A while ago, I wrote an article about the way that “The Chosen” depicts Mary at the wedding of Cana. The article was positive about the show, heaping effusive praise on the inspiring way that the series managed to recreate certain events, such as the meeting between Jesus and Nicodemus.
Despite this constructive tone, some readers took issue with my claim that the Cana episode did not do justice to what John the Evangelist wished to convey about the person of Mary. Some comments on Facebook and elsewhere were aggressively dismissive of the arguments set out in the article.
A few people went on an anti-Catholic rant, even though the article was written entirely from the point of view of Church Fathers who are accepted by mainstream Protestant churches. It was even necessary to ask my editor to remove a comment on Catholic Stand because of its offensive content.
The most common type of feedback, though, was a polite complaint that the article’s point was either not very clear or not very important. In fact, the director of the show, Dallas Jenkins, sent me a short and courteous reply to the effect that he simply did not see the question in the same way that I did.
The Fathers Saw Mary as the New Eve
With full respect for Dallas, however, it is not just a matter of how I interpret Scripture. The Fathers of the Church, both West and East, rooted as they were in the Bible and in the Apostolic teaching, read this narrative in John’s Gospel as revealing the unique role of Mary as the New Eve, a point that gets lost in “The Chosen”. For Justin Martyr (d. circa 163), Irenaeus (d. circa 200), Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258), Ambrose (d. 397), and others, this was an important theme. In their writings, they reflected how the evil one had obtained dominion over humanity through a woman, and how, through the offspring of a woman, redemption would be won. Jesus’ interaction with Mary at Cana was a telling sign that the time of restoration was at hand.
Let us consider in a little more detail how:
- Mary is presented by John as the New Eve
- “The Chosen” episode fails to present this truth
- Mary is held up by Scripture as a model disciple, not a bossy mother
- The New Eve is Mother of all the faithful
How Cana points to Mary as the New Eve
The Prologue of John begins with the same opening words as Genesis: “In the beginning . .”. This is a signal by the Evangelist that his Gospel is to be understood with reference to the first book of the Bible. In fact, the events of the Gospel constitute the restoration of the original plan of Genesis. In Genesis, humanity is created in the image and likeness of God; then, deceived by Satan, they distrust God, leading to disobedience, disfigurement, and death. The Gospel account is going to show us how the New Adam, assisted by the New Eve, is going to restore God’s likeness in man.
In the Genesis account of the Fall, it is the woman who is tempted first. She then gives the fruit to Adam, who also eats. God the Father later addresses the serpent as follows: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” (Genesis 3:15). This statement is called the Protoevangelium, and it is the first promise of a redeemer in Scripture, a redeemer who will be of human stock. The Fathers of the Church, however, understood that it also referenced the woman who would bear the redeemer.
In John’s Gospel, the dramatic events in which that restoration will take place is referred to as the “hour” of Jesus. Jesus mentions this hour completely unexpectedly during the wedding feast of Cana. In fact, the narrative of Cana contains two words that stand out in a quite startling way: “hour” and “woman”. Out of the blue, in the context of an apparently harmless conversation about wine, Jesus refers to his mother as “woman” and declares that his “hour” has not yet come. These are loaded terms for John the Evangelist, as any Scripture scholar can attest. They are a clear signal that the narrative is to be probed for its deeper theological meaning. By speaking in this apparently bewildering way, Jesus is telling us that his mother is the New Eve who bore the promised redeemer and that her interaction with him is somehow related to his “hour”, the process by which he will save humanity.
