Why didn't God make Mary the first Eve?

  • Thread starter Thread starter savedbychrist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

savedbychrist

Guest
If Eve without original sin and concupiscence chose to commit sin, and Mary chose not to, why did God make Mary second Eve instead of first? If Mary was the first Eve instead, original sin would never enter the world, and all these miseries of sin, death and suffering wouldn’t happen at all.
 
Ask God that question when you get to heaven. We are not God but mere creations of God so how would we know the answer? Making a thread like this and investing time on discussing about something only an omnipotent being like God knows is pointless! God created each of us with free will. Both Eve and Mary had the freedom to choose between good and evil. The former chose pride and disobedience, the latter chose humility and obedience. We all know the eternal consequences of each of their actions and we should learn from their stories so that we can be people worthy to be called children of God. That is all there is to it. No need wasting time on hypothetical ifs and if nots.
 
Last edited:
God didn’t create humans to be His puppets. He gave us free will and created us out of love. God doesn’t need us in way of necessity, He created us to share His love. True love wants to be shared with others.

Even Eve, who was in Heaven before Original Sin, had free will. Eve could choose.
Mary’s role is being Mother of God, Jesus Christ second person of Holy Trinity. Mary also had free will and had could choose.
Every human can choose to sin or not to sin.

Jesus reconciled us with Father, won over death, sin and Devil and opened gates of Heaven for us.
 
… original sin would never enter the world, and all these miseries of sin, death and suffering wouldn’t happen at all.
The sin of Adam, as the first man, became the sin of all his descendants.

Catechism
402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. …

416 By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.

389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ,263 knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.
 
Last edited:
Humans did not have the beatific vision yet. God makes us very good…we sinned and shirked our birthright…and what does God do? He sacrifices himself and then gives us a chance to attain an even greater reality of living. The Beatific Vision. That’s why, its exactly like the prodigal son.
 
Last edited:
If Mary was the first Eve instead, original sin would never enter the world, and all these miseries of sin, death and suffering wouldn’t happen at all.
I don’t buy your suggestion that “if Eve (or Mary-as-Eve) didn’t sin, then no one ever would have sinned.” What would have kept the children of Mary-as-first-Eve from sinning, though?

The question you’re really asking is “why didn’t God make all humans from sinning?”

The answer, I think, is that God doesn’t make us do anything – He gives us free will, and asks us to use it in the pursuit of goodness and love.
 
Last edited:
I wrote this a couple years ago and thought it might be of use here…

As Christians we speak and profess of the virgin Mary’s “yes”, as one of the most joyous events in our lives and rightfully so as it is certainly a pivotal point in our faith. Without her “yes” our Lord Jesus Christ would not have been born - or would He? Mary’s “yes” shows us how our cooperation with the Holy Spirit is the means in which God’s will is done and is a mirror for our own “yes” to God’s call in the things he ask of us.

The first step is to acknowledge the reality of Mary having free will, as we do, to have said “no”. This acknowledgement is what makes her “yes” so wonderful and special. If she could not have been able to say “no”, her “yes” becomes less wonderful or robotic and detaches her from her humanity. Im not sure many people can accept this thought of Mary not saying “yes”. Since the church teaches, and we profess, she is the immaculate conception, this may bring some to conclude she was incapable of saying “no” and I think this conclusion may cloud the issue for those that hold this view. If ultimately Mary did not have free will to have been able to say “no” this writing can end here and any further assertions would be frivolous.

Next, if Mary had said ”no” we know this does not in any way change God’s sovereign plan for the salvation of humanity as God is omnipotent and omniscient. ccc 268-278

Now if God’s plan for salvation is/was inevitable and Mary could have said “no” it is reasonable to conclude, going forward, God would simply accept Mary’s “no” and moved on as this is what God does with us when we fail to do His will. Jesus calls all of us to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect but understands when we are not and His plan moves on even when we are not perfect. For God to “move on” from here would simply be for God to generate another immaculate conception and wait for her to say “yes”. If yes, He sees His plan being fulfilled, if “no” He generates yet another immaculate conception and so on.

From this point it would be reasonable to conclude that God’s plan could have been in play from a much earlier time than the current or orthodox immaculate conception as we know it, noting once Mary said her “yes” there would be no need from that point forward to continue generating another immaculate conception. So now let us consider from that point backwards. If Mary could have said “no” and God’s plan is inevitable, and moving forward He could/would have generated another immaculate conception, it is reasonable to conclude there could have been previous or proto-immaculate conception - resulting in previous “no’s”.

Food for thoughts…
Peace!!!
 
What would have kept the children of Mary-as-first-Eve from sinning, though?
That would make Eden a tougher place for humans:

If Eve gave Adam the fruit and they ate it, we all are forever doomed (unless the Son comes save us, which concupiscence would still bother us the whole life).

If Eve didn’t give Adam the fruit and they didn’t eat it, we’re “temporarily” not doomed. Say new new-Abel didn’t eat it as well, but the new-Cain ate the fruit, will we still be doomed?

If the original sin would kill us all, shouldn’t the original virtue (if temptation was resisted) save us all as well? It isn’t really fair if Adam and Eve’s choice of death will inherit to us, but their hypothetical choice of life will not, and we all have to face that tree again.
 
Last edited:
If Eve didn’t give Adam the fruit and they didn’t eat it, we’re “temporarily” not doomed. Say new new-Abel didn’t eat it as well, but the new-Cain ate the fruit, will we still be doomed?
If all subsequent humans were to descend through Cain? Yes.
If the original sin would kill us all, shouldn’t the original virtue (if temptation was resisted) save us all as well?
No. Prior virtue, followed by subsequent sin, doesn’t save. Take a look at Ezekiel 33:
The justice of the just will not save them on the day they sin; the wickedness of the wicked will not bring about their downfall on the day they turn from their wickedness. No, the just cannot save their lives on the day they sin. Even though I say to the just that they shall surely live, if they, relying on their justice, do wrong, none of their just deeds shall be remembered; because of the wrong they have done, they shall die.

