Why didn't God create Eve first?

[LucyLight]

I just looked in my brand new copy of the Summa Theologica (birthday present), and St Thomas says this:

“It was necessary for woman to be made, as the Scripture says, as a “helper” to man; not, indeed, as a helpmate in other works, as some say, since man can be more efficiently helped by another man in other works; but as a helper in the work of procreation.”

…and this:

"When all things were first formed, it was more suitable for the woman to be made from man that (for the female to be from the male) in other animals. First, in order thus to give the first man a certain dignity consisting in this, that as God is the principle of the whole universe, so the first man, in likeness to God, was the principle of the whole human race. Wherefore Paul says that “God made the whole human race from one” (Acts 17:26). Secondly, that man might love woman all the more, and cleave to her more closely, knowing her to be fashioned from himself. Hence it is written (Gn. 2:23,24): “She was taken out of man, wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife.” This was most necessary as regards the human race, in which the male and female live together for life; which is not the case with other animals. Thirdly, because, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. viii, 12), the human male and female are united, not only for generation, as with other animals, but also for the purpose of domestic life, in which each has his or her particular duty, and in which the man is the head of the woman. Wherefore it was suitable for the woman to be made out of man, as out of her principle. Fourthly, there is a sacramental reason for this. For by this is signified that the Church takes her origin from Christ. Wherefore the Apostle says (Eph. 5:32): “This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the Church.”

…and just in case that second quote sounds too sexist (which it’s not meant to be), St Thomas also says this:

“It was right for the woman to be made from a rib of man. First, to signify the social union of man and woman, for the woman should neither “use authority over man,” and so she was not made from his head; nor was it right for her to be subject to man’s contempt as his slave, and so she was not made from his feet. Secondly, for the sacramental signification; for from the side of Christ sleeping on the Cross the Sacraments flowed—namely, blood and water—on which the Church was established.”

It’s all under Question 92, at this link: ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.toc.html

Hope that helps.

Aquinas is a doctor of the church for good reason but not because of his Mariology or social teaching especially regarding women. He doesn’t always come to the right conclusions (e.g. the assumption,). He also said this, "The male sex is more noble than the female, and for this reason he [Jesus] took human nature in the male sex (Summa Theologiae III:31:4 ad 1).

So in defense of Aquinas we should stick to what he got right.

 

[snarflemike]

God created Eve first, but told her to make Adam think he was created first.

I heard she was out shopping for fig leafs, so Adam thought he was first.

I’ll probably regret that…

 

[kkollwitz]

The story of creation is a rising trend: from dirt, to plants, to animals, to Man, to Woman and then to Man and Woman being one flesh and naked together and not ashamed, i.e. making babies.

 

[LucyLight]

Right on! Also note 1 Corinthians 11:3.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 11:3[/BIBLEDRB]
Note though, that, as St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out, God never intended for women to be subject to men so much that they effectively become chattels or slaves, even though this has unfortunately occurred throughout history. Women are just as much members of the mystical Body of Christ as men, are equally loved by God, and will ultimately be judged on the same premises. Therefore, while feminism is certainly opposed to the Catholic faith, sexism is equally opposed to the Catholic faith.

God also intended husbands to be subject to their wives. JPII said this, “However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the “subjection” is not one-sided but mutual.”

Btw, feminism is the belief that women have equal value and dignity. Why would that be opposed to the Catholic faith? JPII called himself a feminist.

 

[ConstantineTG]

God actually created Eve first, it just took a long time for her to get ready

 

[AbideWithMe]

Couple of questions:

• Why didn’t God create Eve first? (As mother she could have given birth to Adam)
• What difference to subsequent theology would it have made if Eve was created first by God.

I’ve got some ideas of my own, but thought I;d just toss the question out first.

God wanted to work out the bugs first with Adam before launching His masterpiece, Eve.

 

[LucyLight]

and did he have male parts at first? or were they added after Eve?
there would have been no need before Eve right?


maybe a new thread…

Well if he was eatting I’m sure he needed to pee too

and rest?

