Why
the Early Church Thought Mary Was the New Eve
Heschmeyer, as does Newman,
Hahn, Matatics, Anders, Staples, and other Catholics, argues that, as the early
Christians drew a parallel between Eve and Mary, ego, Mary must have been "a sinless virgin," and
was created, just as Eve, in original righteousness, ergo, the immaculate conception.
However, if one reads the
patristic authors he quote mines, one will see that, while they did draw a
parallel between Mary and Eve, none believed this meant Mary was
sinless, let alone conceived without the stain of original sin. “Anachronistic cultic
eisegesis” is the best way to summarize his work on this topic.
Note that the theological note for "Mary was conceived without stain of original sin" (i.e., the Immaculate Conception" is De fide, while the theological note of Sententia fidei proxima is associated with the teaching that "In consequence of a Special Privilege of Grace from God, Mary was free from every personal sin during her whole life" (cf. Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 199, 203). To knowingly reject either teaching with such notes is a mortal sin. And Heschmeyer, who tries to present himself as an informed, honest individual in his presentations, should know better (in fact, he does; I have no reason to doubt he is lacking in the intellectual honesty area, as the following will prove, even to honest Roman Catholics).
Justin
Martyr (100-165)
It is true that in Dialogue
with Trypo 50 & 100, Justin parallels Eve with Mary, this is not
evidence for the sinlessness (let alone IC) of Mary—Justin et al., believed the
parallel was due to Eve using her free-will to bring about the Fall while Mary,
using her free-will, helped bring Jesus into the world and, in a limited sense,
“unloosed the knot of Eve’s disobedience.” When one reads Justin's corpus as a
whole, he singles out the person of Jesus as unique as being free from personal
(not just original) sin and such is predicted, not upon Jesus’ supposed dual
nature/hypostatic union or divinity (notwithstanding an early/high “logos
Christology”) but upon Jesus’s humanity:
For other nations have not inflicted on us and on Christ
this wrong to such an extent as you have, who in very deed are the authors of
the wicked prejudice against the Just One (τοῦ δικαίου), and us who hold by
Him. For after that you had crucified Him, the only blameless and righteous Man
(τὸν μόνον ἄμωμον καὶ δίκαιον ἄνθρωπον),-- through whose stripes those who
approach the Father by Him are healed, --when you knew that He had risen from
the dead and ascended to heaven, as the prophets foretold He would, you not
only did not repent of the wickedness which you had committed, but at that time
you selected and sent out from Jerusalem chosen men through all the land to
tell that the godless heresy of the Christians had sprung up, and to publish
those things which all they who knew us not speak against us. So that you are
the cause not only of your own unrighteousness, but in fact of that of all
other men. And Isaiah cries justly: ‘By reason of you, My name is blasphemed
among the Gentiles. (Dialogue with Trypo, 17)
. . . according to the will of God, Jesus Christ, the Son
of God has been born without sin, of a virgin sprung from the stock of Abraham.
(Dialogue with Trypho, 23 [κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ δίχα ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς
ἀπὸ γένους τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ παρθένου γεννηθέντα υἱὸν Θεοῦ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν]—Justin
mentions both Jesus and his mother, but only exempts one from sin—rather
incongruous if he was aware of this supposedly apostolic tradition; while this
is an “argument
from silence,” here the silence is deafening)
And then, when Jesus had gone to the river Jordan, where
John was baptizing, and when He had stepped into the water, a fire was kindled
in the Jordan; and when He came out of the water, the Holy Ghost lighted on Him
like a dove, [as] the apostles of this very Christ of ours wrote. Now, we know
that he did not go to the river because He stood in need of baptism, or of the
descent of the Spirit like a dove; even as He submitted to be born and to be
crucified, not because He needed such things, but because of the human race,
which from Adam had fallen under the power of death and the guile of the
serpent (ἀλλʼ ὑπὲρ τοῦ γένους τοῦ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὃ ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ ὑπὸ θάνατον καὶ
πλάνην τὴν τοῦ ὄφεως ἐπεπτώκει), and each one of which had committed personal
transgression. For God, wishing both angels and men, who were endowed with
free-will, and at their own disposal, to do whatever He had strengthened each
to do, made them so, that if they chose the things acceptable to Himself, He
would keep them free from death and from punishment; but that if they did evil,
He would punish each as He sees fit. (Dialogue with Trypho, 88)
"For the whole human
race (Καὶ γὰρ πᾶν γένος ἀνθρώπων) will be found to be under a curse. For it is
written in the law of Moses, ‘Cursed is every one that continueth not in all
things that are written in the book of the law to do them.' And no one has
accurately done all (Καὶ ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἀκριβῶς πάντα ἐποίησεν), nor will you
venture to deny this; but some more and some less than others have observed the
ordinances enjoined. But if those who are under this law appear to be under a
curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall all the
nations appear to be under a curse who practise idolatry, who seduce youths,
and commit other crimes? If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the
whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He
had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about
Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father's will, as if
He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father
caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family, yet you did
not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of God. For you did not
practise piety when you slew the prophets. And let none of you say: If His
Father wished Him to suffer this, in order that by His stripes the human race
might be healed, we have done no wrong. If, indeed, you repent of your sins,
and recognise Him to be Christ, and observe His commandments, then you may
assert this; for, as I have said before, remission of sins shall be yours. But
if you curse Him and them that believe on Him, and, when you have the power,
put them to death, how is it possible that requisition shall not be made of
you, as of unrighteous and sinful men, altogether hard-hearted and without
understanding, because you laid your hands on Him? (Dialogue with Trypho,
95)
Irenaeus
of Lyons (130-202)
In the very same book of Against
Heresies where Irenaeus paralleled Eve with Mary, we also read the
following:
With Him is nothing incomplete or out of due season, just
as with the Father there is nothing incongruous. For all these things were
foreknown by the Father; but the Son works them out at the proper time in
perfect order and sequence. This was the reason why, when Mary was urging [Him]
on to [perform] the wonderful miracle of the wine, and was desirous before the
time to partake of the cup of emblematic significance, the Lord, checking
her untimely haste (Dominus repellens ejus intempestivam
festianatione), said, “Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not
yet come”—waiting for that hour which was foreknown by the Father. (Against
Heresies 3.16.7—Irenaeus understands John 2:4 to be Jesus rebuking Mary,
and Mary being guilty of attempting to stall God’s divine timetable and Jesus’
working out thereof—a serious accusation)
While the Greek is not extant, here is the Latin of the text:
One alternative way of
translating the relevant line is:
. . .the Lord repelled her
untimely haste. (St. Irenaeus of Lyons: Against the Heresies, Book 3
[trans. Dominic J. Unger; Ancient Christian Writers 64; New York: The Newman
Press, 2012], 82)
In a note to the above,
Unger (who did hold to the Immaculate Conception) noted that
Mary’s action was, for Irenaeus, not timed properly, nor
in tune with the plan God had originally intended. (note 54)
The Latin uses the verb repello. This has a negative connotation. Consider the following entries of repello in these Latin lexicons:
re-pellō, reppulī
(repulī), repulsus, ere, to drive back, thrust back,
drive away, reject, repulse, repel:
Charlton T. Lewis, An Elementary Latin Dictionary
(Medford, MA: American Book Company, 1890).
