Mariology in the First Five Centuries: An Introduction to

the Development of Mariology in the Early Church

A Paper Submitted to

Dr. Mark Sidwell

Bob Jones University

in Partial Fulfillment of the Course

STH 871: Historical Theology I

by
L. Jared Garcia

Greenville, South Carolina

December, 2016
 Table of Contents

Table of Contents ............................................................................................. ii

Mariology in the First Five Centuries: An Introduction to the

Development of Mariology in the Early Church ..................... 1

Mariology in the New Testament Scriptures and the

Apocryphal New Testament ............................................................... 1

Mary in the New Testament Scriptures .................................... 2

Mary in the Apocryphal New Testament .................................. 3

Mariology in the Patristic Era (A.D. 100—500) ................................... 5

The Ante-Nicene Church Fathers .............................................. 6

The Apostolic Fathers ...................................................... 6

The “New Eve:” Justin Martyr and Irenaeus ................. 7

Mary’s Perpetual Virginity: Tertullian and

Clement.......................................................................... 8

The Post-Nicene Church Fathers ............................................... 9

Athanasius (ca. 295-373) ................................................. 9

John Chrysostom (ca. 334-407) ....................................... 10

Ambrose of Milan (ca. 337-397) ....................................... 11

Jerome (331-419).............................................................. 12

Augustine of Hippo (354-443) .......................................... 13

The Council of Ephesus .............................................................. 13

Nestorius Vs. Cyril........................................................... 14

Results of the Council of Ephesus ................................... 16

The Aftermath: A Summary of Mariology in the Middle

Ages ..................................................................................................... 16

ii
 Conclusion ............................................................................................. 17

Selected Bibliography ...................................................................................... 19

iii
 Mariology in the First Five Centuries: An Introduction to
the Development of Mariology in the Early Church

No other doctrine, apart from justification and the atonement, divides

Protestants from Catholics more than the doctrine of Mary, or Mariology. The

Roman Catholic Church, despite efforts for ecumenism, asserts its theology of

Mary, which includes these doctrines: Mary’s perpetual virginity

(Aeiparthenos or Ever Virgin), the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption,

the hyper-veneration of Mary, and Mary as Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix.1

This paper demonstrates how the first five hundred years of church history

planted the seeds of Mariology that the Middle Ages reaped.

Mariology in the New Testament Scriptures

and the Apocryphal New Testament

The foundational teaching on Mary is found in the New Testament

Scriptures and Apocryphal New Testament. The New Testament, written by

the followers of Jesus, is the collection of writings that most Protestants and

Catholics consider to be canonical and authoritative.2 While the Apocryphal

New Testament documents are generally considered as non-canonical and

1 The basic ideas of the doctrines of Mary are the following. The doctrine of
Ever Virgin (Perpetual Virginity) claims that Mary remained a virgin even after the
birth of Christ. The Immaculate Conception teaches that Mary was born without
original sin. The Assumption refers to the ascent of Mary’s body into heaven at the
end of her earthly life. The hyperveneration of Mary is based on the idea that she is
the “Mother of God” and deserves to be venerated above the veneration of saints, but
less than the worship of God. The doctrine of Mary as Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix
means that Mary has a part in redeeming mankind and she is also a mediator or
intercessor between man and Christ, respectively.
2
For an extended discussion on canonicity, see Wayne A. Grudem,
Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2000), 54–72.

1
 2
non-authoritative, they reflect the general perspective of some groups within

Christianity at that time.3 They are typically dated a century later than the

New Testament Scriptures.