Do you mean and the rest? Are you asking if Eve cause Adam to grow a pair? Well I would think that God would know what was coming next so Adam would of been well equipped. That’s just a guess.

 

[Nat682]

God also intended husbands to be subject to their wives. JPII said this, “However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the “subjection” is not one-sided but mutual.”

Neither should really be “subject” to the other in the typical sense. A husband and wife must truly love, honor, and respect each other. The husband is merely the head of the marriage, and the wife should, within reason, obey her husband. Since I am a musician, I am inclined to compare it to a section within an orchestra. The members of the section are not really “subject” to the principal (section leader) as they are to the conductor (who is analogous to God), and all members of the section need to respect and honor each other and work together in order for the music to sound good. However, the principal is definitely the leader of the section, and the other musicians in the section should, within reason, obey the principal. Also note that this theology was mostly abandoned around Vatican II, and JPII was likely speaking of the new, modernist doctrines that support a sort of egalitarian marriage.

Btw, feminism is the belief that women have equal value and dignity. Why would that be opposed to the Catholic faith? JPII called himself a feminist.

That may be what feminists believe or intend to believe, but the feminist movement really strives to place women on exactly equal grounds with men and give them all the same privileges as men. Feminists generally abhor the idea of the husband being the head of the marriage. When did JPII call himself a feminist? It seems odd that a “feminist” was Pope for 27 years and yet never allowed female ordination.

 

[LucyLight]

Neither should really be “subject” to the other in the typical sense. A husband and wife must truly love, honor, and respect each other. The husband is merely the head of the marriage, and the wife should, within reason, obey her husband. Since I am a musician, I am inclined to compare it to a section within an orchestra. The members of the section are not really “subject” to the principal (section leader) as they are to the conductor (who is analogous to God), and all members of the section need to respect and honor each other and work together in order for the music to sound good. However, the principal is definitely the leader of the section, and the other musicians in the section should, within reason, obey the principal. Also note that this theology was mostly abandoned around Vatican II, and JPII was likely speaking of the new, modernist doctrines that support a sort of egalitarian marriage.

JPII was not saying anything new.

That may be what feminists believe or intend to believe, but the feminist movement really strives to place women on exactly equal grounds with men and give them all the same privileges as men. Feminists generally abhor the idea of the husband being the head of the marriage. When did JPII call himself a feminist? It seems odd that a “feminist” was Pope for 27 years and yet never allowed female ordination.

Legally women should have the same rights and privleges as men. I’m a feminist and I don’t and have never had a problem with an all male priesthood. From what I understand women can’t attone for Adam’s sin. Even if the only reason given was because the Church says so, than I would also be fine with that.

This from the USCCB website:

"In the late 1990’s, the Vatican convened a conference on “Women’s Health and Human Rights.” During an audience with conference attendees Pope John Paul II proclaimed, to the surprise of his listeners, “Io son il Papa feminista,” “I am the feminist pope.”

usccbmedia.blogspot.com/2011/04/pope-john-paul-ii-feminist-pope.html

 

[Sair]

The Bible itself is clear on this. Man was created to glorify God. Woman was created to help man. Paul repeats this in 1 Cor.: man is the glory of God, and woman the glory of man.

So in other words, the answer is at best, sexism and at worst, misogyny…

But that’s only if you assume that the Biblical creation story is actual history rather than mythology made up by ancient tribal people who practised sexism (and misogyny, usually) as a matter of course.

 

[Sair]

God didn’t create “Eve” or “Adam” at all…

(Prepares self for flame war)

Genetically speaking, it appears that the most recent common female ancestor of all present humans existed something like 80,000 years before the first common male ancestor…gives an interesting slant to the Adam and Eve story!

 

[mgoforth]

Aquinas is a doctor of the church for good reason but not because of his Mariology or social teaching especially regarding women. He doesn’t always come to the right conclusions (e.g. the assumption,). He also said this, "The male sex is more noble than the female, and for this reason he [Jesus] took human nature in the male sex (Summa Theologiae III:31:4 ad 1).

So in defense of Aquinas we should stick to what he got right.

