We continue from where we left off: PATRISTIC INTERPRETATION OF GEN. 3:15 PT. 1.

St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan

(d. 397)

St. Ambrose of Milan is an excellent witness of the Western Church in matters Mariological. What is his opinion about the First-gospel? Some nine passages have been discovered in his works where he uses or quotes that prophecy. At times he merely accommodates the last clause allegorically, once to Adam even before the Fall! Several times he takes that clause in a collective moral sense, of all men tempted by the devil, against whom they should guard themselves. But here Christ is the source of victory, and so He is virtually included in the Woman’s Seed. In these places “the Woman” is not expressly identified as Eve, although Ambrose seems to suppose she is Eve. Ambrose has three places where by an idea-allusion he identifies the Woman’s Seed as Christ.24 Lastly, there are two passages in which Mary enters into the explanation. These we shall analyze. The first is in his commentary on Ps. 37. He is commenting on Matt. 10, 18 about being wise as serpents, and he makes the application that, just as a serpent guards its head to protect itself, so we should guard our Head who is Christ. That suggests to him the mystery of the serpent:

Do you not recognize a mystery of faith about the nature of the serpent? That famous [ille] serpent of paradise first provoked the woman to the sin of adultery. But when its poison had been poured out on this world, the Child of that renowned [illius] Woman avenged the parent’s circumvention and the serpent’s deception; He despoiled him, namely, of his weapons and amputated his head (cf. Gen. 3, 15c).25 

After this the Bishop returns to give advice that we should somehow turn the poison that the serpent had injected in our race against it and cause it to die. Several times he speaks of crushing the poison of the serpent, an idea he takes from Rom. 16, 20, where Paul prays that God will crush Satan under the feet of believers. So Ambrose’s mention of crushing the poison of the serpent is not a use of, at least direct, of Gen. 3, 15c, but of Rom. 16, 20. The Child who amputated the serpent’s head is certainly Christ, and this is an idea-allusion to Gen. 3, 15c. A serpent is made powerless, is killed, by trampling on its head, or crushing it, or amputating it. But whose Child is Christ in this passage of Ambrose? In Latin the passage reads:

Serpens ille paradisi prior feminam [Evam] ad culpae adulterium provocavit. Sed ubi venenum eius effusum est in hunc mundum, suboles [Christus] illius feminae [Mariae] circumventionem parentis {Evae], et fraudem ulta serpentis armis eum suis exuit et caput illius amputavit.

In my book, The First-gospel, I argued at length that the antecedent of illius is Mary, illius having here its classical meaning, “that well-known, or renowned.” I see no reason for retreating from that interpretation. The fraudem serpentis is certainly the serpent’s deceiving Eve, and the circumventionem parentis is certainly Eve’s deceiving Adam. Parentis just as serpentis is a subjective genitive; it is not an objective genitive referring to Adam. But if Eve is meant by parentis, and if she were also referred to by illius feminae, we would have an extremely awkward construction: The Child of that woman Eve avenged that parent-Eve’s circumventing of Adam. In that case he should have used merely a pronoun (eius) in place of parentis, and perhaps put parentis in place of feminae: “Suboles illius parentis [Evae] circumventionem eius ulta …” As it stands, I believe, it expresses the famous Eve-Mary antithesis, about which St. Ambrose wrote elsewhere quite forcefully.26 Here he bases Mary’s opposition to Eve on the First-gospel, inasmuch as through her Child she was victorious over Satan, and avenged both Eve’s sin and the devil’s.

The second passage where the Doctor of Milan alludes to Gen. 3, 15 with a Marian inclusion is this:

Mary conquered you [devil], inasmuch as she gave birth to the Conqueror, inasmuch as she, without loss of virginity, brought forth Him who when crucified conquered you, and when dead made you subject to Himself. Today too you will be conquered, so that the Woman will detect your ambushes … Mary has been visited in order that she might liberate Eve.27 

Just before this he wrote of removing the ruin of the devil so that Life might appear, and of bringing out the sword by which the head of the real Goliath might be cut off. This is a reference to 1 Kings 17, 51. But the real Goliath is the devil, whose head is cut off by Christ. There may be here an idea-allusion to Gen. 3, 15c, since in what follows, quoted above, there is a word-allusion to Gen. 3, 15d (the detection of the devil’s ambushes), and an idea-allusion to Gen. 3, 15c (the conquering of the devil), and Gen. 3, 15b (the virginal motherhood). The virginal motherhood has here its traditional force: Christ, the Seed of the Woman, conquered Satan by being born of a virgin mother. Moreover, the Woman detects the ambushes of the devil, so she must have been the subject of Gen. 3, 15c: it is her heel that is attacked. Finally, Mary is the liberator of even Eve, so she shares in her Son’s conquering of the devil. And the Eve-Mary antithesis has Gen. 3, 15 as its foundation.