“The Chosen” Misses This Point Entirely
Whilst “The Chosen” does a beautiful job of recreating the wedding at Cana, it fails to convey the deep theological significance of the exchange between Jesus and his mother. “Woman” and “hour” are actually entirely eliminated from the dialogue. It is understandable that the filmmakers might have felt unsure what to do with these puzzling terms. There are no known cases in Greek literature of the period where a son addresses his mother as “woman”. The only other case is when Jesus himself repeats the reference from the cross (more on this later). For experts of Johannine literature, such as Rudolf Schnackenburg, terms like these are intended as keys of interpretation for the entire narrative. As soon as Jesus speaks the words “woman” and “hour”, he is lifting the discourse onto an entirely different level, a perspective that all readers of the Gospel are challenged to take. These words reveal that what is about to take place has to do with nothing less than the restoration of humanity to the filial relationship with God that was enjoyed before the Fall. Jesus is the protagonist in this event, but Mary has a vital role also. By “dumbing down” the narrative to exclude the two problematic terms, the show actually empties the dialogue of the key theological message that St John wished to convey.
Not Mary’s Protestations but her Obedience
Another related difficulty with the way “The Chosen” presents this episode is the clear impression it creates that what convinced Jesus to perform the miracle was Mary’s insistence. By contrast, at Cana, we have a paradigmatic example of the kind of discipleship that Christ is seeking. Mary can have no idea what Jesus will do, but she still shows total trust in the efficacy of his word when she tells the servants to do whatever he tells them. It is no accident that these are the only words spoken by Mary in response to the enigmatic reply of Jesus.
As Francis J. Moloney remarks, she is the first person in the Gospel narrative to show that “the correct response to the person of Jesus is trust in his word” (Moloney, p68). This unconditional faith and trust is the “trigger” that leads to the miracle. The difficulty with “The Chosen” rendition of events is that Mary’s continued pleas are what leads to the miracle. This has no foundation in the Scriptural narrative. St John, instead, is presenting Mary to us as the New Eve, the “woman” of the Protoevangelium, who does not protest but obeys, in complete contrast to the original Eve.
Jesus was the Son of God and knew what he was about. When he turned up in Cana, it was with every intention of performing the sign and beginning the events that would culminate in his “hour”. Every detail and circumstance of that wedding were guided by the providence of God, but the Lord wanted the sign to be revealed in the right manner, in a manner that would constitute a holy reversal of the unholy sequence of events that led to the Fall. At the Fall, the woman distrusted and disobeyed, but an “offspring” was promised who would bring the dominion of death to an end. At Cana, the offspring of the woman is finally here. This time the woman trusts and obeys, prompting her Son to set in motion the events that would usher in the “hour” of restoration.
The Obedience of Faith
As per the original article, this might be a good place to make a distinction between two different uses of the term “faith”. Sometimes by “faith”, we refer to belief: that Jesus is Lord, that he has the power to work miracles, that he can change water into wine. But “faith” can also refer to adherence to God’s word, self-abandonment to his plan, absolute trust in his loving providence. It is this second type of faith that characterizes Abraham. This faith also believes that the Lord can do miracles, but the overriding characteristic is obedient trust in God’s word. The Syrophoenician woman demonstrates to Jesus the first type of faith when she asks him to heal her daughter. Jesus’ apparently rude reply challenges her to deepen the second kind of faith – adherence to the Lord even through difficulty.
The Mary of Scripture is a model of this more profound type of faith, and she manifests it again at Cana. She could not have known what Jesus was going to do, but she trusted – as she always did – that if we place ourselves in his hands and are obedient to his words, then everything will come good, even if things do not turn out as we would have originally wished. This attitude is lacking in the Mary of “The Chosen”. She is well-intentioned and wants to do good. She also has plenty of the first type of faith, but her repeated pleas make her appear lacking in the second. She does not display the attitude of one who is willing to bow before God’s word, come what may.
The New Eve is Mother of the Faithful
When Jesus refers to his mother as “woman” at Cana, he is inviting us to do some theological reflection and not simply interpret things in human terms. Remember, this is an unheard-of way for a son to address his mother. If we dumb down the narrative and ignore this problematic term, then we do not do justice to the word of God. Similarly, when Jesus once again refers to Mary as “woman” from the cross, he is not just sorting out his earthly affairs – arranging for someone to look after his mother when he is gone. Rather, he is making a statement about her identity and the attitude that a beloved disciple ought to cultivate towards her for his own spiritual benefit.