I’m sorry, but I have to disagree. According to Pope Leo XIII, he got everything right.

Quotes from the Encyclical Aeterni Patris, where Leo instructed all universities and seminaries to teach St Thomas’ philosophy as the basis of Catholic doctrine:

*“It is known that nearly all the founders and lawgivers of the religious orders commanded their members to study and religiously adhere to the teachings of St. Thomas, fearful least any of them should swerve even in the slightest degree from the footsteps of so great a man.”

“But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic Doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with sacred Scripture and the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration.”

“Let carefully selected teachers endeavor to implant the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas in the minds of students, and set forth clearly his solidity and excellence over others. Let the universities already founded or to be founded by you illustrate and defend this doctrine, and use it for the refutation of prevailing errors.”*

If you read something in the Summa Theologica that prompts an face, I’d encourage you to read it again with a different frame of mind…because it’s probably doesn’t mean whatever interpretation you’re giving it. I have to do that all the time…just like when reading Sacred Scripture, my first impression is often wrong and makes me too.

 

[Drinkgasoline]

Genetically speaking, it appears that the most recent common female ancestor of all present humans existed something like 80,000 years before the first common male ancestor…gives an interesting slant to the Adam and Eve story!

A far better interpretation than a man and a woman in the garden of eden, I should say.

 

[mgoforth]

Genetically speaking, it appears that the most recent common female ancestor of all present humans existed something like 80,000 years before the first common male ancestor…gives an interesting slant to the Adam and Eve story!

This is a popular attempt to “debunk” Adam and Eve, but there are quite a few problems with the logic:

1. 
   *]Science can’t make the claim that the “most recent common ancestors” are synonymous with the first humans, you’re misunderstanding what that term means. Consider this explanation of “most recent common ancestor” vs the “identical ancestors point”:
   

    *"Because ancestors of the MRCA are by definition also common ancestors, we can continue to find (less recent) common ancestors by pushing further back in time to more and more ancient common ancestors of all people alive today. Eventually we will reach a point in the past where all humans can be divided into two groups: those who left no descendants today and those who are common ancestors of all living humans today. This point in time is termed the identical ancestors point. Even though each living person receives genes in dramatically different proportions from these ancestors from the identical ancestors point, all living people share exactly the same set of ancestors from this point back, all the way to the very first single-celled organism."*

   *]Even the ancestors alive at the identical ancestors point may not be the first human couple. They may simply be the only great-grandchildren of Adam and Eve whose lineage survived all the way until the present time.
   
   *]Your argument assumes something about genetics that isn’t true - you assume that our genetic code is a permanent record of all our ancestors, which is not mathematically possible.
   

    *"Because of sexual reproduction, at every generation, an ancestor only passes half of his or her genes to the next generation. The percentage of genes inherited from the MRCA becomes smaller and smaller at every successive generation, as genes inherited from contemporaries of MRCA are interchanged via sexual reproduction.  As the human genome consists of roughly 23^2 base pairs, **the genetic contribution of a single ancestor through a single line may be flushed out of an individual's genome completely after 32 generations, or roughly 1,000 years.**"*

   Simply put, our genetics do not contain enough data to prove conclusively that Adam and Eve did or did not exist.
   
   *]And finally, what constitutes a “human”? That’s an extremely critical question that the genetic argument can’t answer either. We all have genes inherited from our distant ape ancestors, or even our more ancient fish ancestors. Even if we could trace one or two genes back to some exact individual we really have no way to know what that individuals full genetic profile was…so we can’t say that they were “fully human” or closer to a more ancient species.
   
   Both quotes above were taken from this page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_ancestors_point
   
   I don’t want to be uncharitable to you, but Catholics should be aware that this data proves nothing other than that we have common ancestors from different points in history. No more, no less. Trying to use this to disprove Adam and Eve is butchering science to fit the desired conclusion.

 

[LucyLight]

I’m sorry, but I have to disagree. According to Pope Leo XIII, he got everything right.

