AP
Reformed Thought for Christian Living
The early Church Father Epiphanius of Salamis (310 A.D. to 403 A.D.) devotes an entire section in his book, The Panarion to a group of Christians named the Collyridians who […]
The early Church Father Epiphanius of Salamis (310 A.D. to 403 A.D.) devotes an entire section in his book, The Panarion to a group of Christians named the Collyridians who had fallen into the error of worshipping Mary.[1] Epiphanius refers to the practice as a type of ‘madness’ and “…malady of the deluded Eve all over again. Or rather, it is still the malady of the snake, the seducing beast, and the false promise of the one who spoke it.”[2]
Epiphanius believed that Mary should be honoured, but he was aware of outspoken Christians who warned that veneration of Jesus’ mother would inevitably develop into unbiblical superstition.[3] As Epiphanius writes:
For as, long ago, those who, from an insolent attitude towards Mary, have seen fit to suspect these things were sowing damaging suspicions in people’s minds, so these persons who lean in the other direction are guilty of doing the worst sort of harm. In them to the maxim of certain pagan philosophers, “Extremes are equal,” will be exemplified. For the harm done by both of these sects is equal, since one belittles the holy Virgin while the other, in its turn, glorifies her to excess.[4]
This particular group of Christians—comprised mostly of women—would make a ceremonial offering of bread to the ‘Virgin Mary’. Rather than this being some form of pagan sacrifice, Epiphanius says it involved ‘venerating’ her through the Lord’s Supper.[5] Epiphanius says that this heretical ‘speculation’ was a particularly feminine deception.[6]
Epiphanius’ words today cut against the grain, especially the egalitarian sentiments of so many Christians in the 21st century. However, rather than being some kind of ancient misogynist, Epiphanius outlines his reasons for saying this, not from his own cultural setting, but from the Scriptures themselves. Epiphanius outlines seven reasons:
2. While Mary’s womb acted as a ‘temple’ in that she was a dwelling place for the eternally begotten Son of God, she was not ever ordained as a priest, nor was Mary ‘entrusted with the administration of baptism – for Christ could have been baptised by her rather than John’.
3. All of the twelve apostles were men, as were Barnabas and James, the Lord’s brother,[7] who were chosen to take the Gospel to the ends of the earth.[8]
4. While Scripture affirms the ministries of women such Anna and Philip’s four daughters who were prophetesses, they were not included in the episcopate or presbyterate. The teaching and ruling offices of the church were restricted to men.[9]
5. While women do fulfil the office of deacon, this is not “for the practice of priesthood or any liturgical function’ but to help with the modesty of female initiates who were baptised naked it seems, and thus, not to be viewed by a male presbyter.
6. God does not allow a woman to speak in the church (1 Cor. 14:33-35) or to “bear rule over a man” (1 Tim. 2:12).
7. Older women who are widows are also appointed to special roles in the church “…not to celebrate any mystery, but only to administer mysteries already celebrated.”
All of which is to say, while Epiphanius believed that Mary should be ‘honoured’ as a holy and godly woman, the LORD never elevated her—or any other woman—to a position of spiritual authority or oversight in His church body. Thus, it’s highly inappropriate for women to offer sacrifices to a woman, even if she is the mother of Jesus Christ.
