Holy Mary in Early Christian Writers

EPHREM THE SYRIAN: From what the angel said to Mary, namely, “Elizabeth, your kinswoman,” it could be supposed that Mary was from the house of Levi. Nevertheless up to this, the prophecy was established within the framework of the husbands. The family of David continued as far as Joseph, who had espoused her, and the birth of her child was reckoned through the framework of the men, for the sake of the family of David. It is in Christ that the seed and family of David are brought to completion. Scripture is silent about Mary’s genealogy since it is the generations of men that it numbers and reckons. If Scripture had been accustomed to indicate the family line through the mothers, it would be in order for one to seek the family of Mary. But, lest the words “Elizabeth, your kinswoman’” were to show that Mary was also from the house of Levi, take note that the Evangelist has said elsewhere, concerning Joseph and Mary, that “they were both of the house of David.’” The angel did not say to Mary that Elizabeth was her sister but “Elizabeth, your kinswoman.” COMMENTARY ON TATIAN’S D1ATESSARON 1.25.²⁸

BEDE: The time had come when, having redeemed the world through his blood, he was to be acknowledged as king not of the house of David alone but also of the whole church; moreover, that he was maker and governor of all generations. Hence the angel properly said afterwards, “and the Lord God will give him the seat of David his father,” and he immediately added, “and he will reign in the house of Jacob forever.” Now the house of Jacob refers to the universal church, which through its faith in and confession of Christ pertains to the heritage of the patriarchs—either among those who took their physical origin from the stock of the patriarchs or among those who, though brought forth with respect to the flesh from other countries, were reborn in Christ by the spiritual washing. HOMILIES ON THE GOSPELS 1.3.³⁰ (Ibid., pp. 16-17)

THEOPHANES: The angel: Rejoice, lady; rejoice, most pure virgin! Rejoice, God-containing vessel! Rejoice, candlestick of the light, the restoration of Adam and the deliverance of Eve! Rejoice, holy mountain, shining sanctuary! Rejoice, bridal chamber of immortality!

Theotokos: The descent of the Holy Spirit has purified my soul; it has sanctified my body; it has made me a temple containing God, a divinely adorned tabernacle, a living sanctuary and the pure mother of life.

The angel: I see you as a lamp with many lights; a bridal chamber made by God! Spotless maiden, as an ark of gold, receive now the giver of the law, who through you has been pleased to deliver humankind’s corrupted nature! CANON OF ANNUNCIATION.⁴⁴…

BEDE: Now when the mediator between God and human beings⁴⁷ appeared in the world, it was fitting that he had his physical origin from both tribes because, in the humanity which he assumed, he would possess the roles of both priest and king. HOMILY ON THE GOSPELS 1.3.⁴⁸ (Ibid., p. 19)

AMBROSE: And, therefore, he who had undertaken to prove the incorrupt mystery of the incarnation thought it fruitless to pursue evidence of Mary’s virginity, lest he be seen as a defender of the Virgin rather than an advocate of the mystery. Surely, when he taught that Joseph was righteous, he adequately declared that he could not violate the temple of the Holy Spirit, the mother of the Lord, the womb of the mystery. We have learned the lineage of the Truth. We have learned its counsel. Let us learn its mystery. Fittingly is she espoused, but virgin, because she prefigures the church which is undefiled¹¹ yet wed. A virgin conceived us of the Spirit, a Virgin brings us forth without travail. And thus perhaps Mary, wed to one, was filled by Another, because also the separate churches are indeed filled by the Spirit and by grace and yet are joined to the appearance of a temporal Priest. EXPOSITION OF THE GOSPEL OF LUKE 2.6-7.¹² (Ibid., p. 14)

Nor need you be upset by those words of the Evangelist: “He knew her not until she had brought forth her Son” (Mt 1:25). In Scripture, this is the way they have of speaking. Take this text for example: “until your old age, I am” (Is 46:4). Does it mean that after their old age God will have ceased to be? Or take the case of that verse in the psalm: “The Lord said to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right until I make your enemies my footstool (P. 109:1). Does it mean that afterwards He will no longer sit at the Lord’s right?