And though I say to the wicked that they shall die, if they turn away from sin and do what is just and right—returning pledges, restoring stolen goods, walking by statutes that bring life, doing nothing wrong—they shall surely live; they shall not die. None of the sins they committed shall be remembered against them. If they do what is right and just, they shall surely live.

Your people say, “The way of the LORD is not fair!” But it is their way that is not fair. When the just turn away from justice and do wrong, they shall die for it. When the wicked turn away from wickedness and do what is right and just, because of this they shall live.
It isn’t really fair if Adam and Eve’s choice of death will inherit to us, but their hypothetical choice of life will not, and we all have to face that tree again.
Sure, it’s fair! Choices have consequences – not only for us, but for those who are affected by our choices.

Not sure what you’re comparing, anyway: it’s unfair that we face the consequences of the choices they made, but not the consequences of the choices they didn’t make?!? Not sure how that makes sense…
 
If the original sin would kill us all, shouldn’t the original virtue (if temptation was resisted) save us all as well? It isn’t really fair if Adam and Eve’s choice of death will inherit to us, but their hypothetical choice of life will not, and we all have to face that tree again.
In a list of the unfair things in this world, surely a loving parent suffering and dying because His naughty children couldn’t resist eating a piece of fruit would be close to the top.

If you are baptized you are already free of the original sin that Adam and Eve tainted your bloodline with. The virtue of the new Mary and the sacrifice of the new Adam won that for you. Mary’s choice of life is your inheritance.
 
why did God make Mary second Eve instead of first?
By extension, you could ask that same question as to why Jesus is the second Adam and not the first. Because without Adam’s sin, we wouldn’t need a second Adam, or a second Eve. And as someone mentioned, original sin entered the world through the sin of Adam.
 
Well… except that Eve had preternatural gifts, so we’d expect that she’d have been able to grasp that her act was sinful, even without the benefit of ‘hindsight’…
 
And Eve and Adam walked and talked with God Himself in the evenings. They didn’t have to rely on a written or spoken Word; they had the presence of God Himself. And yet they sinned.
 
John Chrysostom talks about this a little bit in his work “Three Homilies on the Devil”.

I can try to synthesize what is relevant to your statement from those works.

Adam, though in paradise and without any form of misery, fell into temptation and sin - thus is mankind. But God who would ultimately forsee such an occasion used it to mankind’s advantage. Thus we next view Job, who was just before God.

Job, who had many miseries and suffered much, did not fall to the temptations of the devil where Adam and Eve did. How could it be then that Job who suffered greatly did not fall but Eve who didn’t have any manner of sin before the fall did?

Job was diligent. Chrysostom calls the reason for mankind’s fall to be “sloth” - a lack of diligence.

And how then did God turn man’s failure into his success? Let us look at those terrible sinners of the scripture and lets consider their ways.

Look at Jacob who stole his brother’s blessing, who when God asked him “who are you” he did not lie as he did to his father Isaac, but said “I am Jacob” and he wrestled with God - and God blessed him.

And when Judah sinned by sleeping with Tamar, he suffered great shame. But then he was the one, who, in front of Joseph, took responsibility for Benjamin’s (fake) theft. And of all of Joseph’s brothers, Judah was the only one to do such a thing - that was enough for Joseph to reveal himself to his brothers and to reunite his family. But a greater blessing was achieved! For it is out of Judah that the kings of Israel came - and it is none other than Jesus Christ who comes from the tribe of Judah.

Surely there is more, for look at the two disciples of Christ - Peter and Judas. Both sinned terribly, yet both had vastly different endings. Judas gave up Christ, but Peter denied him. Judas sold his brother Jesus just as Judah sold his brother Joseph, but Judas failed to grow. Peter cursed the name of Jesus in front of a crowd and Jesus made him a great apostle [EDIT: because Peter had clung to Christ and repented of his evil and told Jesus "You know I love (phileo) you].

What of Paul whose original name was Saul? He hunted the brethren. Such a list would only need this name because as he himself stated “among sinners, I am the chief” (but I give many examples so that you have hope). But Jesus, in his amazing grace, called him and so Saul of Tarsus, became Paul (meaning: “The littlest one”). And Paul, the chief of sinners, went on to give us 2/3rds of our New Testament.

And so by all of these examples, God shows us not to fear or worry, but to diligently hope and work out our salvation because his love is endless and desires that we grow.
 
Last edited:
Are you saying St Mary never sinned?

That’s a huge assumption to make of any human.
 
I am actually fairly certain that it is a dogma of the Roman Catholic church that we must all believe that Mary didn’t sin as part of our salvation.
 
But there is no scripture in the Bible regarding Blessed Mary as a child. So she never sinned as a child?
 
As a Catholic if the church teaches St Mary never sinned. Then that’s what I shall think also.

Thank you
 
If it makes you feel any better, and if my memory doesnt fail me, no one in the Magisterium was particularly fond of the ex-cathedra statements about Mary when they first occurred because they knew it couldnt be defended biblically.

Why the pope at the time did it somewhat confuses me, but it’s not something I particularly care enough about to be called a heretic and it isnt so terrible for me to accept it so long as I properly understand salvation overall.
 
If the original sin would kill us all, shouldn’t the original virtue (if temptation was resisted) save us all as well? It isn’t really fair if Adam and Eve’s choice of death will inherit to us, but their hypothetical choice of life will not, and we all have to face that tree again.
We receive the “original virtue” at Baptism. That still does not guarantee that we will continue to walk virtuously, and be saved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top