Significantly, Epiphanius then expands on this and takes issue with the worship of departed holy men (represented by religious icons) and the adulterous temptation to not worship Christ alone.[10] Epiphanius writes:
And yet the men who are worshipped have died, and their images, which have never lived, are introduced for worship—and since they’ve never lived they can’t be called dead either! And with adulterous intent they have rebelled against the one and only God, like a common whore who has been excited to the wickedness of many relations and rejected the temperate course of lawful marriage to one husband.[11]
This is precisely what the Collyridians have done though, in their veneration of Mary by offering sacrifices to her as the Queen of Heaven. However, Epiphanius counters that not only does Mary herself worship Christ, but Jesus deliberately distanced Himself from her by referring to her as ‘woman’ [and not as ‘mother’ as we might have expected]. In God’s wisdom, this is meant to protect future generations from giving to her ‘excessive awe’. As Epiphanius explains:
Yes, of course Mary’s body was holy, but she was not God. Yes, the Virgin was indeed a virgin and honoured as such, but she was not given us to worship; she worships Him who, though born of her flesh, has come from heaven, from the bosom of his Father. And the Gospel therefore protects us by telling us so on the occasion when the Lord himself said, “Woman, what is between me and thee? Mine hour is not yet come.” (John 2:4) For to make sure that no one would suppose, because of the words, ‘What is between me and thee?’ that the holy Virgin is anything more [than a woman], he called her “Woman” as if by prophecy, because of the schisms and sects that were to appear on earth. Otherwise some might stumble into the nonsense of the sect from excessive awe of the saint.[12]
Epiphanius actually believed that Mary always remained a virgin, even after the birth of Jesus. Also, just like Elijah, she did not taste death but was transported directly to heaven. However, Epiphanius argues that her nature is no different to ours and hence, is not to be worshipped. This is because Epiphanius say there is an “age-old error of forgetting the living God and worshipping his creatures [which] will not get the better of me”. Hence, if we are not to worship angels than “how much more the woman born of Ann”.
Epiphanius says that Mary had a father and mother, and was not born of a virgin as Christ was (i.e. Isa. 7:14). Unlike her own birth, Mary’s pregnancy was announced by the angel Gabriel. Despite what people wrongly concluded from Protoevangelium of James 4:1-3, none of those things happened in relation to Mary. And so, Epiphanius exhorts the Christian reader:
Mary should be honoured, but the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit should be worshipped; no one should worship Mary…Such women should be silenced by Jeremiah, and not frighten the world. They must not say, “We honour the queen of heaven.” (Jer. 7:18; 44:18-19)[13]
Epiphanius’s words act as a prescient warning to what has since taken place. Mariology has developed to such an extent that Mary is now presented in the Church of Rome as a co-regent, co-mediator and even co-redeemer with Christ. She who would want nothing more than to point to her Son, has in practice been elevated to blasphemously compete with both His person and work.
And yet, the early church historian, J. N. D. Kelly, notes that “…reliable evidence of prayers being addressed to her, or of her protection and help being sought, is almost (though not entirely) non-existent in the first four centuries. On the other hand, her role in the working out of God’s redemptive plan was relatively early recognised.”[14] The ante-Nicene Fathers did not view Mary as being sinless. As Kelly explains:
‘In contrast to the later beliefs in her moral and spiritual perfection, none of these theologians had the least scruple about attributing faults to her. Irenaeus[15] and Tertullian[16] recalled occasions on which, as they read the gospel stories, she had earned her Son’s rebuke, and Origen[17] insisted that, like all human beings, she needed redemption from her sins; in particular, he interpreted Simeon’s prophecy (Luke 2:35) that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her Son crucified.’[18]
As with some of the other Early Church Fathers, Epiphanius recognised a beautiful allegorical symmetry in God’s plan of salvation in reversing the effects of the fall. Rather than elevating Mary to the position where she is worshipped or ‘obeyed’, they viewed her role as being further proof of Christ’s physical incarnation against the docetic heresy that Christ was only divine. As Epiphanius explains:
And so, since “death entered into the world” through a woman, the Master and Saviour of all, whose desire was to heal the hurt, rebuild the ruins, and repair what was defective, came down and was himself born of a virgin to bar death out, complete what was missing, and perfect what was lacking. But evil returns to us, to perpetuate the defect in the world. Thanks to their God-given prudence, however, neither young men nor old obey the woman.[19]
Many Roman Catholic apologists take the Early Church Fathers’ use of allegory—which they present as a typology—to the theological extreme by arguing that Mary now is the ‘New Eve’ just as Christ is the ‘Second Adam’.[20] This then justifies them in proclaiming her as being a co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix with Christ of all grace and ultimately, the Spiritual Mother of all Christians. As Catholic.com states:
The key to understanding all these graces is Mary’s role as the New Eve, which the Fathers proclaimed so forcefully. Because she is the New Eve, she, like the New Adam, was born immaculate, just as the First Adam and Eve were created immaculate. Because she is the New Eve, she is mother of the New Humanity (Christians), just as the first Eve was the mother of humanity. And, because she is the New Eve, she shares the fate of the New Adam. Whereas the First Adam and Eve died and went to dust, the New Adam and Eve were lifted up physically into heaven.