Or again, if you are pleading a cause, and have said all that is sufficient to prove your case, you do not enquire into what is superfluous. It suffices to enquire into what follows after. Having undertaken to show the mystery of the Incarnation took place without intercourse, the Evangelist did not consider that it was for him to make further protestation regarding Mary’s virginity. Had he done so, he would appear to be defending the Virgin rather than asserting the Mystery. Truly, when he teaches is that Joseph was just, he has said enough to indicate that such a man as this would never have profaned the Temple of the Holy Spirit, the Mother of the Lord, the Womb consecrated by the Mystery.

We have learnt the order of events: we have learnt the purpose of these events. But let us also learn the mystery. It is good that Mary is both a wife and a virgin, for she is a figure of the Church who is without stain (cf. Ep 5:27), and yet a spouse. As a virgin she has conceived us by the Spirit; as a virgin she brings us forth without the pangs of labour. There may, too, be another reason why Holy Mary became fruitful by One who was not her husband, for the individual churches — made fruitful by the Holy Spirit (cf. Rv 2:17) and by grace — are visibly united to a mortal bishop. (Commentary of Saint Ambrose on the Gospel according to Saint Luke, Translated by ide M. Ni Riain M.A., B. Phil (Saint Andrews) [Halcyon Press in association with Elo Publications, 2001], pp. 28-29)

Therefore John is great, but his greatness has a beginning and an end. But the Lord Jesus is Himself both the beginning and the end; He is at the same time the First and the Last (cf. Rv 22:13). Before this “First” there is nothing; after this “Last” there is nothing.

You must not let the laws that govern human generation betray you into thinking that because Jesus is “Son” He cannot be “First”. Hold fast to Scripture and you will not err. The Son is called “first”. But you will also read there that the Father is “alone”: “He alone has immortality and inhabits light inaccessible” (1 Tm 6:16). You have likewise read: “And to the one and only immortal God” (1 Tm 6:17).

But He is not first before the Father, nor is the Father alone without the Son. If you deny the one, you affirm the other. Hold on to both, and you confirm both. He did not say: “I am before and I come after,” but: “I am the first and the last” (Rv 1:17; 22:13). The Son is first, and by consequence co-eternal, for He has a Father with whom He is eternal. I make bold to say that the Son is the first, but He is not alone. I say this truly and | say it devoutly. Why, O heretics, do you listen to what is impious? Those snares you spread out for others, you fall into them yourselves. The Son is first, and He is not alone: first because He is always with the Father; not alone, because He is never without the Father. It is not I who say It, but He Himself. His own words are: “Yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me” (Jn 16:32).

The Father is alone, because there is only one divinity — that of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and to be unique is to be alone. The Father is alone, the only Son is alone, so too the Holy Spirit is alone: for He who is Son is not also Father. and He who is Father is not also son nor is the Holy Spirit also the Son. The Father is distinct, the Son is distinct, Holy Spirit is distinct. For we read: “I will ask my Father and He shall send another advocate” (Jn 14:16). The Father is alone because there is only one God from whom everything proceeds. The Son is alone because there only one Lord through whom everything exists (cf. 1 Co 8:6). To be divine is to be alone; to generate testifies that there is both a Father and a Son, so that the Son is never seen without the Father nor the Father without the Son. In this sense the Father is not alone: He is not the only one dwelling in inaccessible light, for we read that “no one has ever seen God except the only Son who is in the bosom of the Father” (Jn 1:18). He it is who sits at the right hand of the Father. There are people who dare to say that there can be no access to the light in which the Father dwells! Is light more excellent than the Father? What light, then, can be inaccessible to Him to whom the Father is not inaccessible? He is the true light and the author of eternal light ~ that light of which Scripture says: “This was the true light, which enlightens everyone who comes into this world” (Jn 1:9). Consider whether this be not that inaccessible light in which the Father dwells, and in which the Son equally dwells — for the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father (cf. Jn 14:11).

