"On Mary" by Tom

Is Mary "Co-Redemptrix"?

The prefix "co" comes from the Latin word "cum," meaning "with." The term "co-redemptrix" means literally, "With the redeemer," not, "In place of the redeemer," or "Equal to the redeemer." Does scripture allow for human beings to "cooperate" with the redeemer? The following serve to illustrate that it does. (All quotes are from the NIV). 1 Corinthians 3:9: "For we are God’s fellow workers . . ." 2 Corinthians 6:1: "As God’s fellow workers we urge you not to receive God’s grace in vain." 1 Thessalonians 3:2: "We sent Timothy, who is our brother and God’s fellow worker in spreading the Gospel of Christ . . ." Also 2 Corinthians 5:20, Mark 16:20 and others. But by far the two most striking are Colossians 1:24 and 1 Corinthians 9:22. . .

Colossians 1:24 states ". . . I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church." The footnote in the NIV states: ". . . does not mean that there was a deficiency in the atoning sacrifice of Christ. Rather it means that Paul suffered afflictions because he was preaching the good news of Christ’s atonement . . . Paul filled up Christ’s afflictions by experiencing the added sufferings necessary to carry this good news to a lost world." We are all called to share Christ’s sufferings (cf. Romans 8:17). Paul was a "co-redeemer." The same reasoning comes into play in 1 Corinthians 9:22 where St. Paul makes the amazing assertion ". . . I might save some [men]." Obviously, St. Paul doesn’t mean he is the savior of men, but that he participates in the work of redemption; he is a "co-redeemer." (Also see 1 Timothy 4:16 which is similar.)

St. Paul is a "co-worker" and calls us to be "co-workers," offering our bodies as acceptable sacrifices (Romans 12:1). What does Scripture reveal about Mary’s role as a "co-redeemer" (or "co-worker" if you prefer)? The first typological reference to Mary’s role is in Genesis 3:15: "I will put enmity between you [the serpent] and the woman, and between your offspring and hers. He will crush your head and you will strike his heel." Eve (which means "Living" [Genesis 3:20]) is a type or foreshadowing of Mary just as Adam is a type of Christ (Romans 5:12-21). The first promise of redemption includes "the Woman." It was Adam’s fall that brought death (Romans 5:12-21) but the "woman" (Eve) assisted in the fall of Adam; so the "recreation" that is Christ’s work comes at the assistance of the "woman," Mary (Luke 1:26-38). This is also why Christ refers to Mary as "woman" in John 19:26 and John 2:4. Mary is the New Eve as Christ is the New Adam. Consider the following: [All quotes taken from Phillip Schaff set of early Christian writings at Calvin College (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/).]

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies; A.D.180 (145 years before the definition of the Trinity).  [3,22,4]

"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 (for in Paradise 'they were both naked, and were not ashamed,' inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), 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…. And thus also it was that 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."

Another type of Mary, the woman connected to redemption, can be seen in Jael (Judges 4 and 5). Jael is a "woman" through whom Israel, a type of the "New Israel" (Revelations 21), vanquished its enemies by "crushing the [enemies] skull." (Genesis 3:15, Judges 5:26, Judges 4:21 and John 19:17. Consider also Judges 5:24, Psalms 45:17, Luke 1:42, 48.) Mary is the "woman" whose seed crushes the serpent’s head (incidentally, the "seed" of the woman (Genesis 3:15) is a very strange construct; it implies the woman has generative abilities without a man; a hint at the virgin birth).

In what way does Mary share in Christ’s redemptive work? By her consent to God’s plan (Luke 1:38) and by her lifelong walk with Christ to the cross (Luke 2:35 and John 19) and her continued cooperation in heaven (Revelations 12). Who more than Mary participated in the sufferings of Christ (Colossians 1:24, Romans 8:17 et al.) by the "sword that would pierce her soul" (Luke 2:35)?

Was Mary Sinless?

