The Immaculate Conception of Mary
A common argument in favor of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is rooted in the teaching that our Lady is the “new Eve,” just as our Lord is the “new Adam.”1 Since the original Adam and Eve were made without any stain of original sin, and new covenant fulfillments are always greater than their old covenant types, it follows that the new Adam and the new Eve were also completely free of original sin. Yet there’s more to this argument than mere theological inference.
Many are aware that this belief in Mary as the new Eve goes back to the earliest days of the Church, and even (arguably) to the Apostle Paul himself.2 It’s attested to by St. Justin Martyr (AD 100-165),3 St. Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 130-202),4 and Tertullian of Carthage (AD 160-240),5 to name just a few. However, what’s lesser known—or perhaps appreciated—is the early Christian belief in Mary being free from the curses of original sin. This is seen in three of the earliest “Marian” texts we possess, the Ode of Solomon,6 the Ascension of Isaiah,7 and the Protoevangelium of James,8 which all teach that Mary gave birth to Jesus without experiencing labor pains. The last of these texts also forcefully teaches that our Lady was consecrated as a perpetual virgin throughout her entire life, and her marriage to St. Joseph was never intended to be conjugal.9 It goes without saying that these teachings, especially the Semper Virgo, came to be universally accepted by the entire Christian tradition, which St. Jerome (AD 342-420) demonstrates in his famous refutation of Helvidius.10
As Fr. Daniel Moloney points out,11 this early Christian belief that our Blessed Mother was exempt from (1) labor pains, and (2) sexual desire for her husband, corresponds to the two curses put directly on Eve in the garden: “To the woman he said, ‘I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, but he shall rule over you’” (Gen 3:16). Since pain in childbearing and desire for her husband were the only curses put directly on our first mother Eve, if it’s true that our Mother Mary experienced neither of them, then this strongly suggests that she was exempt from original sin in some unique way.
Indeed, this is comparable to our Lord’s relationship to the most prominent curse of original sin—death. Although Christ did voluntarily assume this curse that was placed directly on Adam, St. John made sure to note that, during His passion, “not one of His bones [was] broken” (Jn 19:36), and St. Peter assured us that, even though Jesus truly died, the Father didn’t permit His Holy One to “see corruption” (Acts 13:35). Why was it absolutely essential for our Lord’s Body to remain intact during His three days in the grave? The answer is that it prevented Him from being subject to the literal sense of Genesis 3:19, “you are dust and to dust you shall return.” That is to say, because He was completely free from all stains of original sin, our Lord wasn’t subject to the corruption and decay associated with original sin; He didn’t return to dust, but rather returned to life. Jesus wasn’t subject to the curses put directly on Adam, just as Mary wasn’t subject to the curses put directly on Eve.
This definitely seems to add more weight to the “typological argument” for the Immaculate Conception given above. Rather than being a mere theological inference, we see that both Jesus and Mary, in their roles as the new Adam and the new Eve, share a unique relationship to the curses of original sin. It’s worth noting that at least one father who identified Mary as the new Eve, St. Irenaeus, also directly connected Isaiah 66:7-8 to her painless childbearing,12 perhaps revealing that the early fathers were aware of this line of reasoning, at least to some degree. Indeed, this prophetic text was one that the patristic tradition would unanimously accept as supporting Mary’s freedom from the curse of Eve, and for good reason.
As I’ve explained before,13 our Lady is the embodiment of Daughter Zion precisely in her role as the new Eve. This is evidenced by the language Genesis 2:22 uses to describe the creation of our first mother. The text doesn’t say that Eve was “made” from Adam’s side, but rather that she was “built,” וַיִּבֶן֩, an architectural term that’s frequently used to describe the construction of cities (cf. Gen 4:17, 10:11, 11:4-5; Josh 6:26, 19:50; 2 Sam 5:9). This is indeed why biblical cities are referred to by feminine names, whether positive as in “Daughter Zion” (2 Kg 19:21; Isa 1:8, 37:22, 62:11; Mic 4:13; Zech 9:9), or negative as in the “Whore of Babylon” (Rev 17:5). They’re images of the Mother of All Living. Thus it’s for this same reason that liturgical piety highlights Mary, the new Eve, as the mystical “City of God,”14 and the true fulfillment of Isaiah 66:7-8, “before her pain came upon her she delivered a son… For as soon as Zion was in labor she brought forth her children.”
