St. John Chrysostom on Mary...

A little time out from Ash Wednesday madness for some Patristic study:

I have often wondered about what "St. John Chrysostom Really Said..." about the Blessed Virgin Mother. In historical theology classes at Nashotah House, it was said that he argued that since Mary had presented herself in the Temple for purification, the birth had occurred naturally, and hence a broken hymen. In recent days this has come up on Canterbury Tales in a discussion of the Marian teachings of St. Ambrose of Milan, specifically in the comments to St. John Chrysostom. The question was asked whether he taught Marian sinlessness or no, which though not directly related to the question of perpetual virginity in the East is certainly directly connected in the West. So, I decided to check for myself.

And when he had taken her, "he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son." He hath here used the word "till," not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, "till"? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, "The raven returned not till the earth was dried up." And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, "From age until age Thou art," not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, "In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away," it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word "till," to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference. Thus, what it was necessary for thee to learn of Him, this He Himself hath said; that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth; but that which both was seen to be a consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn he leaves for thee to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having so become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail, and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her. For if he had known her, and had kept her in the place of a wife, how is it that our Lord commits her, as unprotected, and having no one, to His disciple, and commands him to take her to his own home?

How then, one may say, are James and the others called His brethren? In the same kind of way as Joseph himself was supposed to be husband of Mary. For many were the veils provided, that the birth, being such as it was, might be for a time screened. Wherefore even John so called them, saying, "For neither did His brethren believe in Him."

Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew, Homily V

But, of course, this says nothing of perpetual physical virginity. Of course, this is not really what is at issue, for the Church Fathers are concerned that the mystery of Mary's identity as Mother and Virgin be maintained. This is clear from Chrysostom, as well as Augustine, who writes that Mary "remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin." (Homilies 186, 1: PL 38, 999). The Fathers certainly disagree on the question, but it is not what is at issue. They desire rather, to uphold her virginity has a model of sanctity, refusing to speculate upon the mystery. They are, however, quite ready to defend her from any imputation of guilt, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Augustine included.

Chrysostom says later, in a discourse on Matthew 12:46-49, that Jesus in his saying "who is my mother, and my brethren" is correcting their vanity. He does not say that he denies his mother, or is ashamed of her, but rather this: that he desires to point out that her honor comes not from the virtues of being His mother, but rather from the virtues of doing the will of God. However, he points far more to the vanity of his brothers than to that of his mother.

Chrysostom's homily on the Wedding Feast at Cana (John Chapter 2) shows us even more. He wishes to show the balance between Jesus' adherence to the Fifth Commandment and his place as Lord, worthy of obedience himself. He states:

"To prove that He greatly respected His mother, hear Luke relate how He was “subject to” His parents ( Luke ii. 51 ), and our own Evangelist declare how He had forethought for her at the very season of the Crucifixion. For where parents cause no impediment or hindrance in things belonging to God, it is our bounden duty to give way to them, and there is great danger in not doing so; but when they require anything unseasonably, and cause hindrance in any spiritual matter, it is unsafe to obey. And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere, “Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?” ( Matt. xii. 48 ), because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped Him. This then was the reason why He answered as He did on that occasion.

It is certainly a delicate balance, and one which he shows to have been the task of the Evangelist. Thus, we must likewise refuse to infer any guilt upon her. Chrysostom thus compares Jesus to a doctor who goes into a house full of the sick and is directed by his mother. He receives no honor from them, but is rather deemed ordinary and suspicious. Again, Chrysostom hopes to point out that it is first and foremost obedience to divine command that makes Mary holy. He takes this as an occasion to point out a lack of eternal value in kinship, and the surpassing value of obedience.

Thus, I think it is plainly clear that although Chrysostom's understanding of the Blessed Mother is not developed to the point of modern dogma (which one would hardly expect) - the trajectory is certainly plain. He does not use the Scriptures to plead for sinfulness in the Mother of God, even in the most obvious sources, which Protestant authors are quick to utilize. Luther would not go this far, and neither would Calvin. So, the challenge must be made to those who claim that the Church Fathers say otherwise - prove it!