To conclude, among his various explanations of the First gospel, St. Ambrose seems to have been aware of the Mariological as well as Christological interpretation and made use of it by allusion.

Pseudo-Jerome

This letter (Ad amicum aegrotum, de viro perfecto), written between 390 and 400, perhaps by a man infected with Pelagianism, advises on how to live amid suffering. The immediate context of the section in which Gen. 3, 15 occurs is this: The author describes the creation of man and his deception by the devil; then he dwells on the devil’s and man’s punishment according to Gen. 3, 14-19. Having stressed that God, in His mercy, promised Christ immediately after the Fall of man, he explains at length:

For, when He fulminated the curse against the serpent according to his deserts, He ordered him to take dirt for food and to crawl on his belly [Gen. 3, 14]; and since he had introduced death, God added; ‘I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your seed and the woman’s [sic] seed; she shall trample on your head, and you shall lie in wait for her heel’ (Gen. 3, 15).

Do you not realize, do you not see, that a threat was then made against him in Christ? Certainly, I will accept no other seed of woman except that of which the Apostle says: ‘Made of a woman’ (Gal. 4, 4), made from flesh … (John 1, 14). For if we look at this public and natural notion of generating, women do not have seed. Finally, no woman conceives without a man. And for this reason, since already then the seed of human generation had been vitiated in Adam by the transgression, the heavenly seed is promised, as the Apostle believed, not from the corruption of man, but from God (John 1, 13)…

And so, the Mother of Our Lord Jesus Christ was already then promised in that renowned woman; for it is she who was made the opponent of the serpent’s enmities. God says, ‘I will put enmities between you and the woman.’ He does not say, ‘I put,’ lest it might seem to refer to Eve. The word is one of promise relative to the future. ‘I will put,’ He says … The renowned woman spoken of is assuredly she who was to give birth to the Savior, and not she who would bear a fratricide. ‘I will raise up a woman who, setting aside credulity, will not only not listen to you though you should point to the sweetness of apples for opening her eyes, or promise her that she should be like God, but one who when even Gabriel will deliver his message will demand a reason for the strangeness of his promise … (Luke 1, 34). [Here follows a long explanation of the virginal conception and birth of Christ.]

Finally, what follows is a promise of an achievement of the Virgin that is greater than man [human nature], namely, ‘She shall trample on your head” (Gen. 3, 15c). Who doubts that besides Our Lord no one trampled on the serpent’s head? Certainly, He alone walked on dragons and scorpions (Cf. Ps. 90, 13 Luke 10, 19); He led captivity captive (cf. Eph. 4, 8). For what follows: ‘And you shall lie in wait for her heel’ (Gen. 3, 15d), to whom else does that refer, do we believe? The heel is the extremity of the foot. And Our Lord … when He was being tempted by the same serpent and was already victor of the third deception (Matt. 4, 10), exclaimed: ‘Get behind me, Satan’ (Mark 8, 33). What else does that mean than that being placed or left behind Him, he is ordered to lie in wait for His heel?28 

All scholars recognize this passage as one of the most explicit and complete identifications of the Woman and her Seed as Mary and Christ in ancient Christian literature. We need not delay, then, to explain this. We should note, however, that the author inserted mulieris in place of illius in the very quotation from Genesis, so there would be no mistake about the identity of the Woman. Further, he not merely identifies the Woman as Mary; he expressly excludes Eve.

The meaning of the first sentence in the last paragraph is disputed. There are two problems. We need the Latin text for the discussion:

Denique quod sequitur maiorem ab homine virginis promittit effectum, dicendo: ‘Ipsa tuum calcabit caput.’ … Ipse enim solus super draconem … ambulavit.