The Fathers of the Church and a constant stream of saints have taken this to point to a deeper reality that is relevant for each one of us. Jesus entrusts the beloved disciple to the “woman” who stands by the cross. The disciple obeys and “takes her to his home”, which is clearly what Jesus expects all faithful disciples to do in a spiritual sense. A short time later, Jesus’ side is pierced with a lance and outflows blood and water, a very significant sign for the Evangelist, the factuality of which he attests in a solemn way.
The original Eve was formed from the side of Adam. Here, the New Eve is present. She is Mother of the Church, the sacramental life of which is represented by the blood and water flowing from the side of Christ. Thus, just as the old Eve was formed from the side of Adam and she became mother of “all who live”, so we, the faithful, are formed from the side of Christ, and Mary acts as mother of “all who believe”.
Jesus, the New Adam, is our only redeemer, but he assigns a role to the Church and a role to his mother in restoring the supernatural life in our souls. If we stand with Mary at the foot of the cross, gazing on the “one whom they have pierced”, allowing ourselves to be nourished with the grace that flows from his side, we can be regenerated as children of God, spiritual offspring of the New Eve.
Please see also the author’s blog.
REFERENCES
Moloney, Francis J., The Gospel of John, Sacra Pagina 4, edited by Daniel J. Harrington, 1998.
Schnackenburg, Rudolf, The Gospel According to St John, 3 vols, 1968-1982.
Unger, Dominic J., “Patristic Interpretation of the Protoevangelium”, Marian Studies, Volume 12, Article 10, pp.111-164, 1961.
11 thoughts on “How Mary is the New Eve”
@EDWARD BENET [OCTOBER 15, AD2021 AT 8:06 AM]
Matthew [12:46-50; New Catholic Bible]
“46 While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brethren appeared. They were standing outside, wishing to speak with him. [ 47 Someone told him, “Behold, your mother and your brothers are standing outside. They want to speak with you.”] 48 But Jesus replied to that man, “Who is my mother? Who are my brethren?” 49 Then, pointing to his disciples, he said, “Behold, my mother and my brethren. 50 Whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother and sister and mother.”
Why did the Lord Jesus, instead of answering “Oh, my mother is here”, redirect the announcer’s attention to the audience, to the congregation, that is, the Church?
A similar situation regarding the Mother of Jesus Christ, or rather their mutual relationship after the wedding at Cana in Galilee:
[Luke 11:27-28; New Catholic Bible]:
27 While he was speaking, a woman in the crowd called out to him and said, “Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you!” 28 Jesus replied, “Blessed, rather, are those who hear the word of God and obey it!”
Once again, the attention of the announcer is being redirected. Why?
Either the Blessed Virgin is the New Eve, and the Lord Jesus is the New Adam, and then they are connected by the knot of holy matrimony, or we must stop talking about the New Adam and the New Eve. Almost 20 centuries have passed since the wedding at Cana in Galilee, and learned theologians have not been able to recognize the obvious consequence of comparing Our Lord and Our Lady to Adam and Eve in Paradise.
To close the topic:
Song of Solomon [Chapter 8; New Catholic Bible]:
“1 Oh, if only you were to me like a brother,
nursed at my mother’s breast.
Then if I met you out of doors,
I could kiss you
without people regarding me with scorn.
2 I would lead you
and bring you into the home of my mother.
There you would teach me to give you spiced wine to drink
and the juice of my pomegranates.”
Edward said [October 13, AD2021 at 4:53 AM]: “The Evangelist tells us that the next day Jesus did this. On the following day Jesus did that, etc. Eventually, we find that the sixth day is the wedding at Cana, which turns into a huge celebration and a very significant “sign”. The sixth day of Genesis was also a wedding, that of Adam and Eve. John has a theological motive in this arrangement. It would be a pity if we ignored it.”