If so, did she need a savior (Luke 1:47)? Yes and yes! The Catholic Church teaches that God preserved Mary from the stain of sin by a singular act of His grace in anticipation of the atonement of Christ (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 491). Why? If Mary is the New Eve (the "woman" cooperating with the work of redemption), it is fitting that she be without sin as was the "old (pre-fallen) Eve." Eve made her decision against God with a will that was unencumbered by sin. It is therefore fitting that the new Eve made her decision for God unencumbered by sin. But the old Eve sinned and brought death to herself and her offspring. The new Eve brings life by her obedience to God’s plan. Is it unreasonable to say that God, for the purposes of fulfilling His plan, preserved Mary from sin in anticipation of Christ’s atonement? Keep in mind that God obviously regenerated Mary in anticipation of Christ’s merits (Luke 1). God also regenerated Abraham, obviously in anticipation of Christ (Genesis 15:6, Hebrews 11:8, et al). The same could be said of David, Elijah, Noah, etc., etc. Consider the words of St. Augustine. . .

St. Augustine, On Nature and Grace Against Pelagius, 415 A.D. [36, 42]

Chapter 42 [XXXVI.] - the Blessed Virgin Mary May Have Lived Without Sin. None of the Saints Besides Her Without Sin.

"He then enumerates those ‘who not only lived without sin, but are described as having led holy lives, - Abel, Enoch, Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joshua the son of Nun, Phinehas, Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Joseph, Elisha, Micaiah, Daniel, Hananiah, Azariah, Mishael, Mordecai, Simeon, Joseph to whom the Virgin Mary was espoused, John.' And he adds the names of some women, - 'Deborah, Anna the mother of Samuel, Judith, Esther, the other Anna, daughter of Phanuel, Elisabeth, and also the mother of our Lord and Saviour, for of her,' he says, 'we must need allow that her piety had no sin in it.' We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin. Well, then, if, with this exception of the Virgin, we could only assemble together all the forementioned holy men and women, and ask them whether they lived without sin whilst they were in this life, what can we suppose would be their answer? Would it be in the language of our author, or in the words of the Apostle John? I put it to you, whether, on having such a question submitted to them, however excellent might have been their sanctity in this body, they would not have exclaimed with one voice: 'If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us?'"

Does scripture teach the sinlessness of Mary? Yes! At the annunciation in Luke 1:28, the angel says: "Hail, full of grace (RSV)." The NIV has "Greetings, you who are highly favored," which is a poor translation. The word for "hail" is the same word in John 19:3, "Hail, King of the Jews." (NIV). The guards were mockingly using this royal greeting; they were certainly not saying greetings as if they were at a tea party. Why is the angel using a royal greeting for Mary instead of the other way around? "Full of grace" is the Greek verb "kecharitomene." The word literally means a fullness and perfection of grace. If Mary had any sin, could Gabriel refer to Mary this way? Consider also that Genesis 3:15 stated that there would be enmity between the serpent and the "woman." Noah, Abraham, David and others were chosen by God because of their righteousness. Is it not ridiculous to think God chose His mother at random?

Ark of the Covenant

At this point I’m afforded a good segue to my next point, which is that the Old Testament Ark of the Covenant was a type of Mary. The Ark, of course, was a wooden box inlayed with gold (Exodus 25:10-21). It contained the stone tablets of the Ten Commandments, manna, and Aaron’s rod. All are types of Christ: the Ten Commandments are the Word of God; Jesus is the Word of God (John 1:1). Manna is the bread from heaven, Jesus is the bread from heaven (John 6:33). Aaron’s staff symbolizes the priesthood; Jesus is our high priest (Hebrews 2:17). The Ark contained the "word of God" in type; Mary contained the "word of God" in reality in her womb. In Luke 1:35, Mary is told "the power of the most high will overshadow you." This is imagery drawn from Exodus 40:34 when the Shekina cloud covered the Ark and Moses couldn’t enter. Compare the following:

 In Revelvations 11:19, John says he saw the Ark in God’s temple in Heaven. The ears of his reader would have perked up; the Ark had not been seen for hundreds of years. Chapters and verses weren’t in Scripture until the 12th century, so just when John speaks of the Ark and his hearer’s interest is piqued, he says (Chapter 12) "a woman clothed with the sun."

