Woman, God’s Ultimate Creation

Paul and the prophets like to compare Adam and Christ. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. Christ is the New Adam.

If Christ is the New Adam, Christians have wondered, then who is the New Eve? Catholics have traditionally answered Mary. Some of the early Church Fathers, I am given to understand, answered Mary Magdalene, presumably because they thought she was Christ’s wife.

A few days ago my lovely one made an insightful connection between Adam and Christ.


And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man


But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water

Both Adam and Christ were wounded in their sides. Out of Adam’s side came the old Eve. Out of the Lord’s side came the blood in which we are born again.

We are the New Eve. Bride of Christ, blood of the Lamb, flesh of His flesh.

What He has joined together, let no man put asunder.

Cross-posted at the Junior Ganymede.

14 thoughts on “Woman, God’s Ultimate Creation

  1. hmmmm… as Eve was was the one who prompted Adam to use his agency and Fall, we are the ones whose actions prompted Christ to use his agency and Atone?

  2. Pingback: Woman, God’s Ultimate Creation | Junior Ganymede

  3. Curious, then we should be praised as Eve (in the LDS tradition at least) for being the reason for Christ to undergo and suffer through the most amazing event in all of eternity. I’m not sure I’m comfortable with that thought, but I love it at the same time.

    Our errors paved the way for the most merciful act in eternal history.

    It’s a different way to view the concept of sin and transgression. But it does not celebrate sin and transgression in itself, only if those sins are turned away from through the power of the atonment through repentence; otherwise our sins persist, and Christ’s atonement was to no avail. Reminds me of the repentant soul which the angels rejoice over more than the 99 in need of no repetance.

  4. No early church fathers thought Mary Magdalene was the new Eve and no one thought she was the wife of Jesus.

    The problem of Eve in the Adam-Christ parallel is actually the subject of an excellent new book, Benjamin Dunning, Specters of Paul.

  5. From Wikipedia:

    “The theory stems from writings such as in the Gospel of Philip, where Mary Magdalene is referred to as Jesus’ “companion”, which can be interpreted as ‘spouse’ in that period’s dialect. There is no factual evidence to support either claim.”

  6. Not that this is really all that crucial to the point Adam wants to make here, since I am just clarifying something, but the status of Mary Magdalene in GPhil is pretty ambiguous. The text certainly thinks that there is a close relationship, but the precise nature of that relationship is not clear. Certainly the text never says they were married, despite talking about marriage a good deal. There are two different terms, one Coptic and one Greek, that are translated as “companion” to describe MM’s relationship to the Savior. The first means “twin” and the second means “partner.” Neither means spouse in any straightforward way, and the suggestion that it is a dialectical idiom to call a spouse a “companion” is just speculation. Other texts, like the Gospel of Mary Magdalene also see MM as an especially beloved figure for Jesus (not to mention the canonical post-resurrection appearance in John), but this special status is as a prophetic teacher, not a spouse. So, seeing MM as important to Jesus is not necessarily a claim that they were married in other texts. I fully agree that MM is an important figure in GPhil, as is Mary his mother, who is called Sophia, but see no reason to think that the text believed them to be married.
    Even the precise meaning and valuation of “marriage” in GPhil is ambiguous. http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2008/10/the-bridal-chamber/

    In any case, no text says that MM was a kind of Eve, and certainly not because they were supposedly married.

  7. Adam,
    If you really are interested in this issue, I highly recommend Dunning’s book. He points out how the problem of the lack of an Eve figure in the Adam-Christ typology of Paul creates a problem for thinking about gender and salvation. Your own play with gender here, figuring all humans as symbolic females in a sexual relationship with the male Christ, is an interesting suggestion.

Comments are closed.