Irenaeus' High Mariology: What it Does Not Prove
Two principle quotations from Irenaeus give the strong appearance of a high Mariology. The question remains: How high? Let us first give the two quotations:
1. “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, [Eve] 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, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 4)
2. “And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 19, Paragraph 1)
The first thing to note is the use of typology and recapitulation. By recapitulation (literally re-heading) is meant, more or less, some Biblical event which is later restated or repeated (recapitulated) on a new level or scale in the sense of a kind of summary fulfillment or restoration. In this way Christ is said to recapitulate Adam. Irenaeus puts it this way:
“For as by the disobedience of the one man who was originally moulded from virgin soil, the many were made sinners, and forfeited life; so was it necessary that, by the obedience of one man, who was originally born from a virgin, many should be justified and receive salvation. … But what He did appear, that He also was: God recapitulated in Himself the ancient formation of man, that He might kill sin, deprive death of its power, and vivify man; and therefore His works are true.” (Book 3, Chapter 18, Paragraph 7)
So, then, what does it mean that Mary recapitulates Eve and so “became the cause of salvation” not only for herself, but also “the whole human race”? What does it mean that the human race is “rescued by a virgin”?
To begin, one of the most important things to ascertain is what it does not mean. Not only does Irenaneus clearly never ascribe salvific powers to the blessed Virgin herself, he never extends the type so as to confuse Mary into either a Savior or an eternal principle (e.g. the divine Mother) of present salvation. She recapitulated Eve historically through birth-giving, but does not thereby become a transcendental Mother Principle now to be invoked for salvation. In other words, Irenaeus never states or implies a need to supplicate the present person of Mary in order to have access to Christ. Irenaeus explains his own meaning thus:
“And just as through a disobedient virgin man was struck and, falling, died, so also by means of a virgin, who obeyed the word of God, man, being revivified, received life.” (On the Apostolic Preaching, Part 1, Section 3, Paragraph 33)
Man received life, that is Christ, through her instrumentally and historically. In other words, the blessed Virgin is not herself any kind of savior, but the means by which the actual Savior entered into the world, and so she is in Irenaeus’ thought a kind of instrumental cause, a per accidens cause, not a principle cause of salvation. She yielded to the saving God to come into the world through her so that He could save directly. She herself saves no one, but is the vessel which bore the saving Savior. We can thus understand from Irenaeus that Mary is not in herself any kind of formal or principle cause of salvation, despite her recapitulation of Eve, but an historically delimited instrumental cause, the ‘landing and launching place’ of the Lord. She thus ‘saved’ and ‘rescued’ the human race by yielding to the saving action of the only Savior. The moment Christ was born, any action of hers which could be equivocally termed ‘salvific’ ceased, remaining as a blessed historical recapitulation of an historical Eve.
Christ kenotically moved from the transcendental to the imminent, from God the Son in infinity and eternity to God enfleshed and in space and time (all the while remaining God in eternity), and then returned - with His human nature - to the transcendental platform as God in eternity (human nature wondrously included). His economy mystically incorporates His historical particularity into the transcendent eternal. This is why He is not merely a historically contingent savior, but actually the Savior. Irenaeus marks this movement from history to eternity.
“And [He is called] ‘Saviour’, from this, that He was the cause of salvation to those who at that time were freed by Him from all kinds of sickness and from death…, and to those, who, after them, believed in Him, [He is] the procurer of <the coming> and eternal salvation.” (Irenaeus, On the Apostolic Preaching, Part 2, Section 2, Paragraph 53)
Christ, in other words, is a transcendental Savior, one in whom salvation is a proper Name and Attribute, an eternal verity. Irenaeus, however, never ascribes such transcendental power or property to Mary. In fact, according to Irenaeus her yielding in faith to God was the means of her own salvation! To put a finer point on it, her yielding was that which served as the gate through which the Word was enfleshed in her womb. She was by no means saving anyone, but yielding to God and so herself being saved, and through yielding became the Savior-bearing mother of God in the flesh. As quoted above she had “by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race.”
As affirming that she is the instrument by which God the Son entered into the world, Irenaeus is therefore not a true ally of Eastern Orthodox Mariology. To call upon her to “save us,” in the very context of divine worship, is to (at the very least) subtly confuse her with God. It moves beyond honoring and blessing her and into converting her into a kind of transcendent Divine Mother. In the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox, which is to be the divine worship of God, to call on or invoke Mary to “save” therefore blurs the distinction between her and God the only Savior. It moves her from the side of herself being a worshipper to being the worshipped, from the invoker of God to the one invoked, to the one praising to the one praised.
To conclude, Irenaeus’ high Mariology is one which honors and blesses her but does not finally confuse her with the only Savior. Anyone who reads his large work, Against Heresies, and his shorter one, On the Apostolic Preaching, will soon realize that, for Irenaeus, Christ alone is the Savior, and Mary is not any kind of actual co-redemptress. As the New Eve, she does not thereby become a principle of salvation next to Christ. In fact, as the Lord God says, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
And as God sings through David, “Call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me.” (Psalm 50:15)
“And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship (προσκυνέω) before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant (σύνδουλος), and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship (προσκυνέω) God.” (Revelation 22:8-9)
Mary is a fellow servant of God, as she says in the Scriptures which cannot be broken: “And Mary said, Behold the handmaid (δούλη) of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word” (Luke 1:38). And even if she could be thought of as the Queen Mother, she would still be a servant of her Son and King, as Bathsheba acknowledged of Solomon (1 Kings 2:18). Of that scene, from the relationship between Solomon and his mother, it is typologically noteworthy that Bathsheba’s request only inspired the wrath of Solomon and the promise of Adonijah’s death (1 King 2:24-25). Thus, the king’s ire being first raised through the queen mother’s intercession, Adonijah finally was killed based on his own dealings with king Solomon.
Typologically, although the foregoing does not conclusively prove the case for or against the bare possibility of Mary being considered in some sense the Queen Mother, it is significant that such a rare example is so negative, and is unpersuasive when those who would excessively elevate Mary base themselves on it. In other words, the most that could be shown is that if Mary is in some sense the Queen Mother, she is not thereby to be sought out as an intercessor, but instead one should deal directly and justly with the Lord. In fact, Adonijah’s dealings with the queen mother were born of cowardice and conniving attempts at manipulation of the king, and were treated as if he had spoken those words against his own life (1 Kings 2:23).
Rather than presenting herself as a Queen Mother, Mary sings of herself as a blessed handmaid (δούλη):
“My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden (δούλη): for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. (Luke 1:46-48)
As a fellow servant with us, not over us, Mary magnifies God in His Word as His blessed handmaid. Let us do the same.
-Rev. Joshua Schooping