Mary in the New Testament Scriptures

The New Testament Scriptures portray Mary as an obedient follower

of Yahweh whom God used to bring Jesus into the world.4 The most extensive

passages on Mary are about the birth of Jesus (the incarnation) and one

episode from his childhood (Luke 1:26—2:52; cf. Matt. 1:1—2:23). Mary is
also mentioned a few times during the earthly ministry of Jesus. In these

passages, she is not given prominence. In the marriage in Cana, Jesus

slightly rebuked Mary before turning the water into wine (John 2:1-12). In

Luke 8:19-21, Jesus pointed out that his real mother and brothers are those

who hear the Word of God, as opposed to Mary and his half-siblings. In Luke

11:27-28, while Jesus was teaching, a certain woman cried out, “Blessed is

the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” But Jesus

responded “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

Outside the first four books of the New Testament, known as the

Gospels, Mary is only mentioned thrice. Two of them do not even mention
Mary by name, but merely allude to her when speaking of the birth of Jesus

(Gal. 4:4; Rev. 12:1-6). The one other passage mentions Mary as one of the

3The term “Apocryphal New Testament” is used to distinguished these

documents from the Apocrypha found in the Old Testament.
4 The following is an exhaustive list of NT passages that speak about Mary
(passages in parenthesis are parallel passages): Matthew 1:1—2:23 (Luke 3:23-38);
12:46-50 (Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21); 13:55 (Mark 6:3; Luke 4:22; John 6:42); Luke
1:26-56; 2:1-52; 11:27-28; John 2:1-12; 8:41; 19:25-27; Acts 1:14; Galatians 4:4;
Revelation 12:1-6.
 3
disciples gathered in the upper room after the ascension of Jesus. Other than

an allusion in Galatians 4:4, Mary is not mentioned in the epistolary

literature of the New Testament, where most Christian doctrines are clearly

expounded. Thus, nowhere in the New Testament is Mary mentioned with

prominence. Mariology, then, must be a theological development outside the

New Testament Scripture.

Mary in the Apocryphal New Testament

The Apocryphal books are generally believed to fill in the gaps not
mentioned in Scripture. Such is the case with the most distinguished

apocryphal document regarding Mary, the Protevangelium of James. This

work has over 150 extant Greek manuscripts. Textual critics date this

document to be written after A.D. 150.5 The Protevangelium of James is also

translated in other early versions, including Coptic, Syriac, Georgian,

Armenian, Ethiopian, and Slavonic. This apocryphal book begins with the

story of Mary’s birth to her parents, Joachim and Anna (chs. 1-9). While it

includes the incarnation story, similar to Luke and Matthew, it also adds

other details not found in the canonical accounts (chs. 10-21). The book ends

with the death of Zacharias, the priest (chs. 22-24), and James’s closing
salutation (ch. 25).

The story in the Protevangelium of James is the basis for other later

apocryphal documents, such as the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew.6 The Gospel of

5 Oscar Cullmann, “Infancy Gospels,” in New Testament Apocrypha, ed.

Edgar Hennecke and Wilhelm Schneemelcher, trans. A.J.B. Higgins and R. McL.
Wilson, vol. 1 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963), 372.
6 J.K. Elliott, “Mary in the Apocryphal New Testament,” in Origins of the
Cult of the Virgin Mary, ed. Chris Maunder (New York: Burns & Oates, 2008), 59.
 4
Pseudo-Matthew combines the details found in the Protevangelium of James

and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Another piece of apocryphal literature

pertinent to Mariology is the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, which is also

known as De Nativitate Mariae with over 130 extant manuscripts. In this

work, the first eight chapters are an adaption of Pseudo-Matthew, while the

last two chapters follow the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.7

The apocryphal documents sowed the early seeds for at least two

doctrines of Mariology: the doctrine of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity and the

Immaculate Conception. In the Protevangelium of James, Joseph is portrayed

as a widower with children before he married Mary. This detail is necessary

to explain the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity. The siblings of Jesus

mentioned in the canonical gospels are said to be the children of Joseph in his

first marriage. Thus, Mary remained a virgin and did not conceive the other

half-siblings of Jesus. In the thirteenth chapter of the Gospel of Pseudo-

Matthew after the birth of Jesus, Zelomi, one of the midwives said, “But there

has been no spilling of blood in his birth, no pain in bringing him forth. A

virgin has conceived, a virgin has brought forth, and virgin she remains.”8

The early concept of the Immaculate Conception is also presented in

the apocryphal books. Elliot observes that according to the Protevangelium of

James, “The angel tells Anna [Mary’s mother] she will conceive, but at 4.4

when an angel speaks to the absent Joachim [Mary’s father], he tells him his

7 Ibid., 61.
8 “The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew,” in Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of
the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, Eds. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A.
Cleveland Coxe. Reprint ed., vol. 8 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994),
374–375.
 5
wife is pregnant, implying a miraculous conception.”9 In the Gospel of the