Now, did the author quote the Bible here with ipsa, or ipse? Second, does the genitive virginis belong with ab homine or with effectum? The practical upshot of both questions is: Did the author have the Woman, Mary, share in the defeat of Satan, according to the last half of the First-gospel? In his explanation he certainly ascribes the trampling on the devil to Christ, and to Him a1one. But does he thereby exclude even the Virgin?

As for the pronoun, the editors of the various editions of this letter have always written ipsa, both the first and the second time Gen. 3, 15 is here quoted. But B. Fischer in his critical study of the Old Latin text of Genesis claims the author had written ipse.29 He gives no reasons for his change, but it seems the sole reason is the fact that the author immediately explains that only Christ ever trampled on the serpent, thus excluding even Mary and supposing a masculine pronoun. But I think ipsa is genuine. In fact, the author purposely inserted mulieris in place of illius just before ipsa, when he first quoted it, so there would be no doubt about the correctness of ipsa and the antecedent. If he had written ipse, the insertion of mulieris would have been quite strange. That Mary shared in Christ’s work of destroying the devil was by this time quite traditional. Already St. Optatus had ipsa in his Bible reading but explained the text of Christ.30 And so, even if the Virgin would not be included in the author’s explanation here, ipsa could still be correct.

But what about the second question: Does Virginis modify effectum as a subjective genitive? If so, the sense would be: Gen. 3, 15c promises an achievement of the Virgin which is greater than what could be accomplished by a mere man, namely, the trampling on the devil. Or does it modify ab homine as possessive genitive? If so, the meaning would be: Gen. 3, 15c promises an achievement, namely, the trampling on the devil’s head, which is greater than the human nature of the Virgin can accomplish.

First of all, one may not seek a solution by changing promittit to producit, as if Gen. 3, 15c would produce this achievement. That would solve nothing, and the idea of Gen. 3, 15 being a promise occurs six times in this context. Secondly, ab homine is certainly not an ablative of agent, whether with promittit (because God makes the promise, and there is no need of an ablative of agent), or with effectum. In the latter case Virginis would have to modify homine, which we shall show is improbable. Also, maiorem needs a noun, which must be effectum, and cannot then function as a participle. So the author did not say: Gen. 3, 15c promises some effect achieved (effectum, as a participle) by the human nature of the Virgin (ab homine Virginis), which is still greater, namely, the virginal conception of the Conqueror. The author would hardly have admitted this last idea anyhow. So ab homine is an ablative of comparison, demanded by maiorem.

It seems improbable that homine governs Virginis. These reasons favor taking Virginis with effectum. First, ipsa is genuine as the pronoun in the Bible quotation of Gen. 3, 15c. Hence, Mary is given a share in Christ’s victory in that very Bible text. Secondly, the achievement that is greater, and which is promised in Gen. 3, 15c, is not merely the trampling on, the defeat of, the devil, to the exclusion of the virginal conception of the Conqueror; it is that victory, but precisely by one who was conceived of a virgin mother, and who, because of that, was sinless and never under Satan’s power, as the author explains. Mary’s virginal conception of the conquering Christ makes her, therefore, a sharer in His trampling on the serpent. Besides, in the entire greater context of this paragraph she is not only not excluded from sharing in Christ’s victory, but is included. That is why the author stressed the virginal conception so much. Her enmity against Satan was not considered static, but dynamic. If she, as well as her Child, is a total enemy of Satan, then she, as well as her Child, completely triumphed over Satan. The victory as well as the enmity is common to both Virgin Mother and Child. So, when the author states that no one but Christ ever trampled on the serpent, he is not excluding Mary; she shared in that work, according to tradition, with which this author was certainly acquainted, and which he did not wish to reject. Christ is the only independent and self-sufficient Conqueror of Satan, but Mary shares in that work of His most intimately as Virgin Mother.

Third, no objection can be found in the fact that thus the genitive Virginis is separated from its noun by the verb. Our author delighted in such separations. He has three others similar in this letter: “De promissionis exigat novitate …; semen promissum est mulieris …”; and especially, “indefloratae Virginis inveniretur in utero.”

Fourth, to take ab homine Virginis to mean “than the human nature of the Virgin,” is not very likely at all. The author does take homo to stand for human nature, or mere man, in two other places. A human father he calls patrem hominem, and “according to human nature” he expresses by secundum hominem. So he should have said: a Virgine, or ab homine Virgine; not ab homine Virginis.