He, truly, is great. Far and wide spreads the power of God. Far and wide extends the magnitude of the heavenly substance. For the Trinity, there is no term, no limit, no measure, no dimension. It is not enclosed by place, not grasped by intellect; it is not changed by the passage of time. Of course, to men too God has given greatness, for “their voice has gone forth through all the earth and their words to the utmost bounds of the world” (Ps 18:5). But not to the limits of the universe, not to the limits of Heaven, whereas “all things were created in the Lord Jesus, things in Heaven and on the earth, both visible and invisible” (Col 1:16 sq.). Contemplate the sky, Jesus is there; look upon the earth, Jesus is there. By means of the Word ascend into Heaven, by means of the Word descend into Hell, Jesus is there (cf. Ps 138:8). Today, as I speak to you, He is with me. He is with me at this instant, at this moment. And if, at this moment, there is a Christian speaking in Armenia, Jesus is there, for “no-one says that Jesus is Lord, if not through the Holy Spirit” (1 Co 12:3). If, in imagination, you plunge into the depths, there too you will see Jesus. For it is written: “Do not say within your heart: ‘Who shall ascend into Heaven?’ That would be to bring Christ down! Or: ‘Who has descended into the abyss?’ This would be to bring Christ back from the dead!” (Rm 10:6 sq.). Where, then, is He not? For He it is who brought to completion all that is in Heaven, in the abyss, and on the earth, Therefore He, truly, is great; and His power fills all the earth. He is everywhere, and will continue for ever, for “His Kingdom shall have no end” (Lk 1:33). (Ibid., pp. 30-31)

7. The angel greeted Mary with a new address, which I could not find anywhere else in Scripture. I ought to explain this expression briefly. The angel says, “Hail, full of grace.”¹⁶ The Greek word is kecharitomene. I do not remember having read this word elsewhere in Scripture.¹⁷ An expression of this kind, “Hail, full of grace,” is not addressed to a male. This greeting was reserved for Mary alone.¹⁸ Mary knew the Law; she was holy, and had learned the writings of the prophets by meditating on them daily. If Mary had known that someone else had been greeted by words like these, she would never have been frightened by this strange greeting. Hence the angel says to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary! You have found grace in God’s eyes. Behold, you will conceive in your womb. You will bear a son, and you will name him ‘Jesus.’ He will be great, and will be called ‘Son of the Most High.'”¹⁹ (The Fathers of the Early Church: Origen Homilies on Luke, translated by Joseph T. Lienhard, S.J. [The Catholic University of America Press, 1996], p. 26)

“Said to her.” “To her,” should likely be connected not with “said,” but with “being come in, to her,” or where she was alone in secret (as it is in the Syriac, and found in Holy Fathers, Ambrose, hie, and St. Bernard, on the words, missus est.} “Said, Hail, full of grace,” &c.,”ingressus Angelus adeam, dixit; ave gratia plena,” &c., employing the very words communicated by God, when sending him on this most solemn and important message.

“Hail.” The corresponding Hebrew form, shalom lach, which latter form likely was used by the Angel, Eirene soi, pax tibi, signifies peace to thee; or, “joy to thee,” and may be either precatory of good, “may joy or peace be to thee, pax vel gaudium sit tibi,” wishing her the abundance of all blessings, spiritual and temporal, or congratulatory, on account of the abundant blessings of peace and joy she already possesses, “pax vel gaudium est tibi.” In this form, which was usual with the Hebrews at the meeting of friends, the Angel conveys to the Virgin, that his entrance was of a pacific character; that he was a good and not a bad Angel; the bearer of joyous and not of evil tidings, such as the Angels afterwards came to announce, at the birth of the Son of God, “Peace and tidings of great joy to all the people.” St. Luke instead of eirene soi, employs chaire which latter form was more conformable to the idiom of the language then in use. The same is used by our Lord, or rather, His words are so rendered (Matthew xxviii. 9). In this salutation, the Angel accomplished four things: 1. He reverently salutes the Virgin; 2. He propounds the subject of his message (v. 31); 3. He points out the mode of its accomplishment (v. 35); and thus, 4. He replies to the difficulty (v. 34) which presented itself to the mind of the Virgin. Some of the Holy Fathers (Origen, Hom. 6 in Lucam; Bede and Ambrose, hic] observe, that the whole message was singular and extraordinary, such as was never before addressed to any human.

