[“The knot of Eve’s disobedience, says Irenaeus, ‘was untied by Mary’s obedience, and in her obedience Mary became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.’
Jerome: death thru Eve, life thru Mary!
Acts 1:8]
Both these guys were speculating, as many of us do, and their thoughts are not canonical, nor even credal: humanism must go back to the authentic biblical texts (
ad fontes). Yes, there is some superficial balance, in that a woman was part of the problem, and another is part of the solution. And imbalance. Eve’s contribution was in encouraging Adam to sin; Mary’s contribution was
not in encouraging Joseph to righteousness (he was righteous), and Joseph was not saviour, though played his part. Mary became the immediate channel, not the cause, of deific salvation. It’s focus here is on the son of the parents, not on the parents.
Ac.1:8 is canonical, though I fail to see the connect to Mary, other than v14.
Apropos Mary, on the one hand, God’s son incarnate died not needing a saviour, and to be saviour. Indeed the term
saviour is a group name, in the pattern of the Athanasian Creed (not three…but one): father, son, and spirit are saviour. On the other hand, Mary was but a daughter of God by common birth, and possibly as a covenant woman of Sinai, and became one by spiritual birth after the cross. Before the cross she rejoiced in God her saviour (
The Magnificat). She would have been one of many spirit-empowered/enabled Christian witnesses after her baptism in the spirit (Ac.1:8,14).
Contra Jerome (a great scholar to whom Christianity is indebted), the biblical emphasis is on Eve’s husband (Rm.5:12: ανθρωπος is in the singular, therefore surely the male of the species where the buck stopped?) and the contrast is the Second/Last Adam. Paul: death thru Adam; life thru Jesus! Jesus, not his mother (nor Joseph), untied the knot. But Mary is a great woman to whom Christianity is indebted.