rĕ-pello, reppuli (less correctly repuli), rĕpulsum, 3,
v. a., to drive, crowd, or thrust back; to reject, repulse, repel, etc
Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short, Harpers’ Latin
Dictionary (New York; Oxford: Harper & Brothers; Clarendon Press, 1891),
1567.
drive/push/thrust back/away; repel/rebuff/spurn; fend
off; exclude/bar; refute
William Whitaker, Dictionary of Latin Forms (Bellingham,
WA: Logos Bible Software, 2012).
repello, ere, reppuli, repulsum, 3, v. a., to drive,
crowd, or thrust back; to reject, repulse, repel.
Roy J. Deferrari, Inviolata M. Barry, and Ignatius
McGuiness, A Lexicon of Saint Thomas Aquinas Based on the Summa Theologica and
Selected Passages of His Other Works (Baltimore, MD: Catholic University of
America Press, 1948), 964.
repello, reppuli, 3, thrust away, reject
J. M. Harden, Dictionary of the Vulgate New Testament
(London; New York: Society of Promoting Christian Knowledge; The Macmillan Co.,
1921), 102.
In another of his writings,
Irenaeus exempts only Jesus from personal sin. In The Demonstration of the Apostolic
Preaching 72, we read:
And again the same prophet (says) thus concerning the
sufferings of Christ: Behold how the
righteous is destroyed, and no man layeth it to heart; and righteous men are
taken away, and no man understandeth. For from the face of iniquity is the
taking away of the righteous: peace shall be his burial, he hath been taken
away from the midst. And who else is perfectly righteous, but the Son of
God, who makes righteous and perfects them that believe on Him, who like unto
Him are persecuted and put to death?
Irenaeus did not believe Mary being, in some sense, the New Eve meant she was sinless, let alone conceived without the stain of original sin. Of course, if you only relied upon Heschmeyer's selective use of Irenaeus et al., you would never know that.
Tertullian
(160-220)
In his On the Flesh of
Christ, chapter 7 (which pre-dates his embracing Montanism), Tertullian
evidences a very low Mariology, imputing personal sin to Mary, even paralleling
her with the “synagogue” (Tertullian had a very low view of the Jews of his
time, further evidencing this low Mariology):
. . . When denying one’s parents in indignation, one
does not deny their existence, but censures their faults.
Besides, He gave others the preference; and since He shows their title to this
favour—even because they listened to the word (of God)—He points out in what
sense He denied His mother and His brethren. For in whatever sense He adopted
as His own those who adhered to Him, in that did He deny as His those who kept
aloof from Him. Christ also is wont to do to the utmost that which He enjoins
on others . How strange, then, would it certainly have been, if, while he was
teaching others not to esteem mother, or father, or brothers, as highly as the
word of God, He were Himself to leave the word of God as soon as His mother and
brethren were announced to Him! He denied His parents, then, in the sense in
which He has taught us to deny ours—for God’s work. But there is also another
view of the case: in the abjured mother there is a figure of the
synagogue, as well as of the Jews in the unbelieving brethren. In
their person Israel remained outside, whilst the new disciples who kept close
to Christ within, hearing and believing, represented the Church, which He
called mother in a preferable sense and a worthier brotherhood, with the
repudiation of the carnal relationship. It was in just the same sense, indeed,
that He also replied to that exclamation (of a certain woman), not denying His
mother’s “womb and paps,” but designating those as more “blessed
who hear the word of God.”
In another work pre-dating
his embrace of Montanism (Adversus Marcionem 4, 19, 11 [PL 2:435]),
Tertullian wrote that Jesus:
. . . was justly indignant that persons so close to him
should stand outside while strangers were in the house with him, hanging on his
every word. He was indignant above all because they were seeking to take him
away from his solemn task. He did not ignore them, but disavowed them.
Therefore, in response to the question, “Who is my mother, and who are my
brothers?” he responded, “No one except those who hear my words and put them
into practice.” He transferred the terms indicating blood relationship to others
whom he considered closer to him because of their faith. (translation as found
in Luigi Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin
Mary in Patristic Thought [trans. Thomas Buffer; San Francisco, Ignatius Press,
1999], 62)
As with Justin Martyr and
Irenaeus, in spite of paralleling Eve with Mary, Tertullian believed that only
Jesus was free from sin. In Prescription Against the Heretics 3, we read
that
For
to the Son of God alone was it reserved to persevere to the last without sin.
