul desirous of divinity.
And a
pure heart and every reckoning of perfection,
because
of this he chose her, the pure and most fair one. (On the Virgin)
Mar
Jacob, through this passage illustrates that Mary was holy even before the
angel brought God’s message to her. Mary is an ordinary human being, whom the
father deemed worthy, on account of what she was. Hence her holiness becomes
the spiritual aspect of her virginity. (Ibid., 176-81, italics in original)
In
the sense of purification, Mar Jacob uses different Syriac words: mrāq,
zalal, dekya. The word mrāq gives the meaning of
purifying, polishing, and cleansing. C. J. Payne Smith, A Compendious
Dictionary, 303. In the Pael form, zālel means to draw from the
lees, to fine, free from the dross etc. Cf. J. Payne Smith, A Compendious
Dictionary, 478. Dekya in pael form means to cleanse,
purify, pronounce clean according to the ceremonial law. The Syriac word used
for sanctification is qādeš. In Pael form qādeš means to keep or
render holy, to hallow, sanctify, consecrate, to set apart for holy use, to
celebrate holy rites, to give in marriage; to chant the Tersanctus cry
‘Holy, Holy, Holy.’ Cf. J. Payne Smith, A Compendious Dictionary, 491.
(Ibid., 179 n. 84)
P.
Krüger in presenting Mar Jacob’s understanding of holiness distinguishes
between two types of holiness: ethical; which she possessed from the beginning
and ontological; which she received at the time of the Annunciation. (Ibid.,
181 n. 89)
High
Mariology/Mark as New Ark
By
calling Mark the “ark full of fire” [in On the Annunication], Mar Jacob
recognized Mary’s child, Christ, as the fire that burns up and purifies the
world from its iniquities. Mary becomes worthy of such an honour because of her
total self-gift in co-operating with God’s plan of saving the world. Her
initial purity and the divine maternity are affirmed in the symbolism of the
ark. (Ibid., 103)
The
Egyptians and the Ethiopians have understood Mary as the second ark that saved
the world. This can be seen in the discourse of Demetris of Antioch:
Hail
(Mary), Tent of the Godhead, wherein the Only-begotten of the
Father
hath reposed!
Hail,
though who hast found favour, The Lord is with thee.
Hail
(Mary) thou Ark, covered all over with gold,
wherein
God the Father sojourned in the Form of His Holy Word. (W. Budge, Legends of
Our lady the Perpetual Virgin and her Mother Hanna, London, 1922, xxxiv)
(Ibid., 103 n. 58)
Not a
Nestorian:
Mar
Jacob’s position in the Christological controversies was not polemic; this is
clear from his election to the episcopate in 518, at a time when Severius, the
representative of the Syrian Church was exiled for his opposition to the
Council of Chalcedon. Mar G. Y. Ibrahim states that “Jacob of Serugh seems to have
tried to preserve the unity of the Church by promoting the idea that the nature
of the Incarnate Son cannot be captured in logical formula.” (G. Y. Ibrahim
(Mar), “Nestorius in Syrian Orthodox Tradition: A Plea for Revision in the
Light of Recent Research”, 57). (James Puthuparampil, Mariological
Thought of Mar Jacob of Serugh (451-521) [MŌRĀN 'ETH'Ō Series 25; Kerala,
India: St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute, 2005], 57-58)
It was
against Nestorianism that Mar Jacob spoke very vehemently. According to him,
Nestorius and his dyophisitism were the source of all dogmatic controversies of
his epoch. In a letter to the monks of Mar Bassus, Mar Jacob has written that
if Nestorian book are suppressed and their doctrine is rejected there will be
peace on earth.” (cf. T. Jansma, “Encore le Credo de Jacques de Saroug”, 364).
In referring to the different groups that reject the maternity of Mary, Mar
Jacob refers to Nestorius in his homily On the Perpetual Virginity of Mary:
One
wicked person says that she did not give birth to God, but the Messiah, since
the Messiah is not God. (Ibid., 59-60)