Nativity of Mary, the angel hints on the sinlessness of Mary. In chapter 3, an

angel tells Joachim:

Accordingly thy wife Anna will bring forth a daughter to thee, and thou shalt
call her name Mary: she shall be, as you have vowed, consecrated to the Lord
from her infancy, and she shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from her
mother’s womb. She shall neither eat nor drink any unclean thing, nor shall
she spend her life among the crowds of the people without, but in the temple
of the Lord, that it may not be possible either to say, or so much as to suspect,
any evil concerning her.10

While the canonical New Testament does not have any particular focus

on Mary, the later apocryphal literature emphasizes Mary’s background and

role in the incarnation. Consequently, it sowed seeds that would later develop

into a fuller Mariology.

Mariology in the Patristic Era (A.D. 100—500)

The doctrines of Mary gradually developed through the writings and

sermons of the church fathers. While the patristic era concerned itself with

the doctrines of the Trinity and the person of Christ, Mariology would

eventually emerge as an equally important church dogma before the

beginning of the Middle Ages.

The patristic era is divided into two main categories in their relation to

the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325: the ante-nicene fathers and the post-nicene

fathers. The patristic era demonstrates the gradual progression of Mariology

during the first five centuries of church history.11

9 Elliott, 64. Emphasis his.

10 Roberts, Donaldson, and Coxe, Ante-Nicene Fathers, 8:384–385.
11 Beattie observes that “The earliest Marian theology focuses on the
significance of Mary’s virginal motherhood for our understanding of the divine and
 6
The Ante-Nicene Church Fathers

The Apostolic Fathers

The term apostolic fathers refers to the church fathers who were

discipled by one of the original apostles. The remarks of the apostolic fathers

regarding Mary are mostly in connection with Mary’s virginity and her

motherhood in relation to Jesus. With the exception of Ignatius, the earlier

fathers never mention Mary in their writings. Ignatius mentioned Mary as

Christ’s mother only to counter the docetic denial of Christ’s true humanity.
Regarding the works of the apostolic fathers, J. Endell Tyler concludes

that the early church fathers never had Mary as a central part of their

theology.12 His conclusion, however, is based on an argument from silence.

For instance, in his analysis of Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians, he

observes that “In this epistle [Polycarp] admonishes virgins how they ought

to walk with a spotless and chaste conscience, but he makes no mention of

the Virgin Mary.”13 While Tyler’s conclusion may be valid, arguments from

silence are never definitive.

human natures of Jesus Christ (Christology), and on her biblical significance as the
New Eve with regard to the meaning and scope of salvation in Christ (soteriology).”
Tina Beattie, “Mary in Patristic Theology,” in Mary: The Complete Resource, ed.
Sarah Jane Boss (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 75.

12J. Endell Tyler, Worship of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Church of Rome:
Contrary to Holy Scriptures, and to the Faith and Practice of the Church of Christ
through the First Five Centuries (London: Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge, 1846), 119–131.

13 Ibid., 127.
 7
The “New Eve:” Justin Martyr and Irenaeus

Justin Martyr (ca. 100-165), an apologist of the early church, is known

for his martyrdom. One of his well-known works, the Dialogue with Trypho, A

Jew, is the earliest to compare Mary with Eve.