There is, therefore, no solid reason for saying that Gen. 3, 15c, according to this author, is only Christological, not Mariological. All the reasons point to the fact that he took Virginis as the subjective genitive, namely, the agent, of the achievement that is promised in Gen. 3, 15c, which is then a joint effect of the Virgin Mother and her Child.

A last note. Also according to this witness of the ancient Church the Eve-Mary antithesis was revealed in the First-gospel. Eve, the total opposite of Mary in the salvation of mankind, is expressly excluded from the promise of that salvation; but Mary is included as playing a decisive role.

St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis

(d. 403)

St. Epiphanius, again a representative of the East, and of a rather broad area, because of his travels and ministry, makes explicit use of Gen. 3, 15 and quotes the first half of it in his Panarion. The remote context is his aim to defend the perpetual virginity of Mary, which he does in the entire number 78. The proximate context is this: Having adduced a number of arguments in favor of Mary’s perpetual virginity, and refuted objections, he asserts the great honor in which God held Mary, as is evidenced by the Angel’s greeting: ‘Hail, full of grace.’31 This becomes a springboard for him to develop Mary’s greatness because of her likeness and unlikeness to Eve. Within this exposition he uses Gen. 3, 15 and explains it. To understand him correctly it is necessary to give the whole passage, long as it is:

I. She [Mary] is the one who was signified by Eve, inasmuch as she [Mary] was typically given the title ‘mother of the living’ (cf. Gen. 3, 20).

1. For she [Eve] was called ‘mother of the living’ even after the transgression, when she had heard: ‘Dust you are and unto dust you shall return’ (Gen. 3, 19). It was indeed a surprising thing that after the transgression she should be given such a great title. And according to external appearances every birth of men on earth springs from that Eve. Still, in all truth, Life itself has been born to the world from Mary, in order that Mary might give birth to the Living [Christ, in the singular] and that she might become the ‘mother of the living. [Christians, in the plural]. Mary therefore was called ‘mother of the living’ typically.

2. For concerning both women it was said: ‘Who gave to woman wisdom of the woven robe, or multicolored understanding?’ (Job 38, 36, in LXX). To explain, Eve, the first [to be called] wisdom, wove visible garments for Adam’s sake, whom she had despoiled; for to her was given this task. Nakedness appeared through her, so to her was given the duty of clothing the visible body, because of the visible nakedness.

To Mary, however, God gave the task of bearing for us the Lamb and the Sheep, that from the glory of the Lamb and the Sheep there might be made for us, as from fleece, in wisdom through His virtue, a. garment of immortality.

II, 1. Yet another wonderful thing is to be considered concerning these, namely, concerning Eve and Mary. Eve became a cause of death for men; for through her ‘death came into the world’ (Rom. 5, 12).

But Mary was the cause of life, because through her Life was born for us. Indeed it was for this reason that the Son of God came into the world; and ‘where sin abounded, grace did more abound’ (Rom. 5, 20); and whence [from woman] death had come, there [from woman] life got its start, in order that life might exist in place of death, inasmuch as life shut out death that sprang from woman, when Life was again born for us through a woman.

2. And since Eve, when still a virgin, fell into the transgression of disobedience, the obedience of grace again came through the Virgin, when the good news of the enfleshed coming from heaven and of eternal life was announced. For it was then that he said to the serpent: ‘I will put enmity between you and her [sic], and between your seed and her seed’ (Gen. 3, 15ab). Now, a ‘seed of a woman’ is not to be found anywhere. But typically, as far as Eve is concerned, the enmity is taken to be against her progeny, [namely, the enmity of her progeny] against the progeny of the serpent and of the devil [dwelling] in the serpent, and of envy.