Dr. Andrew Swafford summarises what viewing Mary as The New Eve means with the even more shocking conclusion, “Death through Eve, life through Mary”. Hence, by a subtle hermeneutical sleight of hand, Mary and the Lord Jesus Christ are placed on the same spiritual plain, with the ‘Queen Mother’ sharing with ‘King (Christ) Jesus’ in both His person and work of salvation.
What makes this approach of presenting Mary as a ‘New Eve’ attractive to so many, is that it gives a prominent role to a woman and so softens the patriarchal portrayal of the Trinity.[21] However, nowhere in the New Testament is Mary equated with the figure of Eve. Indeed, to do so inverts the message of the Gospel, replacing the role of Jesus and Adam’s headship with that of Mary and Eve’s.
Note how the New Testament explicitly refers to Jesus as a Second Adam, and this connection is obviously foundational to our understanding of the redemption which the Lord Jesus Christ alone performs (John 10:1-10). As the apostle Paul writes:
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. . . (1 Cor. 15:22).
And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. (1 Cor. 15:45).
Paul proclaims this biblical truth the most fully in his letter to the Romans 5:12-21:
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned– for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the One to come.
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Epiphanius warns that just as the serpent strategically first sought out Eve—and not Adam—in the Garden, so too the Devil continues to present a woman as ‘lovely’ as Mary to turn people away from ‘honouring’ God.
This doesn’t mean that Mary is in of herself evil, just as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not inherently bad but was pleasing to the eye and good for food. However, both Mary and the forbidden Tree were to be subordinate to the Word of God. As Epiphanius exhorts the reader:
The creature must return to its Master; Eve, with Adam, must take care to honour only God, and not be influenced by the voice of the serpent but abide by God’s commandment, ‘Thou shalt not eat of the tree’ (Gen. 2:27). And yet the tree was not error; the disobedience of error came by the tree. Let no one eat of the error which has arisen on St. Mary’s account. Even though the tree is ‘lovely’ (Gen. 2:9) it is not for food; and even though Mary is all fair, and is holy and held in honour, she is not to be worshiped.[22]
It is striking that Epiphanius should make such a clear contradiction in the space of just a few sentences. If ‘honour’ should only ever be given to God, then how is it appropriate to also give ‘honour’ to Mary, as Epiphanius suggests? This might be understandable, and maybe even excused, if he had used a different term to that of the word ‘honour’, but he does not.[23]
Epiphanius goes on to warn though, that Satan has often tempted people to give to others, or himself, the honour which should be reserved for God alone.[24] He rightly identifies a striking example of this form of idolatry in the writings of the Prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah. Epiphanius writes:
But again, these women are ‘renewing the position for Fortune and preparing the table for the demon (Isa. 65:11) and not for God, as the scripture says. And they drink impious drinks as the word of God says, ‘And the women grind flour, and their sons gather wood to make cakes for the host of heaven.’ (Jer. 7:18) Such women should be silenced by Jeremiah, and not frighten the world. They must not say, ‘We honour the queen of heaven’ (Jer. 51:18).[25]
And yet, sadly, this is precisely how many Roman Catholics refer to Mary. While they might deny that they worship her, their words, actions and statues tell a different story. Even a quick survey of the literature reveals how Mary is given ‘honours’ which Epiphanius—as well as all of the other Fathers—would have viewed as blasphemous superstitions.[26] In short, The Roman Catholic Mary functionally often takes the place of the Lord Jesus Christ.