He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which

proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner
in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled,
having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and
death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel
announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come
upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also
the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, ‘Be it unto
me according to thy word.’14

Irenaeus (ca. 140-ca. 202) took the comparison of Mary and Eve a step

further and likened it to Paul’s reference to Christ as the New Adam or the

Second Adam in Romans 5. Irenaeus’s language implies Mary’s role in

salvation. In Against Heresies, he said:

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…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.15

14Justin Martyr, “Dialogue of Trypho, the Jew 100,” in Ante-Nicene Fathers:

The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, ed. Alexander Roberts, James
Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, Reprint ed., vol. 1 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson
Publishers, 1994), 249.

15 Irenaeus, “Against Heresies 3.22.4,” in Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings

of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A.
Cleveland Coxe, Reprint ed., vol. 1 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994),
455. Emphasis mine.
 8
The phrase “become the cause of salvation” is one of the seeds planted by the

concept of the “New Eve” that would lead to the full-grown doctrine of Mary

as Co-Redemptrix.16 This title “New Eve” will become a predominant theme

of basic Mariology during the Patristic Era. In fact, after a century, the

phrase “Death by Eve and life by Mary” will become a common proverb.17

Mary’s Perpetual Virginity:

Tertullian and Clement

Tertullian (ca. 155-ca. 220) is unique among the church fathers in

regard to his view of Mary. While Tertullian uses Mary to defend the

humanity of Christ and reiterates the Eve-Mary motif, he resists the general

trend of Marian devotion and exaltation.18 In fact, he is one of the few who

explicitly rejects Mary’s perpetual virginity.19

Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-ca. 215) on the other hand, affirms

Mary’s perpetual virginity.20 Perry observes that “Clement’s espousal shows

16 Miller and Samples observe that “It is probably safe to say that the
contrasting of Mary with Eve, which began in the mid-second century, was the
actual beginning of what has gradually developed into today’s Catholic Mariology.”
Elliot Miller and Kenneth R. Samples, The Cult of the Virgin: Catholic Mariology
and the Apparitions of Mary, CRI books (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992),
47–48.

17 Ibid., 48.

18Tim S. Perry, Mary for Evangelicals: Toward an Understanding of the

Mother of Our Lord (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 134–135.

19See Tertullian, “On the Flesh of Christ 23”, in Ante-Nicene Fathers: The
Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson,
and A. Cleveland Coxe, Reprint ed., vol. 3 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers,
1994), 541.

20See Clement, “Stromata 7.16,” in Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the

Fathers Down to A.D. 325, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A.
 9
that the canon is not yet set. He alludes to the Protevangelium of James and

quotes Pseudo-Ezekiel. Both are granted the status of Holy Scripture.”21

Thus, the idea that Mary continued to be a virgin became a common belief in

the church beginning in the second century and continuing down to the

Middle Ages.

The Post-Nicene Church Fathers

The fourth and fifth centuries in church history center on the debates

regarding the person of Jesus Christ. While Christology is the focus,

theologians’ discussion on Mariology is unavoidable. In the east, one of the

major Marian controversies among the Greek post-nicene fathers in the east

was whether or not it was appropriate to use the term theotokos or “God-

bearer” to refer to Mary. In the west, the Latin fathers contributed to

Mariology by ascribing sinlessness to Mary.

Athanasius (ca. 295-373)

The first to use the term theotokos was Alexander, bishop of

Alexandria, in a letter written in 319. His disciple, Athanasius, made the

term popular as he combatedArianism during his lifetime. Athanasius

mentions Mary in connection with his defense of the humanity, divinity, and

unity of Christ. In his work Against the Arians, he says:

Now the scope and character of Holy Scripture, as we have often said, is
this—it contains a double account of the Saviour; that He was ever God, and
is the Son, being the Father’s Word and Radiance and Wisdom; and that

Cleveland Coxe, Reprint ed., vol. 1 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994),
551.

21 Perry, Mary for Evangelicals, 138.

 10
afterwards for us He took flesh of a Virgin, Mary Bearer of God [theotokou],
and was made man.22

The focus of Athanasius was Christology. His use of theotokos was not

motivated by his Mariology, but by his Christology: Jesus who is born of a

virgin is God.23 This concept of theotokos, however, will eventually emerge as

an important piece in the development of Mariology a few centuries later.