The Ark was the Holiest object ever known to the Israelites. One would be struck dead just for touching it: ". . . Uzzah reached out and took hold of the Ark of God . . . therefore God struck him down and he died there . . ." (2 Samuel 6:7). The Ark was too holy for sinful man to touch because it contained a type of the word, yet Mary, who had not a type of The Word, but The Word Himself, was stained by sin? No way!

Someone might say "What about Romans 3:10, 'There is no one righteous, not even one' and Romans 3:23, 'All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.'?" How could Mary be sinless when Scripture says all have sinned? First of all, it must be pointed out that there is at least one exception: Jesus. St. Paul’s point is not that every single individual is sinful, but he is telling his Judaizing interlocutors that even the Jews have sinned. The letter to the Romans was written to oppose the Judaizers (so called). Romans 3:10 and following are quoted from Psalm 14 and Isaiah 59. If St. Paul were to quote an Old Testament text and misuse it by taking it out of context and imposing a meaning that wasn’t intended by the author, he would have a hundred rabbis all over him. St. Paul obviously then intends to bring to his reader’s minds the same thing that David had in mind when he wrote Psalm 14.

David’s worst enemies were the members of his own household. Psalm 14 is David lamenting that even the Jews (who were supposed to be upright and following the Lord) were corrupt. David wasn’t saying that every individual was corrupt; he was saying that not even the Jews acted justly. How do we know this for sure? Verses 4 and 5 gives it all away: "Will evildoers never learn - those who devour my people as men eat bread and who do not call on the Lord? There they are, overwhelmed with dread, for God is present in the company of the righteous." Obviously, David is not saying every individual is corrupt because he speaks of "my people" and the "company of the righteous." Again, St. Paul in using this text cannot be taking it out of context; he must be using it according to its original intent. St. Paul is therefore not speaking of every individual but he is speaking collectively, telling the Judaizers that even the Jews are unjust. He’s telling them that faith in Christ justifies not genealogies and the precepts of the Mosaic Law. That’s how he can say in verse 29 "or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of the Gentiles also?" For example: Suppose I had a party at my house and I told you that "everyone came." You would understand that I don’t literally mean every single individual on the planet, but all of my friends. Paul must mean the collective and not the distributive sense or he is taking Psalm 14 out of context. Isaiah 59 also condemns Israel for "uncircumcision of the heart" (Romans 2:29).

Was Mary Perpetually Virginal?

What about Mark 6:3 (and similar passages), where the "brothers" of the Lord are spoken of? The word for "brothers" in Mark 6:3 is "adelphoi." Adelphoi also appears in Acts 1:15 where it says there were a hundred and twenty "adelphoi." I pity the poor woman who had one hundred and twenty sons! The culture in which Jesus lived used the term "brothers" much more loosely than we do; it could mean cousins, or other close relatives. Check out Galatians 1:19, "I saw none of the other apostles - only James, the Lord’s brother." This verse tells us that there is an apostle named James who is the Lord’s brother. Matthew 10 lists the apostles. There are two James’ - one is the son of Zebedee; the other the son of Alphaeus. Furthermore, Mark 6:3, Matthew 27:56 and John 19:25 taken together show that two of the "brothers" were children of Mary, the wife of Clopas. Mark 6:3 says James and Joseph (footnote n in NIV states: Greek Joses, a variant of Joseph) are "brothers" of the Lord. Matthew 27:56 says Mary, the mother of James and Joses, was at the crucifixion. John 19:25 says that this Mary is the wife of Clopas. Someone might object at this point; what about "until" in Matthew 1:25: "But he had no union with her until (heos) she gave birth to a son." Doesn’t this mean that he did have "union" with her after Jesus was born? The word "until" doesn’t necessitate that the opposite takes place after the "until" is fulfilled. For example: in 2 Samuel 6:23, Michal had no children until (heos) her death. Certainly, she didn’t have any after her death.