Tertullian clearly did not believe that Mary being the New Eve meant she was created in a state of original righteousness and kept from personal sin throughout her life. Why didn't Heschmeyer tell listeners any of these facts. Again, the conclusion that Heschmeyer is intellectually disingenuous and deceptive is the only conclusion.
Ephrem
the Syrian (306-373)
While not mentioned in Heschmeyer’s
video (which is full of shameless eisegesis), it is important to discuss
Ephrem. He is often touted as one of, if not the earliest explicit
witness to the personal sinlessness and/or Immaculate Conception of Mary.
Consider the following representative quote:
St. Ephrem says: “Thou and thy mother are the only ones
who are totally beautiful in every respect; for in thee, O Lord, there is no
spot, and in thy Mother no stain” (Carm. Nisib. 27). (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals
of Catholic Dogma [St. Louis, Miss.: B. Herder Book Company, 1957], 201)
However, when one reads
Ephrem’s works and not quote mines, one will see Ephrem did not exempt Mary
from personal sin. The following is Catholic Kathleen E. McVey’s translation of
Hymns on the Nativity 16.9-11:
O [You] Who brought
forth His mother [in] another birth out of the water?. . .
I am mother because of Your conception, and bride am I because of your
chastity. Handmaiden and daughter of blood and water [am I] whom you
redeemed and baptized. “Son of the Most High Who came and
dwelt in me, [in] another birth, He bore me also [in] a second birth.
I put on the glory of Him Who put on the body, the garment of His mother. (Ephrem
the Syrian: Hymns [trans. Kathleen E. McVey; Classics of Western
Spirituality; New York: Paulist Press, 1989], 150)
As McKey wrote in the footnote to the above text:
Despite Ephrem’s
emphasis in Mary’s role as second Eve, here he makes it clear that she is
redeemed along with all of humankind by Christ. (Ibid., 150 n. 362)
As Michael O’Carroll noted:
The first apparently explicit testimony is in the
Nisibene hymns of St Ephraem, a fourth century Syrian writer: “Certainly you
are alone and your mother are from every aspect completely beautiful, for there
is no blemish in you, my Lord, and no stain in your mother.” But there are
other texts in the same author’s writings which, to put it mildly, call for
subtle interpretation to maintain the doctrine—he spoke for example of Mary’s
baptism. (Michael O’Carroll, CSSp, “The Immaculate Conception and Assumption of
our Lady in Today’s Thinking” in Mary in the Church, ed. John Hyland [Dublin:
Veritas, 1989], 45)
In Ephrem’s Mariology, Mary became panagia (“all holy”) at
the annunciation, not at her conception.
Commenting on Ephrem’s Mariology in light of this text, Tataria and von
Stotsch noted that:
Ephrem has been wrongly cited as the first Syriac Church Father to teach the doctrine of Mary’s immaculate conception. Certainly, just like Jacob he emphasizes how beautiful and pure Mary is from the start. But at the same time, Ephrem also expounds the idea that Jesus Christ is the only person wholly within sin, and stresses that Mary is first baptized in Christ and also that this baptism is essential in order to preserve her purity. In his writings, Mary emerges as the first individual to be absolved of sin through baptism, and Ephrem sees this baptism as residing in her conception of Jesus. In other words, Mary is born anew from her son, and cleansed of sin through him. (Muna Tatari and Klaus von Stosch, Mary in the Qur’an: Friend of God,
Virgin, Mother [trans. Peter Lewis; London: Gingko, 2021], 48)
As with many early Christians, Ephrem understood John 2:4 to be Jesus rebuking
Mary. This would be incongruous if he was aware of this supposedly apostolic
tradition concerning Mary being conceived without original sin and being free
from personal sin (note: Ephrem did parallel Eve with Mary in his writings):
§4a. She said to
him, My son, there is no wine here. He said to her, What is that to me and to
you, Woman? What was wrong with what she said? She was in great doubt
concerning his word, because there was no wine there. Wherefore [the
response], What is that to me and to you, Woman? For she had perceived
that he was about to perform a miracle, according to what he had said to her.
[This can be seen] from what she said to the servants, Whatever my son tell
you do. (Saint Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron: An English
Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 with Introduction and Notes V
§4a [trans. Carmel McCarthy; Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 2; Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1993, 2000], 96)
Here, Ephrem believed Mary was being rebuked in John 2:4 due to her
doubt concerning Christ’s words—both Latter-day Saints and Roman Catholics
would agree to doubt the words of Christ is sinful.
Elsewhere, Ephrem wrote the following concerning Luke 1:35:
He said to her, The
Holy Spirit will come, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.
Why did he not mention the Father's name but instead, the name of his Power and
the name of the Holy Spirit? Because it was fitting that the Architect of
the works [of creation] should come and raise up the house that had fallen, and
the hovering Spirit should sanctify the buildings that were unclean . . . He
dwelt in the womb and cleansed it and sanctified the place of birthpangs and
curses. (Saint Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's
Diatessaron: An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 with
Introduction and Notes [trans. Carmel McCarthy; Journal of Semitic Studies
Supplement 2; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993, 2000], 59)
Here, again, Ephrem believed Mary became panagia (“all holy”) at the time of the annunciation, not at her conception. This contradicts the de fide dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
What is also interesting is
that Ephrem, as did many Syriac theologians, conflated Mary, the mother of Jesus,
with Mary Magdalene. As Sebastian Brock noted:
Certainly, the most
remarkable feature of the poem is the identification of Mary, not with Mary
Magdalene (so the Greek text of John 20:1 and 18), but with the mother of
Jesus; this emerges from stanza 2:
‘Who will show me’,
she was saying.
‘my son and
my Lord, for whom I am seeking?’