While Athanasius demonstrates a high view of Mary, he never exalts Mary

above measure. He argues that Mary has to be one of us, a human from

Adam, in order for her Son, Jesus, to be human. If Jesus is not human, then

we are not saved.24

John Chrysostom (ca. 334-407)

While Chrysostom defends Mary’s perpetual virginity, he refuses to

use the term theotokos to refer to Mary.25 Siecienski observes that

“Chrysostom’s Marian piety better reflected an earlier tradition, one

22Athanasius, “Four Discourses Against the Arians 3.29,” in Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers: Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Reprint ed., vol. 4
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 409.

23 Perry, 143.

24 Ibid., 145–46. See also Athanasius, “Letter to Epictetus 7,” in Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers: Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Reprint ed.,
vol. 4 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 573.

25 Graef observes, “The fathers of the fourth century became increasingly

aware of the glory of the Theotokos and lost no opportunity to praise her. But into
this swelling chorus broke a dissentient voice—and it is the voice of a very great
preacher and theologian, John, Patriarch of Constantinople, whom the Church calls
Chrysostom, the Golden-mouthed.” Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and
Devotion (Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 2009), 58.
 11
characterized more by its silence on the person of Mary rather than by its

exuberance.”26

In his sermons, Chrysostom is not ashamed to boldly point out Mary’s

flaws. In his sermon on Matthew 12:46-50 when Mary and Jesus’s brothers

went to see Jesus, Chrysostom explains the motivation behind Jesus’s

rebuke:

And with what purpose He reproved; that it was not with intent to drive
them to perplexity, but to deliver them from the most tyrannical passion and
to lead them on by little and little to the right idea concerning Himself, and to
convince her [Mary] that He was not her Son only, but also her Lord: so wilt
thou perceive that the reproof is in the highest degree both becoming Him
and profitable to her, and withal having in it much gentleness.27

In his sermon on the Marriage of Cana (John 2), Chrysostom was not

hesitant to interpret Jesus’s statement to Mary as a rebuke of Mary’s possible

wrong motives.28

Ambrose of Milan (ca. 337-397)

The church fathers in the western part of the empire are also known as

the Latin fathers. Ambrose (ca. 337-397), like Chrysostom, was reluctant in

using the term “theotokos” (or the Latin translation, Mater Dei). In his

writings, the term is only found twice, but phrases like “the Lord’s mother”

26 A. Edward Siecienski, “Mariology in Antioch: Mary in the Writings of

Chrysostom, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Nestorius,” St. Vladimir’s Theological
Quarterly 56, no. 2 (2012): 135.

27 Chrysostom, “Homilies on Matthew 44.1,” in Nicene and Post-Nicene

Fathers: First Series, ed. Philip Schaff, Reprint ed., vol. 10 (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 279.

28 See John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Gospel of John.”

 12
are found numerous times.29 But unlike Chrysostom, Ambrose attributes

sinlessness to Mary. In Ambrose’s work, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of

Our Lord, Perry summarizes that for Ambrose “Christ’s humanity was

Mary’s humanity. Because Christ’s humanity was a full humanity, Mary

must be one of us. Because Christ’s humanity was free from sin, preserving

grace must have been operative in Mary’s life in a unique way to preserve her

also.”30 While Ambrose cautions against the worship of Mary,31 his high view

of Mary helped to sow the seed that would eventually set Mary as an object of

extended veneration.

Jerome (331-419)

Jerome portrays Mary as an example of Christian holiness and urges

his readers to emulate Mary’s purity: “Set before you the blessed Mary,

whose surpassing purity made her meet to be the mother of the Lord.”32

Jerome’s greatest influence on the development of Mariology, however,

is his Latin translation of the Scriptures, the Vulgate. The pertinent passage

is his rendering of a feminine pronoun in Genesis 3:15. An English

translation of the Latin Vulgate says, “I will put enmities between thee and

the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou

29 Graef, 77.

30 Perry, 155.

31See Ambrose, “Of the Holy Spirit 3.11.80,” in Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers: Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Reprint ed., vol. 10
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 146.

