(This article courtesy of the Arlington Catholic Herald.)
One of the earliest writings in the Patristic anthology that addressed the Second Eve theme is discovered in St. Justin Martyr (d. A.D. 165). Alluding to the Incarnation, St. Justin wrote in Dialogue with Trypho 100: “by means of the Virgin [Christ Jesus] became man, that by what way the disobedience arising from the Serpent had its beginning, by that way also it might have an undoing.”
Another treatise from the Fathers that highlighted the role of the Blessed Virgin came from the stylus of St. Irenaeus (d. A.D. 200). This bishop of Lyons stated: “And so the knot of Eve’s disobedience received its unloosing through the obedience of Mary; for what Eve, a virgin, bound by incredulity, that Mary, a virgin, unloosed by faith” (Against Heresies 3.22).
The last Patristic text under examination springs forth from Tertullian (d. A.D. 223). This noted scholar in The Flesh of Christ 17 expounded the following: “Eve had believed the Serpent; Mary believed Gabriel; the fault which the one committed by believing, the other by believing has blotted out.”
What are some of the theological implications to this Patristic concept of the Second Eve? For starters, just as the First Eve played a role in “The Fall” (cf. Gen 3:16), the Second Eve played a role in rectifying “The Curse” (cf. Is 7:14). Specifically, the Blessed Virgin Mary provided the human nature assumed by the Lord Jesus Christ at the Incarnation (cf. Gal 4:4). The physical body of the Savior was the instrument used to accomplish the redemption (cf. Heb 10:10).
A second observation can be derived from the Second Eve idea found in the Fathers. Just as the First Eve was the mother of all the living (cf. Gen 3:20), the Second Eve is the “Mother of all Christians” (cf. Rev 11:19-12:5). Many Biblical commentators see the entrustment between the Apostle John and Our Lady, which occurred at the foot of the cross at Calvary, as representing all humanity placed under the maternal care of the Virgin Mary (cf. Jn 19:25-27). This interpretation seems logical: if God is Father, then it would be appropriate that we should have a mother too.
One more insight derived from Patrology can be seen in comparing the Virgin Mary to Adam’s helpmate. Just as the First Eve’s sinful disobedience to God should be rejected (cf. Gen 3:1-7), the Second Eve’s loving obedience should be embraced as a model for sanctity (cf. Lk 1:26-38). Fittingly, the Blessed Mother is an integral part of the Gospel; reaffirmed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church Nos. 487-511 and 963-975.
On a related note, the Patristic testimonies above have an apologetic value. Many sincere (but misinformed) non-Catholics accuse the Catholic Church of “adding” doctrines to “pure Biblical Christianity.” On the contrary, the early Fathers were diligent in preventing novelty from creeping into the deposit of faith. The writings of the Fathers on these Marian concepts were assumed to be a part of this deposit, and were not “later embellishments” centuries removed from the early Church. As well, these particular Fathers represent a wide geographical range from early Christianity: St. Justin echoes Palestine, St. Irenaeus mirrors Asia Minor and Gaul, and Tertullian reflects Africa and Rome. Clearly, Mary’s role as the Second Eve crossed all borders.
The Second Eve theme of Our Lady can be traced back to 2nd century documents. Catholics stand on solid historical grounds for these beliefs concerning Mariology. Let us not limit veneration to Our Lady to one month per year, but give her the rightful place she deserves throughout the life of the Catholic Church.