This is indeed a
feature not unknown in the Syriac (and in Greek) tradition, for it is already
found in some of Ephrem’s works and in Jacob of Serugh; it implies a biblical
text omitting Magdalene in John 20:1 and 18 (thus the Old
Syriac (Sinaiticus) at verse 18, and the Arabic Diatessaron).
This identification
of the Mary of John 20 with the mother of Jesus suggests that the poem may be
of considerable antiquity; since it does not seem likely that a composition of
the Arab period would any longer make such an identification, the text might hesitantly
be attributed to about the sixth century. (Sebastian P. Brock, "Mary
and the Gardiner: An Early Syrian Dialogue Soghitha
for the Resurrection," Parole de l'Orient 11
[1983]: 225-26)
As Robert Murray wrote on
this conflation and Ephrem imputing the sin of doubt to the mother of Jesus:
One of the most curious features of Ephrem's doctrine
concerning Mary as type of the Church is found in passages where he speaks of
the appearance of the risen Christ to Mary Magdalen; in this context he often
regards it as not the Magdalen but the Virgin to whom Christ appeared in the
garden, while several times he seems to confuse them, or rather deliberately
run them into one, both Maries acting together as type of the Church. This
'fusion' is not a peculiarity of Ephrem but is found in other Syrian witnesses
. . . (Robert Murray, Symbols of the Church and Kingdom: A Study in
Early Syriac Tradition [rev. ed.; London: T&T Clark, 2006], 146)
To consider further
evidence in Ephrem first, in E[vangelium]C[oncordans] 2,17
the 'sword' in Mary's heart, foretold by Simeon, is interpreted as doubt that
Mary would undergo, and this is explained by Magdalen's thinking that
Christ was a gardener. (EC Arm. C[orpus]S[criptorum]C[hristianorum]O[rientalium] 137,
Arm. 1), p. 32.14-20; tr. (SC) p. 75) On Christ's words at Cana, 'My time is
not yet come', Ephrem sees that 'time' as the reunion of Christ with his mother
in the garden: 'thus after his victory over Sheol, when his mother saw him,
like a mother she wanted to caress him'. (EC Arm. 5.5, p. 61:12-14;
tr. (SC) p. 109) In the comment on John 20:11-17 Ephrem repeats his
interpretation of the sword in Mary's heart as her doubts in the garden; as
for why Jesus would not let Mary touch him, Ephrem suggests: 'Perhaps because
he had delivered her to John in his place: "Woman, behold thy Son".
And yet not without her was the first sign, and not without her were the first
fruits from Sheol. And so, even if she did not touch him, she was strengthened
by him.' (EC Syr. 21.27, Syr.) (Ibid., 329-30)
Finally, Ephrem spoke of
Mary’s “carnal desire” when anointed Jesus, again, showing he is a witness against
Roman Catholic Mariology:
Mary anointed the
head of our Lord’s body, as a symbol of the "better part" she had
chosen. The oil was a prophecy of what her mind had chosen. While Martha was
occupied with serving, Mary hungered to be satisfied with spiritual things from
the one who also satisfies bodily needs for us. So Mary refreshed Him with
precious oil, just as He had refreshed her with His most excellent teaching.
With her oil, Mary indicated a symbol of the death of Him who put to
death her carnal desire with His teaching. (Ephrem,
“Homily on our Lord,” Section XLIX, in St. Ephrem the Syrian: Selected
Prose Works [trans. Edward G. Matthews, Jr., and Joseph P. Amar; The
Fathers of the Church 91; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America
Press, 1994], 324)
In spite of having a high Mariology, and, as with Justin, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, believed Mary was the New Eve, Ephrem is not a witness to either the Immaculate Conception or personal sinlessness of Mary. Instead, Ephrem is a witness against the dogma.
John
Chrysostom (347-407)
Another Church Father that Heschmyer
did not discuss, but is important to our present discussion is that of Chrysostom.
He, as with Justin et al., paralleled Eve with Mary. As
one pro-Catholic website noted:
For Chrysostom, the virgin earth from which
blossomed the earthly paradise is a type, a figure of Mary: “Therefore,
he calls her Eden or virgin earth, because this virgin (the earthly paradise)
is a type for another Virgin. Just as the original earth produced paradise’s
garden for us without any seed, the Virgin gave birth to light which is Christ,
for us and without any seed from man” (De mutatione nominum,
2,3-4). Mary is the opposite of Eve: “A virgin expelled us
from paradise, and through another Virgin we arrive at eternal life.”
However, although he did
parallel Eve with Mary, Chrysostom imputed personal sin to Mary. Consider the
following examples:
That which I was lately saying, that when virtue is
wanting all things are vain, this is now also pointed out very abundantly. For
I indeed was saying, that age and nature, and to dwell in the wilderness, and
all such things, are alike unprofitable, where there is not a good mind; but
to-day we learn in addition another thing, that even to have borne Christ in
the womb, and to have brought forth that marvellous birth, hath no profit, if
there be not virtue.
And this is hence especially manifest. “For while He yet
talked to the people,” it is said, “one told Him, Thy mother and Thy brethren
seek Thee. But He saith, who is my mother, and who are my brethren?”
And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor
denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have
passed through that womb; but as declaring that she hath no advantage from
this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she
had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the
people that she hath power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet
anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach. (Homily
on Matthew, 44)
Commenting on Chrysostom,
Gambero noted that he interpreted
certain Gospel
passages in such a way as to attribute defects to the Virgin such as unbelief
or vanity. Commenting on the episode of the Mother and brothers of Jesus (cf.
Mt 12:46-50), John explains that the Master meant to reprove his relatives for
their unbelief, seeking to correct them:
Jesus cared about his
Mother so greatly that, on the Cross, he entrusted her to the disciple whom he
loved more than all the others, showing his great solicitude for her. However,
in this case he acts differently, in order to care for his Mother and his brothers.