32 Jerome, “To Eustochium 38,” in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Second

Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Reprint ed., vol. 6 (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 39.
 13
shalt lie in wait for her heel.”33 This reading implies that instead of the

woman’s seed crushing the serpent, “a woman will bruise the serpent’s head.”

This woman has been explained to be Mary. This becomes an important piece

on the development of Mary as “Co-Redemptrix.”

Augustine of Hippo (354-443)

Augustine is arguably the most influential and the most quoted among

the church fathers. Thus, Augustine’s Mariology has also influenced

Christendom. He affirms the teaching of Ambrose regarding Mary and

propels her to a sinless state. While he is reluctant to suggest that Mary is

without original sin, he claims that Mary received a great abundance of grace

to the point of conquering all sin and enabling her to conceive Jesus who had

no sin at all.34 Miller and Samples observe that:

By maintaining that Mary was free from personal sin, Augustine helped
propel the church toward eventually maintaining that she was free from
original sin. Thus, the position he so passionately defended against
Pelagius—that Adam’s original sin was passed on to all his children—would
be undermined by his own influence.35

The Council of Ephesus

One of the major catalysts for the progress of Mariology is the Council

of Ephesus in A.D. 431. While the first two councils focus on the nature of the

Trinity, the third and fourth councils were about the person of Christ. The

33
Emphasis mine. This translation is from The Holy Bible in Latin Language
with Douay-Rheims English Translation.

34See Augustine, “A Treatise of Nature and Grace 42,” in Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers: First Series, ed. Philip Schaff, Reprint ed., vol. 5, 14 vols. (Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994).

35 Miller and Samples, 31. Emphasis theirs.

 14
third ecumenical council held in Ephesus was a theological battle between

Nestorius of Constantinople and Cyril of Alexandria.

Nestorius Vs. Cyril

Nestorius, like his predecessor Chrysostom, rejects the application of

the term theotokos to Mary. He insisted that Mary is “one of us;” though she

is an obedient servant of God, she is not a goddess to be worshiped. The term

theotokos, for Nestorius, is a divine title because only God could bring forth

God. While he preferred the title Christokos, he eventually gave in and called
theotokos “tolerable” as long as it is understood correctly, namely, that the

term refers to Mary as the mother of Jesus, who is God, but not identifying

Mary as a goddess.36

In addition to theological implications, Nestorius rejected theotokos

because of the people’s tendency toward Mariolatry. Beale makes this

observation:

By Nestorius’s day, the perpetual virginity notion was becoming so popular

that an effervescent cult of Mariolatry was now addressing her as
Theotokos….It was becoming a marketplace term used by common people
with little or no knowledge of its subtle nuances, who were easily led into a
feverish cult of the Virgin.37

36 For more discussion on Nestorius’s view on theotokos, see Siecienski,

“Mariology in Antioch: Mary in the Writings of Chrysostom, Theodoret of Cyrus, and
Nestorius,” 158–166.

37 David Beale, Historical Theology in-Depth: Themes and Contexts of

Doctrinal Development since the First Century, vol. 1, Bob Jones University
Seminary Publication (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 2013), 295.
 15
If Nestorius was hesitant in his use of theotokos, Cyril was just the

opposite.38 He openly praises Mary, and considers himself a “defender of the

Blessed Virgin.” Schaff records Cyril’s eulogy to Mary:

Blessed be thou, O Mary, who didst hold in thy womb the Infinite One; thou
through whom the blessed Trinity is glorified and worshipped, through whom
the precious cross is adored throughout the world…through whom every
believing soul is saved.39

Like Irenaeus’s words before his time, Cyril’s eulogy will eventually lead to a

full-grown doctrine of Mary’s role as Co-Redemptrix.