It’s not surprising that Isaiah would be the prophet to speak about our Lady’s freedom from the curse of labor pains, given he’s also the one who famously prophesied that Mary would be a pure virgin: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (Isa 7:14). Clearly, by showing her to be exempt from sexual relations and labor pains, Isaiah reveals God’s intention for the Mother of the Messiah to be uniquely pure. Yet all of this raises a question. Why was this level of purity required for the new Mother of Life? Why did it have to be a perpetual virgin—one who was free from the curses of original sin—who conceived and gave birth to our Lord Jesus? So that He could be free from original sin? Yes, that’s certainly part of it. However, that doesn’t really explain why our Lady remained an uncursed and undefiled virgin before, during, and after giving birth to Christ, which is what catholic Mariology requires. It seems like there’s something more behind the purity of the Virgin Mary, and indeed, the Prophet Isaiah has some more answers for us.
The entire book of Isaiah describes God’s plan to send Israel a Messiah who would bring about her salvation from sin.15 As Seraphim Hamilton explains, part of this plan involved preparing Israel for her coming redemption: “Isaiah speaks of God beating the ground of Israel so that it might be useful for harvest [Isa 28:23-29]. But, the prophet says, God does not beat it forever, but does so in order that He might plant.”16 This refers to God’s “progressive purification” of Israel’s lineage, the process whereby He gradually cleansed her from all stains of sin, and whittled her down to a holy “remnant” (Isa 10:20), an undefiled ground in which the Messianic seed could be planted (cf. Isa 11:1-4). Naturally, this leads Hamilton to posit, “The Blessed Virgin is the embodiment of this sanctified ground, overshadowed by the Spirit to produce the Last Adam. She is the fulfillment of the ground beaten by God in the book of Isaiah. All of covenant history strained towards her. The ‘remnant’ is described in Isaiah [62:4-5] as a bride whom God marries- Mary symbolizes that remnant.”17
Although Hamilton tries to distinguish his view from the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception,18 his scriptural exegesis brings him to the same conclusion: “The line leading to Mary is that which is most purified, and Mary is the holy seed whose will never conflicts with the will of God.”19 This perfectly answers the question raised above concerning why the Messiah’s Mother was to be uncursed and undefiled. Throughout the entire old covenant, God was waiting until Israel’s purification was complete to send the Messiah, and this was finally accomplished when our Lady was immaculately conceived—a pure root for a pure seed. This is why St. Paul declares, “When the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman” (Gal 4:4). The Immaculate Conception of Mary signified that “the fullness of time” had come, that Israel was ready for her Messiah. It’s what set the stage for our Lord’s First Advent. Now, this isn’t to say that our Lord Jesus needed to be conceived and born of an Immaculate Virgin, as if He couldn’t have entered the world some other way, but rather that this is how He chose His story—history—to unfold.
As such, it’s very fitting that we celebrate this glorious Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception during the season of Advent. Although He didn’t have to do it this way, our Lord chose to enter His creation through His Immaculate Mother, who, “in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin.”20 This truth, which the Catholic Church has magisterially upheld for centuries,21 summarizes the entire narrative arc of salvation history, which culminated in the immaculate existence of a new Adam and a new Eve.
O most pure Virgin Mary conceived without sin, from the very first instant, you were entirely immaculate. O glorious Mary full of grace, you are the mother of my God – the Queen of Angels and of men. I humbly venerate you as the chosen mother of my Savior, Jesus Christ.
For a detailed biblical defense of this teaching, see my article, “The Assumption of Mary.”
See Fr. Thomas Crean, “Mary as a New Eve in the Thought of St Paul,” and my article, “The Mariology of St. Paul.”
St. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 100.
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:22:1-4.
Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, 17.
The Odes of Solomon, 19:7-9. This text is very explicit in affirming that Mary didn’t experience labor pains: “So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies. And she labored and bore the Son but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose. And she did not require a midwife, because He caused her to give life.”