The last three sentences, Edward, are worth their weight in gold. On the sixth day of creation in Paradise, the first Adam and the first Eve became, by the will of God the Father, marriage. God commanded them: be fruitful to populate the earth.
On the sixth day of the Redemption, New Adam and New Eve are present at the wedding at Cana in Galilee. Did they just come there for social purposes? The use of the word ‘woman’ by the Lord Jesus in relation to the Blessed Virgin means a change in their mutual relations. No longer ‘mother and son’, but from now on ‘man and woman’. John the Evangelist in his narrative subtly signaled the marriage between the New Adam and the New Eve. After all, God’s children cannot be bastards, but must have a Father and a Mother in a sacramental marriage. The Lord Jesus, transforming water into wine, acted like the groom, because in the Hebrew tradition the groom provides the drinks for the wedding. The host of the wedding, praising Nathanael for serving excellent wine, after everyone had drunk well, actually saw the beginning of another wedding, the wedding of the New Adam and the New Eve. According to Hebrew customs, the Lord Jesus took his wife to the house that He had prepared before [in Capernaum], and therefore his disciples asked Him, “Master, where are you [now] living?”
P.S.
Edward, thanks for the three sentences in your comment! Edward, thanks for the three sentences in your comment! But please, do not ignore this theological motive of Saint John the Theologian.
We must interpret Scripture with the mind of the Church, not according to our own whims or ideas. To read Scripture with the Church requires that we immerse ourselves in the writings of the early Fathers who were actually educated by the Apostles, and by paying attention to the activity of the Holy Spirit in preserving and handing on the correct interpretation through legitimate authority in the Church. Mary and Jesus are always mother and son. If we are to speak of a spousal relationship between Mary and a person of the Blessed Trinity, then we speak of her as spouse of the Holy Spirit, as the magisterium of the Church has always described her.
Mary is the Queen Mother, the new Eve, and the new Ark of the Covenant. All of this theology is overlooked by simplistic prots who don’t dig deep into scripture, but just take everything at a surface level.
The Chosen is produced by the Mormon Church, so it’s understandable that they missed this.
As Gabriel said (and only Catholics agree with), HAIL MARY! FULL OF GRACE!
Hi Ray,
I think The Chosen used a Mormon set for the city of Jerusalem. The Mormons cannot be considered Christian because they deny the doctrine of the Trinity, but The Chosen is not related to them apart from the use of the set. Dallas Jenkins himself is certainly Christian and, I believe, a very sincere and committed one.
Regards,
EB
The man Christ Jesus is the new Ark of the Covenant, “For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power” (Colossians 2:9-10). We are all arks of the Covenant when the Godhead abides in us through the Spirit of Christ within us.
Edward Benet: The Spirit of Truth also enables us to individually contribute to the mind of the Church and tradition. There is an interesting quote from Vatican II’s Dei Verbum 8 which states: “This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth.”
Pingback: VVEDNESDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
Probably should have just let this one go. Your adoration for Mary seems to got the best of you by reading vast amounts of theology into scripture that just isn’t that clear.
In the Chosen, rather than Mary looking like she was not exercising faith it could be seen as her helping a reluctant son realize or act on who he was. Maybe the Chosen was wrong to depict Jesus as weak. Other places the Chosen portrays the character of Jesus as waiting or being reluctant to act when other thought he should act sooner or more forcefully. In this case it is not just Mary but all the disciples that showed a lack of faith in the Savior. Why can’t we all just be on a learning journey. Not everything in the Chosen comports to my views of the New Testament either but I rarely see a movie that I thought was a good as the book. This does not constitute a huge theological crisis. Whether the Chosen’s portrayal of Mary is true in reality we don’t know – in fact we probably agree it wasn’t;t exactly like that. I’m just saying my interpretation of that scene is that Mary was being a good mother of her son who she knew was the Son of God. In the script (not Scriptures) the Jesus character says somewhat to himself and to his father that he is ready – at the request of his mother. If anything this portrays Jesus as reluctant and Mary as supporting his devine role.