For, since they thought that he was a mere man, giving in to vainglory, he
drives this disease out of them, not reproving them, but correct them . . .
Jesus did not want to cause his Mother to doubt; he acted to free her from that
tyrannical disease, to induce her, little by little, to form a fitting idea of
who he was, persuading her that he was not only her Son but also her Lord. (Homily
on Matthew 44, 1; PG 57, 465)
At the wedding at
Cana, Chrysostom sees Jesus’ words to his Mother as another reproof:
“They have no wine”
(Jn 2:3). By asking for his favor, Mary was trying to win the guests over but
also to render herself more conspicuous. And perhaps Mary gave in to a purely
human feeling, just as his brothers did when they said: “Manifest yourself to the
world” (Jn 7:14), desiring to gain glory for themselves through his miracles.
For this reason Jesus answers her rather brusquely, saying: “Woman, what have
you to do with me? My hoor has not yet come” (Jn 2:4). (Homily on John 21,
2; PG 59, 130)
In his commentary on
the Gospel of the Annunciation, our author makes a rather serious inference
about the possible reaction of the Virgin when she discovered her pregnancy.
Considering the problem of why God had the mystery of Christ’s conception
announced to Mary before it happened, Chrysostom gives this answer:
He did it to spare
her serious unease and great distress. There was cause or fear, lest she, not
knowing the true reason for her pregnancy, imagine that there was something
wrong with her and proceed to drown or stab herself rather than endure
disgrace. (Homily on Matthew 4, 5; PG 57, 45)
Apparently, Chrysostom pictures Mary as an ordinary
woman, with ordinary qualities and weaknesses; presumably, the Christian
communities of Antioch and Constantinople were not startled by statements like
this. In other settings, such as Alexandria, the reaction would probably have
been quite different. (Luigi Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the
Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought [trans. Thomas
Buffer; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999], 172-73)
Again, Chrysostom, as with other early Christians who drew the parallel between Eve and Mary never concluded as Heschmeyer did that Mary was sinless.
Pope
Innocent III: A Papal Witness Against the Abuse of the Mary/Eve Parallel
It is not just the patristic
period. Even as late as Pope Innocent III (d. 1216), the Mary/Eve parallel was
not taken as Mary being conceived without original sin or created, as was Eve,
in a state of original justice/righteousness. In his “Sermon 28: On the Same Solemnity.
Of the conditions or qualities of the dawn, the fast, and the sun, and how they
correspond to Mary,” Innocent paralleled Eve with Mary. However, he did not
arrive at the conclusions Catholic apologists do with this type/antitype
relationship:
Que est ista, quæ progreditur quasi aurora
con- surgens, pulchra ut luna, electa ut sol, terribilis ut castrorum acies
ordinata? (Cant. VI.)
Cum aurora sit finis
noctis et origo diei, merito per auroram designatur Virgo Maria; quie finis
damnationis, et origo salutis fuit. Finis vitiorum, et origo
virtutum. Oportebat enim, ut sicut per feminam mors intravit in orbem; ita per
feminam vita rediret in orbem. Et ideo
quod damnavit Eva, salvavit Maria, ut unde mors oriebatur, inde vita
resurgeret. Illa consensit diabolo, et vetitum po- mum comedit, secundum illud
: Tulit de fructu et comedit, deditque viro (Gen. iii); ista credidit angelo,
et filium promissum concepit, secundum illud : Ecce concipies et paries filium
(Luc. 1). Illa comedit pomum ad mortem, juxta quod fuerat illi prædictum :
Quacunque die comederis, morte morieris (Gen. II); ista concepit filium ad
salutem, sicut ei fuerat prænotatum : Vocabis nomen ejus Jesum. Ipse
enim salvum faciet populum suum a peccatis eorum (Matth. 1). Illa peperit in
dolore, secundum illud : Multiplicabo ærumnas tuas et conceptus tuos, et in
dolore paries (Gen, I); ista generavit
in gaudio, secundum illud : Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum, quod erit omni
populo; quia natus est vobis hodie Salvator, qui est Christus Dominus, in
civitate David (Luc. ii). Illa fuit de solo viro producta, quoniam ædificavit
Dominus Deus costam, quam tulerat de Adam in mulierem, sed produxit virum et
feminam (Gen. n), hæc autem producta fuit de viro et femina, sed solum virum
produxit: Quia novum fecit Dominus super terram, femina circumdedit virum:
gremio uteri sui (Jer. xxxI). Illa fuit sine culpa producta, sed produxit in
culpam; hæc autem fuit in culpa producta (21), sed sine culpa produxit. Illa
dicta est Eva, huic dictum est, Ave; quia per hanc 'mutatum est nomen Evæ. Ave, inquit, gratia plena, Dominus tecum (Luc. 1). Quasi
diceret : Illa fuit plena peccato, sed tu plena gratia. Illa fuit maledicta in
mulieribus, sed benedicta tu in mulieribus (ibid.). Fructus ventris illius fuit
maledictus Cain, sed fructus ventris tui erit henedictus Jesus. Cain invidiose
fratrem occidit Abel (Gen. Iv); sed Jesus invidiose fuit occisus a fratribus. (Migne, PL
217:581-82)
The text in bold can be translated roughly into English as follows:
She [Eve] wasproduced without sin, but brought forth [children] in sin; whereas this one [Mary] was produced in sin but brought forth [Jesus] without sin. She was called Eve, to this one [Mary] it was said, “Ave,” for through her, the name of Eve was changed. (comments in square brackets added for clarification)
Here, the pope denies the Immaculate Conception by teaching that Mary was "produced in sin"; only later, did she become panagia/all holy.
The editors were quick to
defend the pope, noting that:
Sic sentire potuit Innocentius III papa, circa rem nondum
ab Ecclesia definitam ; quæ nunc et de fide, nempe: Maria sine labe concepta
est. (PL 217:581-82)
English:
Thus Pope Innocent III could have thought about a matter
not yet defined by the Church; which is now also of faith, namely: Mary was
conceived without stain (of sin).