There is an unspoken assumption when it comes to false teachers and particularly anti-Christs, that they are nearly always going to be male. It’s all the more striking when one realises that the ascended Lord Jesus warns His church in Thyatira of a female prophetess named Jezebel who is leading His people astray (Rev. 2:19-21). But just as Eve was deceived and in turn deceived her husband Adam, Epiphanius warns that Satan might use someone like Mary to deceive believers:
Our mother Eve should be honoured because formed by God, but not be obeyed, or she may convince her children to eat of the tree and transgress the commandment. She herself must repent of her folly, must turn in shame and clad with fig leaves. And Adam should look to himself, and no longer obey her. Error’s persuasion, and the contrary counsels of a woman, are the cause of her spouse’s death—and not only his, but her children’s. By her transgression Eve has overthrown creation, for she was incited by the voice and promise of the snake, strayed from God’s injunction, and went on to another notion.[27]
This word of warning and rebuke by Epiphanius is what those who pray to and venerate the ‘Virgin Mary’ today must also receive. The apostle Paul warns in 2 Corinthians 11 that Satan masquerades as an angel of light. Hence, we should not be surprised that ‘his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness’ (2 Cor. 11:15). Precisely because the Devil is so deceptive, we should not expect that his lies will be obvious. Instead, they will involve twisted, half-truths of Scripture, just like he did to the Lord Jesus Christ when he was in the wilderness.[28]
There have been the numerous supernatural appearances which ‘The Virgin Mary’ has reportedly made at places such as at Guadalupe, Lourdes, Fatima, and more recently, Medjugorje. While this ‘Mary’ claimed that her goal was to bring more people to Jesus, her message has been that you first had to be more fully devoted to her. For instance, in the account of her third apparition at Fatima, which occurred on the 13th of May, 1917 this is what was recorded as having taken place:
Then Our Lady opened Her hands, as during the previous apparitions, and the light that was God streamed forth. In this light they were given, on this occasion, a vision of Hell so horrible and gruesome that the children shrieked aloud with fear. After showing them Hell Our Lady said to the children: “You have seen Hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace.
This focus on herself—while deceptively claiming to point to Jesus—is clearly illustrated in much of the iconography involving the Virgin Mary. If Christ is present then He is presented as a small defenceless infant held in Mary’s arms. But if Mary is presented on her own, she nearly always points to her ‘immaculate’ heart.
The biblical figure of Mary is that of a godly person who recognised that she was a sinner who as such, called out to and trusted in the LORD for forgiveness. However, the Roman Catholic figure of ‘Our Lady’ or ‘Heavenly Queen’, is a demonic delusion. Rather than be venerated, those who belong to Christ’s flock should only listen to His voice (John 10:5).
God’s Word constantly warns us about false Christs and teachers who would seek to turn us away from worshipping Jesus (Matthew 7:15-20; 2 Thess. 2:1-12; 2 John 7). Indeed, the apostle Paul says that people will arise even from within the church who will distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them (Acts 20:29-31). Could it be that one of Satan’s greatest deceptions is to appear as Christ’s earthly mother? The apostle Paul’s words are pertinent:
I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough (2 Corinthians 11:2-4).
What if then, Satan’s strategy is to use a ‘New Deluded Eve’ to tempt God’s people away from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ? Significantly, the only command the historical figure of Mary ever gave to people—as recorded in Scripture—was at the wedding in Canna where she said, ‘Do whatever He tells you’ (John 2:5).
We would be wise to do the same and only honour, venerate and worship the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. We must not forsake the truth of His Word, but continue to trust in the sufficiency of His person and work. For true blessedness was never found by honouring the mother of Jesus, but on hearing and obeying the Word which her Son spoke. As Luke records in his account of Jesus’ life:
As He [Jesus] said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!’ But He said, ‘Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it! (Luke 11:27-28)
– Mark Powell
[1] Milan Vukomanovic and Bojana Radovanovic, ‘A Quest for Epiphanius’ Collyridians – the Pilgrimesses of the Mother of God,’ ASE 40/1 (2023). ‘A heated debate on the status of the Virgin Mary was taking place several decades before the Council of Ephesus (431), when it reached its peak. In the meantime, various alternative doctrines were on the church agenda, with some heterodox groups probably going so far as to treat Mary as a divine being or perhaps even virgin goddess. It is exactly in this kind of polemical milieu of the late fourth century that Epiphanius was able to notice the peculiar Collyridian rite.’ 143.
[2] The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis. Books II and III De Fide. Second Edition. Translated by Frank Williams, (Leiden: Brill, 2013),637-638.
[3] Epiphanius was right to be concerned. Two centuries later, the Byzantium monk and theologian Leontius, referred to the group’s continued aberrant beliefs and practices regarding the figure of Mary. See Vukomanovic and Radovanovic, ‘A Quest for Epiphanius’ Collyridians – the Pilgrimesses of the Mother of God,’ 143-144.