Referring to the terms “hour” and “women” and appealing to a vast body of comments and interpretative work of the church “fathers” does not constitute an imperative to bring in the extra-scriptural doctrine of Mary as the new Eve. Rather than being a profound insight this seems like a long stretch to justify a previous opinion. I am respectful of your opinion but this theological essay goes too far to simply cover a previous opinion. You may be right – but everything is not included in scripture – in fact if everything Jesus did was written it would fill the whole Earth – which means you can’t prove everything Jesus or Mary did in the Holy Text. You are straining to prove a point that can’t be proven. Let’s agree to differ on this point and let it go.
Thank you for your comment Steve.
Catholics do not adore Mary but give her honour as the one God filled with grace to exercise a unique role (subservient to his Son) in salvation.
Apologies if I have forgotten a previous exchange between us, but you write as if I had written the article in order to “cover” or “justify” a previously expressed opinion of mine towards you. You ask that you and I agree to differ on a point and let it go, but I have no recollection of any exchange with you. This article was not written for that purpose, or with you in mind, sorry! It is hard to recollect particular comments, as on Facebook and other places there were literally hundreds of comments to the original article. Our website also received some direct messages, some of them of an offensive sort. This follow-up piece was written with the hope of clarifying a few issues. Evidently, I have had limited success, which comes down to my shortcomings as a writer.
Here goes again! This article was not written to justify a previously expressed opinion of mine. None of the theological views expressed in the article are original. I do not have an original bone in my body when it comes to the interpretation of Scripture. The views are the mind of the Church, first expressed in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, then continuously reflected on throughout the history of the Church and repeated in the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, which reflects on Mary’s role as the New Eve and the Mother of the Church, born from the side of Christ on the cross.
I have absolutely no personal investment in any of the views expressed and certainly was not writing the follow-up article to justify my own position. Like other contributors on Catholic Stand, the motive for writing this articles is to build up the Church by witnessing to what we believe. So there are no hard feeling between us Steve as far as I am concerned.
In Lumen Gentium (the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Vatican II) Mary is described as the New Eve in sections 60-65. The text is very careful to assert that Mary’s role is subservient to Christ. This document was voted on and approved by an ecumenical council of the Church. There were 2,156 bishops present that day from every corner of the world. 2,151 of them approved the wording of the text, including the discussion on Mary as New Eve and Mother of the Church, more or less the same discussion that is in my article. Hardly my opinion!
Pope Francis has just announced that he is going to make St Irenaeus a Doctor of the Church, the “Doctor of Unity”. Irenaeus should be a very uniting figure for Christians and Orthodox, for Catholics and Protestants, because he expresses the Apostolic teaching at a very early point in Church history and does so in a way that is very informative for our understanding of how the Church was organised from the beginning. He was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of St John the Evangelist. Irenaeus emphasized that Scripture must be interpreted in line with the teaching of the Apostles. Here is just one example of his writings, and he is describing Mary as the new Eve:
“Just as the former—that is, Eve—was seduced by the words of an angel so that she turned away from God by disobeying his word, so the latter—Mary— received the good news from an angel’s announcement in such a way as to give birth to God by obeying his word; and as the former was seduced so that she disobeyed God, the latter let herself be convinced to obey God, and so the Virgin Mary became the advocate of the virgin Eve. And as the human race was subjected to death by a virgin, it was liberated by a Virgin; a virgin’s disobedience was thus counterbalanced by a Virgin’s obedience…” (Adv. Haer., V, 19, 1).
Regarding your claim that I am stretching Scripture and investing it with theology that is “extra-Scriptural”, again, I am not doing anything original. It is well known that John’s Gospel is steeped in theology from start to finish, every single line. It is quite different to the other Gospels in this respect and bears all the hallmarks of being the work of a real mystic, the beloved disciple who was immersed in the Spirit.