Quotes from the Encyclical Aeterni Patris, where Leo instructed all universities and seminaries to teach St Thomas’ philosophy as the basis of Catholic doctrine:

*“It is known that nearly all the founders and lawgivers of the religious orders commanded their members to study and religiously adhere to the teachings of St. Thomas, fearful least any of them should swerve even in the slightest degree from the footsteps of so great a man.”

“But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic Doctors*, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with sacred Scripture and the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration.”

“Let carefully selected teachers endeavor to implant the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas in the minds of students, and set forth clearly his solidity and excellence over others. Let the universities already founded or to be founded by you illustrate and defend this doctrine, and use it for the refutation of prevailing errors.”

If you read something in the Summa Theologica that prompts an face, I’d encourage you to read it again with a different frame of mind…because it’s probably doesn’t mean whatever interpretation you’re giving it. I have to do that all the time…just like when reading Sacred Scripture, my first impression is often wrong and makes me too.

No he didn’t. I don’t completely blame him for it though. His biology for example was wrong, but that’s understandable for that time period. And what about the assumption of Mary? Seminaries do teach him but they don’t teach everything that he said. I’m not going to go through and start listing things he got wrong, I don’t think we should approach it that way. Our church fathers look at many sources. They look to Aquinas for some things, but not everything. Like I said focus on what he got right.

 

[mgoforth]

And what about the assumption of Mary?

You keep mentioning the Assumption, but I’m unfamiliar with where St Thomas denied it…could you reference that for me?

I do find this in the Summa Theologica Part III, Question 27:

"I answer that, Nothing is handed down in the canonical Scriptures concerning the sanctification of the Blessed Mary as to her being sanctified in the womb; indeed, they do not even mention her birth. But as Augustine, in his tractate on the Assumption of the Virgin, argues with reason, since her body was assumed into heaven, and yet Scripture does not relate this; so it may be reasonably argued that she was sanctified in the womb. For it is reasonable to believe that she, who brought forth “the Only-Begotten of the Father full of grace and truth,” received greater privileges of grace than all others: hence we read (Lk. 1:28) that the angel addressed her in the words: “Hail full of grace!”

He says that Augustine “argues with reason” that Mary was assumed into heaven, and that he accepts this argument even though it can’t be backed up with Scripture…so how is that a denial?

Also the very same Apostolic Constitution that defined the dogma of the Assumption has this to say:

*“31. Following the footsteps of his distinguished teacher, the Angelic Doctor, despite the fact that he never dealt directly with this question, nevertheless, whenever he touched upon it, always held together with the Catholic Church, that Mary’s body had been assumed into heaven along with her soul.” * MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS

So can you provide me with a quote or reference to something Thomas wrote that contradicts these clear statements that he did believe in the Assumption?

Update: Also please see Summa Theologica Part III, Question 83, Article 5, Response 8:

“As Pope Sergius says, and it is to be found in the Decretals (De Consecr., dist. ii), “the Lord’s body is threefold; the part offered and put into the chalice signifies Christ’s risen body,” namely, Christ Himself, and the Blessed Virgin, and the other saints, if there be any, who are already in glory with their bodies.”

 

[LucyLight]

You keep mentioning the Assumption, but I’m unfamiliar with where St Thomas denied it…could you reference that for me?

I do find this in the Summa Theologica Part III, Question 27:

"I answer that, Nothing is handed down in the canonical Scriptures concerning the sanctification of the Blessed Mary as to her being sanctified in the womb; indeed, they do not even mention her birth. But as Augustine, in his tractate on the Assumption of the Virgin, argues with reason, since her body was assumed into heaven, and yet Scripture does not relate this; so it may be reasonably argued that she was sanctified in the womb. For it is reasonable to believe that she, who brought forth “the Only-Begotten of the Father full of grace and truth,” received greater privileges of grace than all others: hence we read (Lk. 1:28) that the angel addressed her in the words: “Hail full of grace!”

He says that Augustine “argues with reason” that Mary was assumed into heaven, and that he accepts this argument even though it can’t be backed up with Scripture…so how is that a denial?