3. But then, everything could not have been fulfilled in her [Eve] in the fullest sense. It will, however, be fulfilled really in the holy Seed, the chosen and singular Seed, who was found [conceived] only of Mary, without marital relation with a man. For this one came to destroy the power ‘of the dragon and of the crooked and fleeing serpent’ (cf. Is. 27, 1), which boasted of having taken the whole world captive (cf. Matt. 4, 9). For this reason the Only-begotten was born of a woman: for the destruction of the serpent, that is, of wicked doctrine, of corruption and deceit, of error and lawlessness. This one truly ‘opened the mother’s womb’ (Ex. 13, 2). For if we wish to speak honestly, all the firstborn who had been born were not able to achieve this; the Only-begotten alone opened a virgin’s womb. Really, in him alone, and in no other, was this accomplished.32 

We are interested in two questions: First, does Epiphanius take Gen. 3, 15 in a Christological and Mariological sense? Second, does he see the Eve-Mary antithesis contained in that First-gospel? To be able to answer these questions accurately it will be well to analyze the progress of thought in the passage quoted. The Bishop is trying to show Mary’s greatness, and consequently the propriety of perpetual virginity for her, by comparing her with Eve. He compares her with Eve in two ways. First, he shows how the two are alike, then how they are unlike; and in each of these ways he has two stages.33 

First, Mary is like Eve as mother. Eve was called ‘mother of the living’ in Gen. 3, 20. In the natural order she is the mother of all the living. But in the supernatural order she is not, especially not after the transgression, and so if she is still called ‘mother of the living,’ it is in a typical sense. Mary is really the Mother of the living, first of Christ, our Life, and then of all the living in the supernatural order. He adds an illustration, in the second stage (I, 2), from Job 38, 36 [LXX], stating that both Eve and Mary were wise seamstresses: Eve sewed garments for Adam whom she had despoiled, namely, of immortality and immunity from passion; so she sewed for him clothes of the natural order. Mary, however, made a garment for Christ by giving Him the body that would be immortal and the cause of our immortality.

So this first parallelism is founded on the typical use of Gen. 3, 20. Both Eve and Mary are mothers, giving life and “clothing.” But Eve operates in the natural order; Mary in the supernatural. Eve contributed nothing in the supernatural order to Christ or us. In fact, she even despoiled Adam, and in doing so, despoiled us too. There is, therefore, a note of unlikeness in this first parallel already. This is developed more in the next phase. So, in this first phase there is no use whatever of Gen. 3, 15, only of Gen. 3, 20.

In the second phase of the parallel between Eve and Mary Epiphanius stresses the opposition between the two in their actions and the results, though basically they are alike in that both are taken as women in the first stage, and as virgins in the second. In the first stage both are women, but the one was the cause of death for us, while the other caused life. The Scriptural basis is Rom. 5, 12 (death) and 5, 20 (life through grace). Paul, of course, had only Christ in mind, but Epiphanius does not hesitate to apply this to Mary because of her close association with Christ, no doubt, after the pattern of the close association of Eve with Adam in the Fall. In the second stage (II, 2) he restates this antithesis, with both as virgins. But Eve was disobedient and (by obvious implication) brought death to us; Mary, however, the Virgin, was obedient and brought life, by being instrumental in bringing the Incarnation and life everlasting. Now the Scriptural basis for this antithetic parallel is Gen. 3, 15, which Epiphanius quotes partially. And the key to the comparison is Mary’s virginal conception of Christ by an act of obedience. This section is, then, not a total digression, as some seem to think, but a proof for Mary’s greatness as the direct opposite of Eve by her obedience and virginal conception of Jesus. The virginal conception is contained in the expression “her Seed” of the First-gospel, and the obedience is implied in the fact that it was a moral motherhood according to God’s plan, which Epiphanius knew from the Lucan story (Lk. 1, 38). Mary is worthy of perpetual virginity, our Saint would argue, on God’s part and on St. Joseph’s, because of her virginal motherhood, which makes her of greatest dignity.

From this outline it is clear and certain that our Bishop considers Gen. 3, 15 as Mariological and Christological. But let us analyze the thought more in detail. He tells us that the “obedience of grace again came through the Virgin when the good news of the enfleshed coming from heaven and of eternal life was announced” (II, 2). Then he introduces the First-gospel thus: “For it was then that he said to the serpent.” It seems possible to understand the relation between these two sentences in two ways. Either that the announcement of the good news, expressed in the First-gospel, took place at the Annunciation, inasmuch as it was then fulfilled, and is here represented as repeated at that time. If this is what Epiphanius meant, then Mary is surely the Woman, identified by the virginal conception spoken of in Lk. 1, 35, and implied in Gen. 3, 15b. It seems, however, that the more usual interpretation is correct; namely, the announcing of the good news of which he speaks took place when the First-gospel was first proclaimed. That is the obvious meaning of “it was then,” followed immediately by the quotation of the First-gospel.34 That the virginal conception is the key to the understanding of Gen. 3, 15 according to Epiphanius is clear from what he says immediately after quoting it: “Now, a ‘seed of a woman’ is not to be found anywhere.” It is clear too from the following paragraph where he again stresses that Christ is the completest fulfillment of this Seed of a woman. Having established that the Woman is Mary because of her virginal conception of Christ, our Bishop applies the First-gospel also to Eve, saying:

But typically, as far as Eve is concerned, the enmity is taken to be against her progeny, [namely, the enmity of her progeny] against the progeny of the serpent and of the devil… (II, 2).

My brackets indicate that Epiphanius is writing somewhat elliptically. His meaning is not absolutely clear. In fact, Holl, in his critical edition, suggested that we read autou in place of autes before “progeny” the first time, so as to read:

“the enmity is taken against its progeny, that is, [the offspring] of the serpent…35 This seems a possible interpretation. I cannot decide which Epiphanius intended. Is “enmity” the governing word of the genitives “serpent’s and devils,” as in the first interpretation, with Eve’s progeny at war with the serpent and devil; or is it “offspring” as in the second interpretation, with Eve’s offspring at war with the serpent’s and the devil’s offspring? In any case, Eve is at enmity with the serpent and the devil, at least through her offspring. So the text is true of her in a typical sense in regard to the enmity. But only that far. It is not fulfilled in her in any other way. That is why the Bishop corrects immediately:

But then, everything could not have been fulfilled in her [Eve] in the fullest sense. It will, however, be fulfilled really in the holy Seed, … who was found [conceived] only of Mary, without marital relation with a man.

It is precisely because of the virginal conception of Christ that this cannot be true of Eve in the fullest sense. “Everything” of the First-gospel cannot be true of Eve; in fact, according to Epiphanius only the idea of enmity against the serpent and the devil is true of her in a limited sense, and of her offspring.

Father Gallus gave this last section a unique turn by claiming that the antecedent of “in her” is Mary not Eve; and that even Mary is excluded from this fullest sense of Gen. 3, 15c, namely, the complete destruction of Satan’s power.36 But this view must be ruled out for these reasons. First, the antecedent, Mary, would be too far distant, while Eve was mentioned immediately before. Second, “everything” is not merely the complete destruction of Satan’s power, but that destruction precisely by Christ who was born of the Virgin in a virginal manner. Third, if the antecedent were Mary, Epiphanius would have had to use the same tense for her as for Christ, not the past for Mary “could not have been fulfilled” and the future for Christ (“It will … be fulfilled”).

Having explained that the Holy Seed of Mary would fulfill Gen. 3, 15 in the fullest sense, he tells how Christ came to destroy the power of the dragon. This is a partial quotation of Is. 27, 1, which St. Justin had already used for explaining Gen. 3, 15c. St. Epiphanius is doing the same here. He did not quote the last half of Gen. 3, 15, about the Seed’s crushing the head of the serpent; but immediately after he stated that the Holy Seed would fulfill Gen. 3, 15 completely, he adds this explanation about Christ’s destroying the power of Satan. Obviously, this is an explanation, in the Messianic sense, of Gen. 3, 15c. “For” must here retain its strict causal meaning. The Bishop did not leave off his Messianic interpretation of Gen. 3, 15 just before, and loosely add, with “for,” some ideas about Christ’s destroying Satan’s power. No; he is explaining it, without quoting Gen. 3, 15c, but with an obvious allusion to it. That is confirmed too by his again stressing that it was precisely he who was conceived in a virginal manner who was able to destroy Satan. In other words, even Mary plays a part in this destruction of Satan, through her virginal conception of Christ.