The Gospel was written in Greek for a Church that had Greek as its main language at the time. John uses many literary devices in the text for theological motives. Some of this is lost or obscured in translation into English and other languages, but it was not lost on the early Church. That is why the writings of the early Fathers are so important for enriching our understanding of Scripture. To give just one example: John repeatedly arranges his narratives into what are known as “chiastic structures”. These are symmetrical structures in which the first sentence mirrors something in the last sentence of the narrative, the second sentence mirrors something in the second last, etc. This sometimes permits John to highlight the phrase that comes right in the middle of the structure, although at other times he has other motives in constructing these structures..
We can pooh-pooh the claims that John’s Gospel contains deep theology, but we do so out of ignorance, or from the fact that we are reading the Gospel in a different language in which some of the writer’s original intentions are less clear. Protestant biblical scholars like Martin Luther were adamant that we go back to the original languages to see better the original meaning of the texts. On the profound theology with which John’s Gospel is shot through, Catholic and protestant scholars are agreed. This is not “stretching” the Bible to get our own theology out of it. John intended us to probe the theological purposes behind his literary devices.
An example of a chiastic structure is Jesus cleansing the Temple in chapter 2 (see: http://www.bible.literarystructure.info/bible/43_John_pericope_e.html)
A (2:13) Jesus went up to Jerusalem (Ἱεροσόλυμα)
B (2:17) Disciples remember Old Testament (ἐμνήσθησαν)
C (2:18) Question of Jews (Ἰουδαῖοι)
D (2:19) Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up
C'(2:21) Question of Jews (Ἰουδαῖοι)
B'(2:22) Disciples remember Old Testament (ἐμνήσθησαν)
A’ (2:23) Jesus in Jerusalem for the feast of Passover (Ἱεροσολύμοις)
In this case, the structure is a beautiful literary device to highlight the importance of verse 2,19. Here the structure is fairly clear. In other passages, such as the multiplication of the loaves and Jesus’ discourse as the Bread of Life, the structure is less clear in English. But when we see the text in Greek, we find that the roots of some words (that appear different in English) are actually the same in Greek. Seen in this way, the Eucharistic elements of the multiplication of the loaves come more to the surface, but the English rendering loses this effect.
Apart from chiastic structures, John uses a whole host of other literary devices. He arranges the first part of the Gospel into a series of “days”, to reflect the days of creation in Genesis. The Evangelist tells us that the next day Jesus did this. On the following day Jesus did that, etc. Eventually, we find that the sixth day is the wedding at Cana, which turns into a huge celebration and a very significant “sign”. The sixth day of Genesis was also a wedding, that of Adam and Eve. John has a theological motive in this arrangement. It would be a pity if we ignored it.
The theology here is not our invention, but was invested into the telling of the narrative by the Evangelist, and he hopes that we will pursue it for our own spiritual benefit. Other theological devices of John are more transparent. “Woman” and “hour” are clear examples of key theological terms used by John. “Hour” occurs many times and always in reference to the passion, death and resurrection of Christ. “Woman” occurs only twice, but the manner in which the use of the term is connected on both occasions to the “hour”, left the Church Fathers (and a overwhelming stream of saints, spiritual writers and faithful) in no doubt as to the meaning intended by the Holy Spirit through John. My article was written, not to defend my own petty little position, but to uphold this long tradition of the Church and to honour Mary as her Son would wish. I have very positive views on “The Chosen” and have done as much as I can to promote it among my family and friends. I think the creators would welcome our constructive discussion on this episode.
A major difference between the original Adam and Eve and the new Adam and Eve is that the original ones were both human on the same level. The new Adam and Eve are not.
The new Adam is God incarnate in the flesh who is not the husband of the new Eve. She is not part of the Godhead as is her Son. Also, “the last Adam became a life-giving spirit” (1Corinthians 15:45). This is why Mary and the rest of us need to gaze upon her Son. This gaze is the type of faith that primarily constitutes a trust directly in the Son, in addition to an obedient trust in God’s word. Then we can become the adopted children of God the Father, and the brothers and sisters of His Son.