Also the very same Apostolic Constitution that defined the dogma of the Assumption has this to say:

"31. Following the footsteps of his distinguished teacher, the Angelic Doctor, despite the fact that he never dealt directly with this question, nevertheless, whenever he touched upon it, always held together with the Catholic Church, that Mary’s body had been assumed into heaven along with her soul." MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS

So can you provide me with a quote or reference to something Thomas wrote that contradicts these clear statements that he did believe in the Assumption?

Update: Also please see Summa Theologica Part III, Question 83, Article 5, Response 8:

“As Pope Sergius says, and it is to be found in the Decretals (De Consecr., dist. ii), “the Lord’s body is threefold; the part offered and put into the chalice signifies Christ’s risen body,” namely, Christ Himself, and the Blessed Virgin, and the other saints, if there be any, who are already in glory with their bodies.”

(this deserves an eek face): I misspoke. Aquinas had trouble with the Immaculate Conception not the Assumption. He did not believe that Mary was sinless at the moment of her conception. He was of course wrong about this. Though he did believe that she was born sinless. I hope I didn’t send you on refrence hunt…sorry about that.

Anyways, Aquinas’ writting was not infalliable and not devine revelation like scripture.

 

[mgoforth]

(this deserves an eek face): I misspoke. Aquinas had trouble with the Immaculate Conception not the Assumption. He did not believe that Mary was sinless at the moment of her conception. He was of course wrong about this. Though he did believe that she was born sinless. I hope I didn’t send you on refrence hunt…sorry about that.

Anyways, Aquinas’ writting was not infalliable and not devine revelation like scripture.

Here’s what I find in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Immaculate Conception (emphasis mine):

“St. Thomas at first pronounced in favour of the doctrine in his treatise on the “Sentences” (in I. Sent. c. 44, q. I ad 3), yet in his “Summa Theologica” he concluded against it. Much discussion has arisen as to whether St. Thomas did or did not deny that the Blessed Virgin was immaculate at the instant of her animation, and learned books have been written to vindicate him from having actually drawn the negative conclusion. Yet it is hard to say that St. Thomas did not require an instant at least, after the animation of Mary, before her sanctification. His great difficulty appears to have arisen from the doubt as to how she could have been redeemed if she had not sinned. This difficulty he raised in no fewer than ten passages in his writings (see, e.g., Summa III:27:2, ad 2). But while St. Thomas thus held back from the essential point of the doctrine, he himself laid down the principles which, after they had been drawn together and worked out, enabled other minds to furnish the true solution of this difficulty from his own premises.”

I would agree with this interpretation - namely that he had nearly all of the doctrine correct, and only debated whether Mary was conceived without original sin at all, or was cleansed from original sin as soon as she was conceived. I’m not saying that is an insignificant point…but getting 99% of the answer right 600 years before it was defined as dogma is nothing to sneeze at. IMO, it doesn’t deserve an .

I stand by what I said, that essentially St Thomas got everything correct. When a pope writes an entire encyclical dedicated to saying the same thing, then it’s worthy of belief. I agree that he debated one issue of logic regarding the timing of the Immaculate Conception…but he didn’t even come close to denying it.

And getting back to the original point where we left the rails…when you said:

“The male sex is more noble than the female, and for this reason he [Jesus] took human nature in the male sex” (Summa Theologiae III:31:4 ad 1)

If we look at this particular quote, you’ve left out some very important context. First, look at the objection that Thomas was rebutting with the partial quote you posted:

“Objection 1. It would seem that the matter of Christ’s body should not have been taken from a woman. For the male sex is more noble than the female. But it was most suitable that Christ should assume that which is perfect in human nature. Therefore it seems that He should not have taken flesh from a woman but rather from man: just as Eve was formed from the rib of a man.”

That logic would deserve an . That’s saying a woman wasn’t fit to participate in the Incarnation in any way. In contrast, look at Thomas’ full rebuttal, adding back in the parts you omitted:

"The male sex is more noble than the female, and for this reason He took human nature in the male sex. But lest the female sex should be despised, it was fitting that He should take flesh of a woman. Hence Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xi): “Men, despise not yourselves: the Son of God became a man: despise not yourselves, women; the Son of God was born of a woman.”