Cyril attacked Nestorius for his reluctance in affirming Mary as

Theotokos. With Cyril influencing the decision of the council and the emperor

himself, the Council of Ephesus condemned Nestorius, not because of his

views on Mary, but for (allegedly) teaching that Christ had two separate

persons.40 In addition, the Council of Ephesus affirmed Mary as Theotokos,

though it did not provide any dogmatic definition for it.

38See Antonia Atanassova, “Did Cyril of Alexandria Invent Mariology?,” in

Origins of the Cult of the Virgin Mary, ed. Chris Maunder (New York: Burns &
Oates, 2008), 105–125.

39
Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 3rd ed., vol. 3 (Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996), 946–47.

40 Regarding the condemnation of Nestorius, Gregg Allison observes that

“Cyril of Alexandria attacked him, pinning on Nestorius a heretical view that he
vigorously denied holding.” Furthermore, he comments that “I underscore the fact
that Nestorius himself denied the beliefs for which Cyril of Alexandria and the
church condemned him. Partly due to poor communication on the part of Nestorius,
who was intent on stirring up controversy, and partly due to church politics, he
became associated with a position that was clearly not his own.” Gregg Allison,
Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2011), 374.
 16
Results of the Council of Ephesus

After the Council of Ephesus in 431, Mariology achieved new heights.

A few decades later, at the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451), the term

Theotokos made it into the Chalcedonian Creed itself. While the Council of

Chalcedon’s motive for using Theotokos was to present an orthodox

Christology, the fear of Nestorius—that Theotokos would lead to an

inappropriate exaltation of Mary—became reality. Feasts for Marian piety

multiplied, and Marian devotion intensified.

The Aftermath: A Summary of Mariology

in the Middle Ages

The seeds of Mariology that were sown during the Patristic Era came

to full bloom during the Middle Ages. Mary’s title as “New Eve” progressed to

“Theotokos,” and by the Middle Ages she became commonly known as the

“Queen Mother” or the “Queen of Heaven.” The Middle Ages took Mary’s

perpetual virginity and sinlessness as gospel truth. The teachings on Mary in

the Patristic Era led to the development in the Middle Ages of the

Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, Hyper-Veneration, and Mary as Co-

Redemptrix.

By the seventh ecumenical council, the Second Council of Nicaea (A.D.

787), three levels of worship had been introduced: dulia, hyperdulia, and

latria. The term dulia is translated as veneration applied to saints and icons.

While latria is the term used for the worship of God alone, Hyperdulia or

hyperveneration applies to Mary alone.

In the eighth century, John of Damascus took Augustine’s conclusion

that Mary was without personal sin a step further. He would argue that
Mary’s parents— Joachim and Anna (according to the Protevangelium of
 17
James)—received special grace that prevented his semen and her womb from

sowing spiritual corruption in the conception of Mary.41 This is a

foreshadowing of the Immaculate Conception that will later be developed by

Monk Eadmer (ca. 1064-ca. 1124) and argued for by John Duns Scotus (1265-

1308).42

The concept of the Immaculate Conception led John of Damascus to

conclude that if Mary is without corruption, then she is exempted from the

consequence of corruption—physical death. Thus, Mary must not have died,

or if she died, her body must not have experienced corruption; her body, then,

must have ascended into heaven. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

naturally leads to the doctrine of the Assumption.43

Conclusion

In the New Testament, Mary is portrayed as the obedient servant of

God who birthed the Lord Jesus into the world. While the New Testament

does not write much about Mary, non-canonical books had a particular

interest in Mary. From a servant girl, she became known as the “New Eve,”

the “Theotokos,” and the “Queen of Heaven.”

41John of Damascus, “Sur la nativité” 2 (Homélies sur la nativité, p. 49) cited

by Perry, 173.

42 The doctrine of Immaculate Conception was not well-received by Bernard

of Clairvaux (1090-1153), Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), and Bonaventure (1221-
1274). The debate on the Immaculate Conception was constant during the Middle
Ages until it was declared as dogma by Pope Pius IX in 1854.