The Ascension of Isaiah, 11:8-9. This text is a little more subtle, but affirms the same as the Odes. Mary was “astonished” that she had given birth since she didn’t feel it, and her womb looked as if nothing had happened: “It came to pass that when they were alone that Mary straight-way looked with her eyes and saw a small babe, and she was astonished. And after she had been astonished, her womb was found as formerly before she had conceived.”
The Protoevangelium of James, 19. Like the two previous texts, this one affirms that Mary was in no need of a midwife when she gave birth, and that the birth-giving itself was protected by a miraculous “cloud,” revealing that Mary didn’t experience normal labor pains: “And the midwife said to him: Is this true? And Joseph said to her: Come and see. And the midwife went away with him. And they stood in the place of the cave, and behold a luminous cloud overshadowed the cave. And the midwife said: My soul has been magnified this day, because my eyes have seen strange things — because salvation has been brought forth to Israel. And immediately the cloud disappeared out of the cave, and a great light shone in the cave, so that the eyes could not bear it. And in a little that light gradually decreased, until the infant appeared, and went and took the breast from His mother Mary.”
St. Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary (Against Helvidius). For a detailed biblical defense of Mary’s perpetual virginity, see my article, “The Perpetual Virginity of Mary.”
Fr. Daniel Moloney, “Mary and the Midwife.”
St. Irenaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 54.
See my article, “The Assumption of Mary.”
See Seraphim Hamilton, “A Reading of Isaiah 7,” and “Israel’s Divine Messiah in Isaiah.”
Seraphim Hamilton, “Immaculate Conception.”
Seraphim Hamilton, “Immaculate Conception.” I further ground this teaching in the New Testament’s portrait of our Lady in my article, “The Month of Mary.”
While Hamilton’s concerns about the Immaculate Conception dogma are reasonable, he unfortunately demonstrates a certain ignorance of Catholic teaching. Hamilton maintains that the Immaculate Conception cannot be true because Mary must have a fallen human nature, otherwise she would have been “redeemed in a fundamentally different way from all others,” which “undermines” Marian theology since our Lady is supposed to be the image of the Church. However, this supposed problem for Catholic Mariology vanishes once Hamilton reveals his definition of original sin: “In one sense, original sin refers to the ontological corruption of human nature and its inherent tendency towards division and death. In the other sense, original sin refers to the movement of the will towards sin and the person’s active participation in that movement. My personal belief is that Our Lady was immaculately conceived in the latter sense but not in the former sense.” What Hamilton fails to realize is that, by affirming that our Lady’s will never conflicted with the will of God, and thus that her soul has always been in a state of grace from the first moment of her conception, he completely agrees with the Catholic dogma. As Christian Wagner explains in his article, “St. Thomas, Doctor of the Immaculate Conception?,” all this dogma entails is that, from the first moment of her conception, Mary’s soul was never deprived of sanctifying grace—that’s it. Wagner further explains that Catholic theology actually requires that our Lady had the “debt of original sin” in her flesh, otherwise the “singular grace” of the Immaculate Conception would have been unnecessary, and Mary wouldn’t have needed a Redeemer at all. Unlike our Lord, our Lady was subject to receiving original sin, which is what the grace of the Immaculate Conception prevented from happening, and this is why she needed a Savior while her divine Son did not. Thus, Hamilton need not worry about Catholic dogma having Mary “redeemed in a fundamentally different way from all others,” since the point of contact between her and the Church is the fact that she was redeemed. To actually deny the Immaculate Conception as defined by the Catholic Church, Hamilton would need to believe that Mary had original sin in the sense of “the movement of the will towards sin and the person’s active participation in that movement,” yet he explicitly rejects this as impious, and rightfully so. Mary’s liability to death is neither here nor there, if she was freed from the curses of labor pain and lustful desire, why not other original curses like death? Regardless of where you land on that particular issue, though, the heart of the dogma is to preserve our Lady from ever having deserved eternal punishment. So if you agree with that, as Hamilton seems to, then you have no grounds for rejecting the Catholic teaching. An example of an Eastern Orthodox theologian who truly did contradict the Immaculate Conception, and whose views are thus irreconcilable with Hamilton’s, was John of San Francisco, as Fr. Aiden Kimel documents in, “St John the Wonderworker and the Immaculate Conception.”
Seraphim Hamilton, “Immaculate Conception.”
Bl. Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, The Definition.