John 19:26-27 record Jesus’ words from the cross to His mother and the disciple whom He loved: "There is your son, there is your mother, and the disciple took her as his own." Is John just filling space with mundane details about housing, or does he record this to show how Mary, as the new Eve, is our spiritual mother? If Jesus is just taking care of housing arrangements, He could have chosen a better time to do so, having been beaten half to death at this time. If Mary had other children, it would have violated Jewish law for Jesus to give the care of His mother to someone other than the next sibling.

What about "first born" son in Luke 2:7; doesn’t that mean there were others? "First born" was a special title in Israel (i.e. Exodus 6:14 and Exodus 34:20) indicating a special status as priests (Exodus 13:1-2). This status was lost at Sinai and given to the Levites (Exodus 32:29) but it is restored to God’s original plan in Christ (Hebrews 1:6; 12:22-24). The title "first born" would have brought this imagery to St. Luke’s readers.

See St. Jerome’s letter to Helvidius for Jerome’s defense of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

What about Mary’s assumption?

First it must be said that Mary did not ascend into heaven (as if by her own power). Only Jesus did that. It simply means that Mary, as the "prototype" Christian received in advance what we shall all receive eventually in the resurrection. (If I were a dispensationalist, I might say she was "raptured" early.) It follows as a consequence if Mary were freed (by a special act of God’s grace) from sin. And since she carried the incarnate Word in her womb, it is fitting that God should preserve her body from decay as He preserved Enoch (Genesis 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2) (Scripture hints that Moses may have been assumed also [Jude 9 and Deuteronomy 34:6].) even though they were not freed from sin as was Mary. You will not find in Scripture a description of the Trinity in the form in which it was given at Niceae. It was drawn from inference by the Church from several Scriptural passages and the lived faith of the Church. Mary’s assumption, likewise, is drawn by inference from what the other truths about Mary implicate from Scripture and the lived faith of the Church. There are examples from the writings of the church fathers dating from the fifth and sixth centuries that speak of standing traditions about the assumption. (Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles, 575 A.D.) and ( St. John Damascene, Second Homily on the Dormition of Mary, 725 A.D.).

Queen Mother

Another type of Mary is the office of Queen Mother (the giberah). In the ancient Near East the wife of the king did not reign as queen, the king’s mother did. Why? Well, if you’re like Solomon and have 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3), it’s a little difficult to have 1,000 queens. But he had only one mother (1 Kings 2:19).

Several examples can be given to show the office of the giberah. I will give three. In 2 Chronicles 15:16, King Asa removes his grandmother Maacah from her position as queen mother because she had made an idol. In 2 Kings 11:1-4, Athaliah, mother of deceased King Ahaziah, sought to kill any possible claimants to the throne so she could keep her reign. Incidentally, types are always imperfect and it should be no surprise that the examples I gave are scoundrels; remember that the kings of Israel were "types" of Christ, yet many of them were scoundrels. In 1 Kings 1-2, we have an excellent example of the queen mother. In 1 Kings 2:13-25 we have a story about how Adonijah tries to usurp the throne (verse 22) by taking as his wife a woman from David’s harem. Note that Adonijah goes to the Bathsheba because, as he says in verse 17, he knows the king will not refuse a request of the queen mother. When Bathsheba went to King Solomon, he bowed down to her and had a throne brought in for her at his right hand (a sign of power, i.e. Matthew 26:64). I’m not saying that the queen mother is above the king; she is not. But she does hold a place of high honor and authority. Since the kings of Israel were types of Christ and the "old Israel" was a type of the "new Israel" (Revelations 21-22), Mary is the Queen Mother, or as Catholics say, the "Queen of heaven and earth." Wouldn’t Luke’s Jewish readers hear in Luke 1:43 "Mother of my Lord" a reference to the Queen Mother? If the queen mother of the Old Israel was entitled to honor, so is the Queen Mother of the New Israel.