And when I look at his full answer to the question, I can’t see anything that’s more “sexist” than the Church’s teaching that only men can be priests (which isn’t really sexist at all):

"Although the Son of God could have taken flesh from whatever matter He willed, it was nevertheless most becoming that He should take flesh from a woman. First because in this way the entire human nature was ennobled. Hence Augustine says (QQ. lxxxiii, qu. 11): “It was suitable that man’s liberation should be made manifest in both sexes. Consequently, since it behooved a man, being of the nobler sex, to assume, it was becoming that the liberation of the female sex should be manifested in that man being born of a woman.”

… I’m trimming the second paragraph to fit the 6000 character limit. Feel free to read it here …

Thirdly, because in this fashion the begetting of man is accomplished in every variety of manner. For the first man was made from the “slime of the earth,” without the concurrence of man or woman: Eve was made of man but not of woman: and other men are made from both man and woman. So that this fourth manner remained as it were proper to Christ, that He should be made of a woman without the concurrence of a man."

That’s full of compliments toward women, not hatred or sexism. He says the human race was ennobled by being born from women. The last sentence is especially telling. He’s saying it was fitting for the Son of God to take His human nature exclusively from a woman, and he calls Adam’s original substance “the slime of the earth”.

Men and women are not equal in nature or function…but we’re equal in worth and value to God. I don’t see anything in the full quotes that say otherwise. Put it this way…the angels are more noble than men or women, yet they serve, guide and protect us because all humans are infinitely valuable to God. Their nature is far better than ours, but they largely exist for our benefit.

 

[LucyLight]

This from ewtn website sums it up well."**The Church recommends St. Thomas as the “Common Doctor” of the Church for all Catholic schools of thought. This does not apply where his doctrine is not the explicit teaching of the church." **

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=352125&language=en

Again, I don’t blame Aquinas for getting some things wrong, but it is true that in the Summa he did not believe in the Immaculate Conception though he does come close.The key word is conception. He said this:

But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb. [Summa theologiae IIIa, q. 27, a. 2, ad 2]

Consequently, though the parents of the Blessed Virgin were cleansed from original sin, nevertheless she contracted original sin, since she was conceived by way of fleshly concupiscence and the intercourse of man and woman: for Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): “All flesh born of carnal intercourse is sinful.” (Summa theologiae IIIa, q. 27 reply to objection 4)

Although I do think that later on in his life he did come to believe in it.

As regards to women he may of been better than Aristotle but he held that women are subject to men because of their inferior reasoning.

But man is yet further ordered to a still nobler vital action, and that is intellectual operation. Therefore there was greater reason for the distinction of these two forces in man; so that the female should be produced separately from the male;

Subjection is twofold. One is servile, by virtue of which a superior makes use of a subject for his own benefit; and this kind of subjection began after sin. There is another kind of subjection which is called economic or civil, whereby the superior makes use of his subjects for their own benefit and good; and this kind of subjection existed even before sin. For good order would have been wanting in the human family if some were not governed by others wiser than themselves.** So by such a kind of subjection woman is naturally subject to man, because in man the discretion of reason predominates**. Nor is inequality among men excluded by the state of innocence, as we shall prove (Q[96], A[3]). I q.92 a.1 reply 2

Now the reliability of a person’s evidence is weakened, sometimes indeed on account of some fault of his, as in the case of unbelievers and persons of evil repute, as well as those who are guilty of a public crime and who are not allowed even to accuse; sometimes, without any fault on his part, and this owing either to a defect in the reason, as in the case of children, imbeciles and women II-II q.70 a.3

Here’s more of his views on ensoulment.

catholic.com/quickquestions/did-st-thomas-aquinas-believe-ensoulment-occurred-40-or-80-days-after-conception-maki

Like I said he is a doctor of the church for good reason, but not everything in the Summa is correct.

 

[kbf1970060]

Quite a bit was created before Adam: like a big mess.