[4] Panarion. 1,4-5.
[5] Vukomanovic and Radovanovic, ‘A Quest for Epiphanius’ Collyridians – the Pilgrimesses of the Mother of God’. “Interestingly, Leontius uses the verb aposemnuno (aposeumnunw) to describe the heretical cult of the Virgin. This verb (including semnuno) [semnuno], semnoo [semnow], and the adjective semnos – “holy”) means “to glorify,” “to venerate,” “to celebrate,” “to honour.” However, these terms do not appear in the Byzantine Greek lexicon.’ 146.
[6] Panarion. 1,6-7. ‘And who but women are the teachers of this? Women are unstable, prone to error, and mean-spirited. As in our earlier chapter on Quintilla, Maximilla and Priscilla, so here the devil has seen fit to disgorge ridiculous teachings from the mouths of women.’
[7] By identifying James as the Lord’s ‘brother’ it would seem that Epiphanius also believed that Mary did not remain a virgin after Jesus’ birth but went on to have other children with Joseph. Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary (New York: Crown Publishing, 2018). Even Roman Catholic apologists are forced to acknowledge, “As any Greek dictionary will tell you, the most common meaning of the word ‘brother’ is the same as in English: “a male from the same womb”. 117.
[8] Matthew 28:16-20.
[9] Acts 6:1-4; 1 Timothy 2:11-15; 1 Corinthians 14:33-35; Titus 1:5-9.
[10] Ezekiel 16; 2 Kings 17:10-16; Jeremiah 3:1-3; Hosea 2:2-13, 4:11-13.
[11] Panarion. 4,5.
[12] Panarion. 4,6-7.
[13] Panarion. 7,5; 8,2.
[14] J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, Fifth Revised Edition(London: Adam & Charles Black, 1977), 491.
[15] Irenaeus, Against Heresy’s Book 3 Chapter 15 Paragraph 7.
[16] Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, Chapter 7.
[17] Origen, Homilies on Luke, Homily 17, paragraph 6. In The Fathers of the Church: Origen – Homilies on Luke. Translated by Joseph T. Lienhard, S. J. (Washington D.C: The Catholic University of America Press, 1996), 73.
[18] Ibid, 493. See also Gavin Ortlund shows how this included Origen, Tertullian, Basil, John Chrysostom and Hilary of Poitiers. Ortlund writes: ‘There are other examples we could give (just this morning I discovered a strong statement by Fulgentius of Ruspe as late as the 6th century that Mary was “conceived in iniquity in accordance with human practice” [Epistula 17.13]). And even among theologians who affirm Mary’s sinlessness, many do not affirm the immaculate conception. Augustine would fall into this camp (e.g., he speaks of Mary being “derived from the propagation of sin” in Genesi Ad Litteram 10.18.32).’ https://truthunites.org/2020/12/18/church-fathers-who-denied-the-immaculate-conception/#:~:text=Tertullian%20references%20certain%20flaws%20of,genuine%20nativity%2C%20but%20has%20no
[19] Panarion. 9,2.
[20] See John Henry Newman, A Letter Addressed to the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D., on Occasion of His Eirenicon (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1900), p. 31ff.
[21] This is the one of the motivations for some Protestants to convert to Roman Catholicism. For example, Scott Hann, Hail, Holy Queen (Sydney: Doubleday, 2001).
[22] Panarion.7,6-7. Emphasis mine.
[23] Significantly, the Roman Catholic Church makes such a distinction by saying that Mary should be ‘venerated’ rather than ‘worshipped’. But in practice it’s difficult to discern a real difference and is an example of theological sophistry.
[24] Isaiah 42:8-10.
[25] Panarion. 8,1-2.
[26] See, for instance, Scott Hann, Hail, Holy Queen (Sydney: Doubleday, 2001); Tim Staples, Behold Your Mother: A Biblical and Historical Defence of the Marian Doctrines (El Cajon: Catholic Answers, 2014); John Paul II, Redemptoris Mater (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1987).
[27] Panarion. 8,4-5.
[28] Matthew 4:1-11; Mark 1:11-23; Luke 4:1-13.