Mary is an eschatological icon of the church. In Revelations 12, we see the unfolding of salvation history in a tale of how the dragon pursues "the woman." Some Protestant commentators rightly say that "the woman" is "a reference to the believing messianic community" (NIV footnote for Revelation 12:1). But isn’t this "community" (i.e. the Church) personified in Mary? Consider that in Revelations 12:5 the woman gives birth to a male Child who rules the nations with an iron scepter. This is spiritually true of the church and is historically true of Mary. Verse 17 tells us that the Serpent made "war against the rest of her offspring," reminding us once again of Genesis 3:15. In her "yes" to God’s plan (Genesis 3:15), she exemplifies what all Christians strive to be. Psalm 45 tells us about the wedding of the king (having its eschatological fulfillment in Revelations 19:7); verses 9 through 17 tells us of the glories of the bride. Certainly this is a symbolic foreshadowing of the Church (the new Israel) as the bride (Revelation 21-22), but isn’t it also true of Mary who was "overshadowed" by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35)? Doesn’t Luke allude to this Psalm when he records the words of Mary "all generations will call me blessed" (Luke 1:48), reminding his readers of Psalm 45:17: "I will perpetuate your memory through all generations."

Praying to Mary and the Saints

Someone may object that praying to saints is wrong because Deuteronomy 18:11 condemns communicating with the dead. In reality, Deuteronomy 18:11 is condemning seeking revelation about the future from a creature (divining). In praying to the saints, one is not seeking knowledge about the future, but rather asking for their prayers. James 5:16 states: "The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective." The saints in heaven are not dead; they are more alive than we are. Scripture never says that those who die in the Lord are "dead." If we can ask one another to pray for each other, why can we not ask those already in the presence of God to pray for us? Is this not what Revelations 5:8 speaks of when it tells us that the 24 elders offer the bowls of incense that are the prayers of the saints? Also, if "communicating" is condemned, why does Jesus communicate with Moses at the Mount of Transfiguration in Luke 9? Deuteronomy 34:5 tells us explicitly that Moses died. Hebrews 12:1 speaks of a great cloud of witnesses. Scripture tells us that Christ is the vine and we are the branches. I know of no Scripture that says that earthly death separates us from that vine.

"'Mary's function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin's salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it. No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, # 970)

In 431 A.D, the council of Ephesus denounced the error of Nestorius who claimed that Mary was the mother of only the human nature of Christ, and that it was only the human nature of Christ that died on the cross. As is the case with many early heresies, this in effect splits Christ into two persons. The council responded that it is not possible to be the mother of a nature, but only of a person. The council declared Mary to be the Mother of God. So a Christological question was answered by the formulation of a Marian doctrine! Nestorianism would have made two persons out of Christ; and what is not assumed, is not redeemed. The incarnation is the centerpiece of the gospel. Who is more intimately united to the mystery of the incarnation than Mary? Mary is the context in which the incarnation takes place. It is my opinion that theologies that neglect or deny the importance of Mariology cease to be incarnational and become increasingly gnostic or docetic. Mary is an icon of hope for a lost race. She shows us that Jesus, the God who became man, really does free us from the contradiction and meaninglessness of this life; not just in theory, but also in actual history. Mary is, from start to finish, the work of Christ. She is the sweetest flower of humanity and the fairest honor of our race.

CHURCH BELIEFS & ISSUES

WHAT THE EARLY CHURCH BELIEVED

Biblical quotations on this web site are either from the King James Version or the Douay-Rheims Version of the Bible.

©1997-2005 Chris Tesch.  This Web site first loaded on July 10, 1997.
Domain name - www.catholic-defense.com secured April 5, 1999.
Written permission is needed to copy any portion of this web site.  All rights reserved.