43 Miller and Samples quote Pope Pius IX, “[Mary] by an entirely unique
privilege completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result
she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she
did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.” Miller and
Samples, 36.
 18
Clearly, the doctrines of Mary are not rooted in Scripture, but a

development in church history. Newer developments progress from previous

ones. While Mary is certainly a remarkable servant of the Lord that God used

to bring the Messiah into the world, she was not born without original sin,

she has no part in man’s redemption, and neither is she worthy of veneration.

Mariology is one example of how God’s people must not be persuaded

to teach and practice truths based on history and tradition. God’s Word alone

is the final authority in faith and practice.

 Selected Bibliography

Primary Sources

Ambrose. “Of the Holy Spirit.” In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Second
Series, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Vol. 10. Reprint ed.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.

Athanasius. “Four Discourses Against the Arians.” In Nicene and Post-Nicene

Fathers: Second Series, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Vol. 4.
Reprint ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.

———. “Letter to Epictetus.” In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Second

Series, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Vol. 4. Reprint ed.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.
Augustine. “A Treatise of Nature and Grace.” In Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers: First Series, edited by Philip Schaff. Vol. 5. Reprint ed.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.

Chrysostom. “Homilies on Matthew.” In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers:

First Series, edited by Philip Schaff. Vol. 10. Reprint ed. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.

Clement. “Stromata.” In Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers

Down to A.D. 325, edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and
A. Cleveland Coxe. Vol. 1. Reprint ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson
Publishers, 1994.

Irenaeus. “Against Heresies.” In Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the

Fathers Down to A.D. 325, edited by Alexander Roberts, James
Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Vol. 1. Reprint ed. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.

Jerome. “To Eustochium.” In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Second Series,

edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Vol. 6. Reprint ed. Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.

Justin Martyr. “Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew.” In Ante-Nicene Fathers: The

Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, edited by Alexander Roberts,
James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Vol. 1. Reprint ed. Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.

Roberts, Alexander, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds. “The

Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew.” In Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of
the Fathers Down to A.D. 325. Vol. 8. Reprint ed. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.

———, eds. “The Protevangelium of James.” In Ante-Nicene Fathers: The

Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325. Vol. 8. Reprint ed. Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.
19
 20
Tertullian. “On the Flesh of Christ.” In Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of
the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, edited by Alexander Roberts, James
Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Vol. 3. Reprint ed. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.

Secondary Sources

Allison, Gregg R. Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine.

Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.

Beale, David. Historical Theology in-Depth: Themes and Contexts of Doctrinal

Development since the First Century. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Bob Jones
University Seminary Publication. Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University
Press, 2013.
Benko, Stephen. The Virgin Goddess: Studies in the Pagan and Christian
Roots of Mariology. Boston: Brill, 2003.

Boss, Sarah Jane, ed. Mary: The Complete Resource. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2007.

Graef, Hilda. Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion. Notre Dame, IN: Ave
Maria Press, 2009.

Hennecke, Edgar, and Wilhelm Schneemelcher, eds. New Testament

Apocrypha. Translated by R. McL Wilson. Vol. 1. Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1963.

Longenecker, Dwight, and David Gustafson. Mary: A Catholic-Evangelical

Debate. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2003.

Maunder, Chris, ed. Origins of the Cult of the Virgin Mary. New York: Burns
& Oates, 2008.

Miller, Elliot, and Kenneth R. Samples. The Cult of the Virgin: Catholic
Mariology and the Apparitions of Mary. CRI books. Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1992.

Perry, Tim S. Mary for Evangelicals: Toward an Understanding of the Mother

of Our Lord. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006.

Rubin, Miri. Mother of God: A History of the Virgin Mary. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 2009.

Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. 3rd ed. Vol. 3. 8 vols.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996.

Siecienski, A. Edward. “Mariology in Antioch: Mary in the Writings of

Chrysostom, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Nestorius.” St. Vladimir’s
Theological Quarterly 56, no. 2 (2012): 133–169.
 21
Tyler, J. Endell. Worship of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Church of Rome:
Contrary to Holy Scriptures, and to the Faith and Practice of the
Church of Christ through the First Five Centuries. London: Society for
Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1846.