Not only do the early Christians that Heschmeyer quotes out of context refutes his understanding of the Mary/Eve parallel, a pope would also side against his blatant abuse of this apologetic. (Note: I am not arguing Innocent III's comments are against Papal Infallibility–I know the strict criteria explicated by Pastor aeternus, in case someone tries to strawman me on this point).
Conclusions
While the earliest Christians did parallel Eve with Mary, Justin et al. did not believe this meant (1) Mary was sinless and (2) she was conceived without the stain of original sin. The pop level Catholic apologetics concerning the “New Eve” parallel represents eisegesis. Unless one wishes to impute stupidity to Heschmeyer, one has to impute to him deceptive motivations for this deceptive use of the patristics.
Consider the following from
two scholars of Syriac Mariology when commenting on the Mary/Eve parallel in
early Christian writings:
In the Christian tradition,
there are two different ways of understanding the Eve-Mary typology. The first
more dynamic construction proceeds from the assumption that although Mary is
affected to begin with by the consequences of the fall of man and therefore
suffers from original sin, she later frees herself from its grip by giving
birth to Jesus. In this line of thought, which represents the mainstream of the
Syriac tradition, the typical Christocentricity of the biblical viewpoint is
preserved. This is the construction that is clearly preferred by Ephrem the
Syrian and Jacob of Serugh. The second, more static reading conceives of
Mary as the new Eve, who is spared all along from the consequences of the fall.
This understanding is nowhere to be found among the earliest Church Fathers,
nor have we been able to verify that it appears anywhere in Syriac tradition.
(Muna Tatari and Klaus von Stosch, Mary in the Qur’an: Friend of God,
Virgin, Mother [trans. Peter Lewis; London: Gingko, 2021], 42-43)
That one can believe Mary is a New/Second Eve without imputed to her
sinlessness can be seen in how even Latter-day Saints and others with a lower
(and I would argue, more apostolic/biblical) Mariology than Roman Catholicism.
For example, Latter-day Saint scholar Shon D. Hopkin wrote that:
This life-giving
sacrifice on Jesus’s part would have been impossible if his mother, Mary, had
not previously exercised her role as a life-giver, a role given expression in
both the monthly cycle and in the blood and water present at the birth of
Jesus. Indeed, the life-giving elements of water, blood, and the spirit that
the time of birth are connected early in Christianity to the elements of
spiritual life. From a Latter-day Saint perspective tied to the reality of
premortal existence, Mary became a second Eve. She first chose to enter
mortality with all its attendant challenges for women as life-givers. She then
chose to accept God’s will and give life to the Son of God, thereby making
eternal life possible for all humanity. (Shon D. Hopkin, “Women, Eve, and the Mosaic
Covenant: A Latter-day Saint Theological Reading,” in Seek Ye Words of
Wisdom: Studies on the Book of Mormon, Bible, and Temple in Honor of Stephen D.
Ricks, ed. Donald W. Parry, Gaye Strathearn, and Shon D. Hopkin [Provo,
Utah: Interpreter Foundation; Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young
University, 2020], 196)
The Immaculate Conception and personal sinlessness of Mary are not apostolic in origin. Instead, as with the Korban rule that the Lord Jesus condemned (see Matt 15//Mark 7), they are false, man-made traditions. The fact Rome has elevated the Immaculate Conception to the position of a de fide dogma shows (1) Roman Catholicism is a false Church and (2) Rome falls under the anathema of Galatians 1:6-9. Not only that, it shows that Joe Heschmeyer is not an honest actor: he deliberately misrepresents the patristic data to deceive people into accepting Roman Catholic theology.
Appendix: On the Seven Days of New Creation and the
Gospel of John
The focus of this blog post was on the patristic data. But let me just briefly note that there are issues with the apologetic of Heschmeyer, who, in turn, is following Scott Hahn. Let me quote from Hahn's popular book on Mariology:
Counting
the Days
John the Evangelist continues to leave hints of Genesis
throughout his opening narrative. After the first vignette, John’s story
continues “the next day” (1:29), with the encounter of Jesus and John the
Baptist. “The next day” (1:35), again, comes the story of the calling of the
first disciples. “The next day” (1:43), yet again, we find Jesus’ call to two
more disciples. So, taking John’s first discussion of the Messiah as the first
day, we now find ourselves on the fourth day.
Then John does something remarkable. He introduces his
next episode, the story of the wedding feast at Cana, with the words “On the
third day.” Now, he cannot mean the third day from the beginning, since he has
already proceeded past that point in his narrative. He must mean the third day
from the fourth day, which brings us to the seventh day—and then John stops
counting days.
Do you notice anything familiar? John’s story of the new
creation takes place in seven days, just as the creation story in Genesis is
completed on the sixth day, and sanctified—perfected—on the seventh, when God
rests from His labor. The seventh day of the creation week, as of every week
thereafter, would be known as the Sabbath, the day of rest, the sign of the
covenant (see Ex 31:16–17). We can be sure, then, that whatever happens on the
seventh day in John’s narrative will be significant. (Scott Hahn, Hail,
Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God [New York: Image Books,
2001], 34-35)
Hahn then discusses John 2:4-5
and Mary’s purported intercessory role at the wedding at Cana, and Jesus
calling her “woman,” and reading back into this Mary being the New Eve (which
Hahn, like Heschmeyer, reads back into this personal sinlessness and the
Immaculate Conception [!]) informed by this interpretive matrix.
There are a number of problems with Hahn's (and, as a result, Heschmeyer's) approach. Firstly, none of the earliest Christians held to this interpretation. Consider Origen (185-254):
The use of the expression “the next day” is a symbol of
John’s progress and improvement. For Jesus comes, in the subsequent
illumination, as it were, and on the day following what had preceded. He is not
only known as having stood in the midst even of those who knew him not, but now
also when he is seen as having come to him who earlier made these declarations.
(Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 6, in Commentary on the
Gospel according to John, Books 1-10 [trans. Ronald E. Heiene; The Fathers
of the Church 40; The Catholic University of America Press, 1989], 238)
As an aside, Origen, in
spite of a high Mariology (e.g., he held to the perpetual virginity), did not
believe Mary was sinless. Consider the following two representative quotations:
There was, therefore, none other who could overcome these
nets. For all have sinned, as it is
written; and again, as Scripture says: There
is no just man upon earth that hath done good and hath not sinned; and
again: No one is free of uncleanness, not
even if his life be of but one day. Therefore Our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ alone is He who did no sin;
but the Father made Him to be sin for us,
that in the likeness of sinful flesh and
of sin He might condemn sin. (Origen, Commentary on the Song of Songs, Book
Three, 13, in Origen: The Song of Songs, Commentary and Homilies [trans.
R. P. Lawson; Ancient Christian Writers 26; New York: The Newman Press, 1957],
237)
6. Thereupon Simeon says, “a sword will pierce your very
soul.” Which sword is this that pierced not only others’ hearts, but even
Mary’s? Scripture clearly records that, at the time of the Passion, all the
apostles were scandalized. The Lord himself said, “This night you will all be
scandalized.” Thus, they were all so scandalized that Peter too, the leader of
the apostles, denied him three times. Why do we think that the mother of the
Lord was immune from scandal when the apostles were scandalized? If she did not
suffer scandal at the Lord’s Passion, then Jesus did not die for her sins. But,
if “all have sinned and lack God’s glory, but are justified by his grace and
redeemed,” then Mary too was scandalized at that time.
7. And this is what Simeon now prophesies when he says,
“And your very soul.” You know, Mary, that you bore as a virgin, without a man.
You heard from Gabriel, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of
the Most High will overshadow you.” The “sword” of infidelity “will pierce”
you, and you will be struck by the blade of uncertainty, and your thoughts will
tear you in pieces when you see him. You had heard him called the Son of God.
You knew he was begotten without a man’s seed. You knew he was crucified, and
died, and subjected to human punishment. You knew that at the end he lamented
and said, “Father, if it is possible, let this chalice pass from me.” Thus the
Scripture, “and a sword will pierce your very soul.” (Origen, Homily on Luke 17,
6-7, in Origen: Homilies on Luke and Fragments on Luke [trans. Joseph T.
Lienhard, vol. 94, The Fathers of the Church 94; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic
University of America Press, 2009], 73)
Secondly, biblical scholar Carlos Raúl
Sosa Siliezar noted the weakness of some of these approaches to John 1-2:
In their search for a putative ‘seventh day’ in Jn 1–2
that can be matched to the day of rest of God in Gen. 2, some scholars have
given attention to Jn 2:12. Hambly, for example, contended that Jn 2:12
represents the seventh day when Jesus rested after the miracle at Cana. This
conclusion is implausible for at least four reasons. The first reason is that
Jesus stayed in Capernaum ‘a few days’ (οὐ πολλὰς ἡμέρας, 2:12), while God’s rest after creation
in Gen. 2:2–3 comprised only a single day. The second reason is that the phrase
‘after this’ (2:12) is not as clear as ‘the next day’ (e.g. 1:43). Therefore,
John does not indicate explicitly that Jesus’ arrival to Capernaum took place
‘the next day’ after the miracle at Cana. The third reason is that other people
stayed in Capernaum with Jesus: his mother and brothers, and his disciples
(2:12). Since they did not take an active role in the previous miracle at Cana,
it is difficult to think that they stayed with Jesus in order to rest. If John
were intending to portray the seventh day in 2:12 as a day of rest for Jesus,
the mention of his family and disciples would be unnecessary. The fourth reason
is that John never indicates that Jesus stayed in Capernaum in order to rest.
The reference to a royal official of Capernaum who has heard about Jesus before
(4:46–47) might indicate that Jesus was already known in Capernaum as one who
performs healings (cf. 20:30). Therefore, there is room to posit that Jesus’
stay in Capernaum in 2:12 involved some kind of activity (cf. 4:40–41;
10:40–41).
There are some time indicators in Jn 1:29, 35, 39, 43;
2:1, 12, but they are far from signalling a clear sequence of six or seven days
that resembles the days of creation in Genesis. Only if there were conspicuous
similarities between Jn 1–2 and Gen. 1–2 might one be inclined to believe that
John intended to shape the inaugural days of Jesus’ ministry in light of the
days of creation of the Genesis account. But a close assessment of suggested
similarities between the two texts will show that this is not the case.
It has been suggested that Jn 2:11 is an allusion to Gen.