“Full of grace,” gratia plena. This is the rendering given by all Catholics of the Greek, kecharitomene, which is the Perfect Passive participle charitoo. This translation is confirmed by the authority of the Fathers, and by the most ancient copies of the Bible. It is the same in the Syriac and Arabic versions. Protestants, while rejecting the Vulgate rendering, differ nearly as widely among themselves on this point as they do from Catholics. Hardly any two of them agree on the precise translation of the word, which is found only in another passage of the New Testament (Ephes. i. 6) echaritosen hemas, and rendered gratificavit nos, made us acceptable. Besides the unanimous consent of the Fathers, the Catholic or Vulgate rendering, gratia plena, can be established on intrinsic grounds as well. The word, kecharitomene, literally rendered, would signify, one made pleasing (gratificata), which involves (a) the state or condition of being thus rendered pleasing; and (b) the quality or thing that renders us pleasing. Now, that which makes us pleasing to God, is sanctifying grace; hence sanctifying grace is involved in the word, kecharitomene. Secondly, the fulness of grace is conveyed in the very form of the verb; for, as is known to all Greek scholars, verbs terminating in oo, always denote plenitude, abundance either communicated or received or possessed, according as the verb may be used in the Active or Passive voice, as might be illustrated, if necessary, by numerous examples. Hence, on this principle, kecharitomene denotes abundance, fulness of grace. Again, from the Angel’s omitting to address the Virgin by the ordinary name of Mary, it is clear he applies kecharitomene to her as her peculiar title, her distinguishing characteristic epithet, applicable to her alone, and to no one else, as our Lord is called, the Just One; Solomon, the Wise One, because possessing these qualities in a degree not reached by any other human being. So here the application of kecharitomene to the Blessed Virgin, never before applied to any one else, shows she possesses the quality or plenitude of grace conveyed in the word, peculiar to herself alone, and distinguishing her from the rest of mankind.

Although “full of grace” is applied to our Lord (John i. 17), and to St. Stephen (Acts vi. 8), still we must bear in mind, so far as our Lord is concerned, there can be no parallelism, since the plenitude must be interpreted, having due regard to persons ; and hence, in our Lord, the plenitude of grace was, as St. Bonaventure observes, the fulness of the great, inexhaustible fountain, plenitudo superabundant, while in the Blessed Virgin was the fulness of the great river next the source or inexhaustible fountain, plenitudo prerogative, and in all the rest of men, a plenitudo sufficients, the rivulets sharing it in a limited degree, sufficient to procure the salvation of them all. As regards St. Stephen, besides that the fulness of grace predicted of him only denotes the grace required for him as minister and witness of God, and in regard to her it denotes the abundance of grace required for her dignity of Mother of God, plenes charitos is not applied to him as his peculiar designation, as kecharitomene, is to the Blessed Virgin. That the term, kecharitomene, is assertive of her present state of acceptableness, owing to the fulness of grace she possesses, and not precatory of good in regard to future favours, is clear from the Greek which is in the passive past tense, and refers to past occurrences, the effect of which remains to the present. In the present instance, there is no limit to the period past; and hence, it implies, that the Virgin was “full of grace” from the very first moment of her conception or existence. The words, “full of grace” then imply 1st, perfect exemption from all sin, original or actual, even the slightest, and all inclinations to sin, from all passions whatsoever leading to sin; 2ndly, the possession of all virtues, of all graces, in a degree so supereminent, that no virtue, no grace, no gift of the Holy Ghost was ever granted to any one that she did not possess in an eminent degree, although the exercise of them might not always take place. So that every action of her life was virtuous, praiseworthy, and she attained eminence in grace and sanctity to such a degree as rendered her worthy to conceive in her sacred womb and receive within her, the source and fountain of all grace and sanctity, the eternal Son of God Himself (Lucas Brugensis, and Menochius). Suarez, quoted on this passage by A. Lapide, asserts, that at the first instant of her conception, the Blessed Virgin received a greater grace than was ever conferred on the highest angel, and owing to her perfect correspondence and faithful co-operation from her conception till the hour of her death, she acquired such degrees of grace and merit as exceeded that of all angels and men together, and God, therefore, loved the Blessed Virgin more than the entire Church, militant and triumphant, including men and angels. (Rev. Dr. MacEvilly, An Exposition of St. Luke Consisting of An Analysis of Each Chapter and of A Commentary: Catholic, Exegetical, Doctrinal, and Moral [Gill & Son, Dublin: Second edition, revised and corrected, 1887], pp. 15-16)