And the second question: Did St. Epiphanius link Gen. 3, 15 with the antithetic parallel of Eve and Mary? Many scholars have held that he does. L. Drewniak denied this.37 Father Gallus refuted his position.38 But Father Stanislaus Stys claims that Father Gallus’ refutation confirms Drewniak’s opinion.39 What is correct? In spite of protestations from both sides, it seems the authors line up here as they do in general on the relation between Gen. 3, 15 and the Eve-Mary antithesis. From the outline and analysis we have given it should be clear enough that the Bishop does hold the Mariological interpretation of Gen. 3, 15 and that Mary’s role is foretold in this prophecy. Just as he used an Old Testament passage, Gen. 3, 20, to back up the parallel in the first phase, so he backs up the parallel in the second phase by an Old Testament passage, Gen. 3, 15.

But Drewniak and Stys maintain that the Bishop does not quote Gen. 3, 15 to confirm the antithetic parallel. He does link the two with “for,” but this for does not have here a strict causal meaning, but a broader confirmatory meaning, for instance, “certainly,” as if he had stopped speaking about the antithesis between the women, and were now just adding some new ideas. Stys maintains that if “for” were strictly causal it would have to prove either of two things, or both, spoken of in the preceding antithesis, either Mary’s obedience, or her virginal conception. But, so he claims, there is nothing about obedience in the First-gospel; and for the virginal conception it is inept too, because his source here is Lk. 1, 28ff.40 We answer that, regardless of how inept Sty~ considers the First-gospel for expressing the virginal conception, it is a fact that Epiphanius saw it revealed there, as did many of his predecessors, especially St. Irenaeus, his source here. Christ, he maintains, is the holy Seed precisely because He was conceived in a virginal manner. And Gen. 3, 15 speaks of “her seed,” of the Woman’s seed because there is question here of Mary’s virginal conception of Christ. Nor is obedience missing from the First-gospel. Epiphanius stressed Mary’s obedience in the antithetic parallel. He used Rom. 5, 12ff. as a source for that, by which he put Mary equivalently on a par with Christ. And by that he admits that the two stages of his second phase in the parallelism are closely linked together and complement each other; just as the two stages of the first phase were closely linked together under the concept of a mother giving life. Besides, as we noted earlier, the virginal motherhood of the Woman in Gen. 3, 15 was, for Epiphanius, a rational act, in obedience to the God who placed the enmity between her and the serpent, who, in other words, decreed her existence as a virgin mother of the Conquerer.41 

But we must answer a basic error in Stys reasoning. He assumes that if Gen. 3, 15 has a causal or necessary connection with the Eve-Mary antithesis, one must prove that this antithesis could not be thought of or exist without Gen. 3, 15.42 Even if Gen. 3, 15 had never been written, authors could have arrived at the Eve-Mary antithesis by the aid of Rom. 5 and Lk. 1. But that does not exclude the possibility of using other Scriptural texts as sources for this antithesis. The fact is that Epiphanius never refers expressly to Luke as a source for this antithesis, but he does refer to Rom. 5, and to Gen. 3, 15, which he even quotes, and which he links with the antithesis by means of the connective “for,” which ordinarily has a strict causal meaning. Only by side-stepping this normal meaning can one disconnect the antithesis from the First-gospel. “For” was not meant as a break between the antithesis and the First-gospel; it was meant to cement the two together.

Finally, the description of the antithesis that we have been considering is not an interruption of the discussion of Mary’s perpetual virginity as Drewniak and Stys assert.43 

It is not a digression but a progression of thought. It fits in quite properly and corroborates his thesis about the perpetual virginity. He shows how great Mary is because of her virginal conception of Christ, who conquered Satan and all corruption; and through that virginal conception, to which she consented obediently, she herself became a co-operator with her Son in the destruction of Satan, or as Epiphanius states most concisely in the first stage of the antithetic parallel “Mary became the cause of life for us,” of life everlasting and immortality of body, as he says in the second stage. Gen. 3, 15, as interpreted by Epiphanius, better and more concisely than any other Scripture text expresses what he wanted here: Mary is the direct opposite of Eve by an obedient and virginal motherhood relative to Christ, the Conqueror of Satan, the Author of life, which made her a sharer in that victory and life. If she enjoyed such greatness, over against Eve, it was most fitting, to say the least, that she should never have been violated by Joseph, that she should have remained a virgin forever incorrupt. That this is his conclusion is plain from the fact that he returns to the point about Mary’s perpetual virginity at the end of the discussion.

With the foregoing in perspective we now proceed to the final part: PATRISTIC INTERPRETATION OF GEN. 3:15 PT. 3.

• Uncategorized