2:3, because the verb ποιέω and
the broad idea of ‘beginning’ are used in both texts. However, the meanings of
the texts are very different. John refers to the first (ἀρχήν) sign performed by Jesus while Gen. 2:3
refers to the works of creation that God ‘began’ (ἤρξατο) to make (cf. Jn 13:5). Similarities
have also been proposed between the first and second days of creation and the
putative Johannine days of new creation. Paul Trudinger and Hambly claimed that
just as in Gen. 1:1–5 the light is separated from darkness, so too in Jn
1:19–28 the light (Jesus) is separated from the darkness (priests and Levites)
by the witness of the Baptist. This link seems speculative because John never
identifies the priests and Levites with darkness. People can walk in, love, or
abide in darkness (3:19; 8:12; 12:46; cf. 12:35) but people are never
identified as darkness in GJohn. Trudinger also attempted to relate the second
day of creation (Gen. 1:6–8) to Jn 1:32–33, based on the use of the nouns οὐρανός and ὕδωρ in both texts. However, this seems
to be a forced link. Both nouns are commonplace, and even in Gen. 1–2 they are
used in other days of creation (οὐρανός,
Gen. 1:1, 9, 14, 15, 17, 20, 26, 28, 30; 2:1, 4; ὕδωρ, 1:2, 9, 10, 20, 21, 22). Likewise,
these nouns are used elsewhere in Jn 1:19–2:12 (1:51; 2:7, 9). (Carlos
Raúl Sosa Siliezar, Creation Imagery in the Gospel of John [Library
of New Testament Studies 546; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015], 126–128)
Finally, with respect to the claim the
wedding of Cana took place on the “fourth day,” Catholic apologist Robert
Sungenis, in an email to a friend, noted a fundamental exegetical weakness with
Hahn’s (and, cribbing from him, Heschmeyer’s) argumentation:
. . . Hahn would first have to prove first that "the
third day" in John 2:1 is not the "next day" of John 1:43. If
the third day were an additional day beyond the three "next days" of
John 1:29, 35 and 43, making it the fourth day, there should be something in
the text that allows so, but there isn't. It could simply be the case that two
things happen on the third day (e.g., Jesus went to Galilee, and then Jesus
went to Cana). If so, then John could not call the day of John 2:1 "the
next day," and so settles for "the third day" of the three
"next days." The other possibility is that John 1:35's "on the
next day again" is using "again" as the second thing that
happened on that day (e.g., John looking at Jesus walking) in addition to John
seeing Jesus in verse 29 ("he sees Jesus coming toward him"). In this
scenario, the first day includes verse 29 and verse 35, and the second day is
verse 43, which then allows the third day to be John 2:1. Beyond that, to make
the third day the fourth day is simply not allowed. (Robert Sungenis, email
dated February 3, 2025)
Why does Jesus distance
himself from Mary by calling her “woman” (a term which Jesus uses elsewhere for
women other than his mother; see Matt 15:28; Luke 13:12; John 4:21; 8:10;
20:13)? Perhaps it is the same reason why he favors spiritual over biological links,
something one sees in passages such as:
But he answered and
said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? And who are my brethren? And he
stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and
my brethren! For whoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the
same is my brother, and sister, and mother. (Matt 12:48-50)
And it came to pass,
as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice,
and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou
hast sucked. But he said, Yea, rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God,
and keep it. (Luke 11:27-28; see
this post for a discussion of μενουν)
Commenting on Jesus’s establishment of an eschatological family, one
Roman Catholic scholar wrote:
Jesus’ Conditions for “Kinship in the
Kingdom”
Jesus’ unique experience of God as “abba” led him to
reveal God as “abba” to others. Jesus experienced God not only as intimately
present to him, but as the compassionate generous, forgiving, merciful One
seeking to bring all into a new family, but especially the poor, the despised,
the outcasts. In accounting the reign of God on earth, the institution of a new
family of God’s children, Jesus did not deny the value of blood ties. He urged
the observance of the fourth commandment to honor one’s faith and one’s mother.
Indeed, Jesus’ personal appreciation of the richness of family life probably
inspired in part his use of family images to describe membership in the kingdom
of God. At the same time Jesus found it necessary to utter some “hard sayings”
about the limitations of human kinship in relationship to “kinship in the
kingdom.”
Jesus taught that kinship with him did not provide the
key for entrance into the kingdom, but rather doing the will of God. When a
woman cried out, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you
sucked!” (Lk 11:27), Jesus replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word
of God and keep it.!” (Lk 11:28). Again, Jesus taught: “Call no man father on
earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven” (Mt 23:9), and “you have one
teacher, and you are all [brothers and sisters]” (Mt 23:8). Even if Jesus is
here referring to the use of professional titles the deeper implication is that
obedience to God is primary and that all human commitments are to be measured
in the light of commitment to God. Jesus taught in an uncompromising way that
certain attachments to kin could even block entry into the kingdom of God. “If
anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and
children and brothers and sisters . . . . he cannot be my disciple” (Lk 14:26).
Jesus did not exclude his relatives from the kingdom,
but, as with all others, he called them to undergo a conversion, to humble
themselves, to enter into the kingdom of God and to accept as equals in the
kingdom the poor, the outcasts, the tax collectors, the prostitutes. Jesus
asked his brothers and sisters in the flesh to make a basic option, to choose
for him and his message rather than against him Jesus was speaking of the need
to confront this option when he said that he had come not to bring peace, but a
sword, “to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother” (Mt
10:34-35). Jesus called everyone to “face the sword of deciding,” the “sword
that divides the believer from the non-believer.” The fruit of a positive
decision is entrance into a new family, the “kinship of the kingdom” in which
all are equals as children of God and brothers and sisters of Jesus.
In sum, then, what kind of a brother was Jesus to his
brother and sisters by blood? He was a brother who loved his own family enough
to invite them to share in the deepest secrets of his heart, to discover his
beloved “abba” as their own “abba,” to enter into the kingdom of the “abba.”
Jesus did not disavow his brothers and sisters in the flesh, but he asked them
to look beyond the narrow confines of kinship and to become members of a new,
universal family. The love of blood relatives for one another in this new
family is not extinguished or diminished but deepened. And everyone who enters
into the new family of the kingdom of God acquires a whole multitude of new
brothers and sisters as well. (Bernard J. Tyrrell, Christointegretation:
The Transforming Love of Jesus Christ [New York: Paulist Press, 1989],
78-79)
From all the above, it should be clear that Joe Heschmeyer is not an honest actor. Not all Catholic apologists are lacking in intellectual honesty, but he clearly is misrepresenting the facts in order to deceive people into thinking Roman Catholic Mariology is something which it is not: based on exegesis of the Bible and reflective of the theology of the earliest Christians. "Shameless" is apropos to describe Heschmeyer.
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift
card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift
Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
