Why is Mary Called "Mediatrix" in Eastern Orthodox Theology?

Theological Letters

This question came to me from an Orthodox convert, who has reached out to me before. “Margot” had noticed a reference in the Orthodox liturgy to Mary, the Theotokos, as “mediatrix.”¹ This title struck “Margot” as strange, and she had been told, by a seemingly trustworthy individual, that there is no Greek equivalent for “mediatrix,” making the term all the more troubling. The following is my effort to illuminate the term and its meaning. Please subscribe and support my work.

Dear “Margot,”

My apologies for the delayed reply. I’ve been traveling and speaking all week. Today is my day to dig my way out of unanswered messages. 

FYI: You can find my recent trio of talks on the Ancient Faith website. I warn you that they’re long. But in case you’re interested, here’s the link: https://www.ancientfaith.com/specials/reaching_the_nones_and_dones

In answer to your question, I haven’t spent much time on the “mediatrix” verbiage in the prayers or the hymnody. Without hearing more of the particulars about what concerns you about this language, I cannot address specifics. Nonetheless, I’ll offer some general thoughts.

Simply guessing, I anticipate that there are some protestant presumptions sitting in the background of your uneasiness. For example, Christ is the only “mediator” between God and man (1 Tim 2:5), so the application of the term “mediatrix” to the Theotokos is contrary to Scripture. I’m also guessing that there are other protestant presumptions about the gospel and what was accomplished by Christ on the cross; hence, the mediator language here applied to Christ is read through a lens of penal substitutionary atonement, which makes the term all the more problematic when applied to the Theotokos.

If I’m right about this, I would first correct these faulty presumptions. Penal substitution is not espoused by the Eastern fathers. As for how the Eastern fathers understand Christ’s unique role as mediator (mesitēs), to which Paul refers in his first epistle to Timothy, they tie it to the Incarnation. That is to say, Christ is the one who joins humanity with divinity in order that we might partake of the divine nature.² A quote from Chrysostom should suffice:

Now a mediator ought to have communion with both parties, between whom he is to mediate. For this is the property of a mediator, to be in close communion with each of those whose mediator he is. For he would be no longer a mediator, if he were connected with one but separated from the other. If therefore he partakes not of the nature of the Father, he is not a mediator, but is separated. For as he partakes of the nature of men, because he came to men, so he is partaker of the nature of God, because he came from God. Because he was to mediate between two natures, he must approximate to the two natures; for as the place situated between two others is joined to each place, so must that between natures be joined to either nature. As therefore he became man, so was he also God. A man could not have become a mediator, because he must also plead with God. God could not have been mediator, since those could not receive him, toward those he should have mediated. (Hom. in 1 Tim. 7; also Hom. in Phil. 7)

What we see here in Chrysostom is that Christ is the mediator between God and man because he unites the two natures to one another in his person in the Incarnation. Clearly this can be said of no one but Christ, and none of the Eastern fathers, nor Eastern Orthodox hymnody, nor its prayers contradict the point. 

Now, the question is why, then, the term “mediatrix” is applied to the Theotokos? As a preliminary aside, this translation may be more common in the translations used by the Antiochians — hence your encounters with the term. I don’t recall hearing it in my OCA parish. It may be there, but it has not stood out to me if it is. Nonetheless, I’ll engage the question.

Let me first say that I’m unsure why it would be relevant whether there is a Greek equivalent for the word “mediatrix.” As far as I understand it, the word “mediatrix” simply means a female intercessor. The only reason to find this ascription troubling is if one presumes that what is being said of the Theotokos is the same thing said of Christ in 1 Tim 2:5. But why presume this?

As noted above, the Eastern fathers interpret 1 Tim 2:5 as referring to Christ’s two natures united in his one person, a union that makes possible our healing and deification. I know of nothing in the fathers, the liturgy, the prayers, or any other Orthodox text that would lead me to think the same is ever ascribed to Mary.

What the liturgy, prayers, and the fathers do say is that the Theotokos is the gate of Ezekiel, through whom the Son of God entered the world; that she is the ladder that Jacob saw, on which the Son descended to the earth; that she is the ark that carried the Word of God, and so on. The Theotokos is also recognized to have great influence on her Son, as demonstrated at the wedding of Cana (see, e.g., Cyril of Alexandria, Jo. 2.5; and Chrysostom, Hom. in Jo. 22), which is then reflected in prayers that ask for her to intercede on our behalf with her son (e.g., Andrew of Crete’s Canon of Repentance) and illustrated in certain icons. These, I think, form the more likely backdrop of the intent of the references to her as mediatrix.

Second, the worry seems to reflect a very rigid view of language. In other words, a word can have only one possible meaning, and once that meaning is designated, it’s semantic range is definitively narrowed. I’ve explained to you before, in a previous correspondence, that the Eastern fathers do not share this narrow view of language. 

Two quick examples should illustrate the point. The first is that the Arian dispute is famously a dispute over whether the persons of the Trinity are homoousia (same nature) or homoiousia (alike in nature). Though these terms would come to be used with some level of rigidity, this rigidity was for the sake of clarity — On which side of the dispute do you stand? — not because the terms themselves are rigid. Basil of Caesarea is quite clear, post-Nicea, that he has no objection to the term homoiousia. After all, we often say that two things are “alike” and mean that they are the same type of thing. He only forfeits the word because of Arian connotations, not because the word cannot be used in an Orthodox sense. A second example is the language of three hypostases and one ousia. While the disputes following Nicea refined the meanings of these terms, such that hypostasis means an individual subject and ousia indicates the nature of that subject, this is not the pre-Constantinople meaning of these words. Prior to Constantinople, these terms were interchangeable and much broader in scope. Hypostasis could be used to refer to the individual subject, to the subject’s nature, or the genus of the subject — and the same is true of ousia. Again, the Cappadocians narrowed the meaning of the terms for the sake of clarity, not because the language is naturally rigid (see my essay, “The Metaphysical Idealism of the Eastern Church Fathers,” section III). I could also point you to my article on the “immortality” of the soul to further illustrate the range of meanings for the words “mortal” and “immortal” in Greek.

While Christ’s role as mediator is unquestionably unique — reconciling humanity with divinity by uniting these in his person — the term “mediator” has never been narrowed to indicate only that role.