Guest Post by Max Graham
Recently, I had the pleasure of reading a section of Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae. In this particular passage, Aquinas takes up the task of explaining why it was fitting for God to have made Eve out of one of Adam’s rib.
Now, to tell the truth, I wasn’t completely sold on how Aquinas defended his position. That’s not to say I disagreed with his conclusion; rather, I just didn’t think the specific arguments he lines up to support that conclusion do the job. However, I thoroughly enjoy Aquinas’ style of writing – usually referred to as a Medieval Scholastic disputatio[1]. So I thought it would be fun to try and improve on Aquinas’ arguments while doing so in a “Thomas-like” voice and style.
What is featured below is only my re-write of Aquinas’ respondeo section. I encourage you to read both the starting objections as well as Aquinas’ original answers here.
On the contrary, It is written: “And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man”[2] and “Then the man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man'”[3].
I answer that, it was right that woman was made out of Adam’s rib. Adam was the Alpha to Eve’s Omega. He was the forming to Eve’s filling out of creation. It is appropriate that Adam (as structure) gave his “bones” to Eve. The first will be glorified by the last. Just like the tabernacle gave the rudimentary form to God’s dwelling place, the temple then took that form and expanded it to greater proportions and greater glory. The temple in no way shamed the tabernacle for being more glorious, but rather shined glory back at it, just as Solomon shined glory back to his father David, and (even more related to this topic) just as the wife glorifies the husband.
Reply to Objection 1. There are not only two ways for a large thing to come from a small thing. For God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing[4], which would neither be addition nor rarefaction of pre-existing matter. Therefore, God could have created a woman from a small rib. It is in the glory and the pattern of God to make things which were not, just as He made righteous sons out of those who were worthless rebels without an ounce of righteousness of their own.
Reply to Objection 2. First, it is not strictly true that a rib could not be removed without pain. Anesthetics can take away the pain. These anesthetics act much like a deep sleep, and so the deep sleep that God puts Adam into might have been pointing to a similar effect.
Second, even if it is admitted that Adam felt pain when God took a rib from his side, it is not true to say that there was no pain before sin. Scripture only says that death came through sin[5], and we wrongly jump to the hasty conclusion that there was therefore no pain. We also take the passage saying “To the woman he said, ‘I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain, you shall bring forth children'” to mean that God introduced pain here. But this passage, by its wording, seems to imply the opposite – i.e. that pain increased rather than appeared for the first time, for it says that Eve’s pain will “multiply”. In order for pain to multiply, there would have to be pain there in the first place.
Third, the Bible speaks of pain like it speaks of death. Scripture says that death will come from eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, similar to how it says pain came from God’s curse after Adam and Eve had eaten of the fruit. But this situation regarding death was not what we might first suppose. God said that Adam would die if he ate of the fruit. But Adam did not receive a physical death once he ate. The physical death that occurred was one of a scapegoat in Adam’s place. But God was not just shirking his previous statement and going against His word. Adam did, in fact, experience a death. This was a spiritual death that had come about, and this was by no means just metaphorical or “imaginary”. There was a real separation from God’s presence. This should make us curious about how God speaks about death, just like it should make us curious about how God speaks of pain.
Death is evil when it is the “death which leads to death”. But death is good when it is the “death which leads to life”. Jesus’ death cannot be called evil since not only did it lead to his resurrected life but it also leads to all of our resurrected lives – those of us who are in Christ. Likewise, pain is evil when it is pain which leads to pain. In other words, it is pain which is tied to fruitlessness and thus unnecessary. This is putting the passage in its proper context. God is condemning Adam to “toil” and living by the “sweat of his brow”. Working is not evil, or else why would God Himself create or bid us to work. Rather, work is evil when it is chained to fruitlessness. Likewise, pain is evil when it is chained to fruitlessness (as opposed to being fruitful and multiplying).
Further, Scripture ties sleep to death. If it was true that Adam experienced a deep sleep that was like death (not the type of spiritual death that God condemns him to after the fall), and if death is intimately tied to pain, then it seems reasonable that Adam experienced something like pain through the sleep. If Scripture teaches us that Christ’s resurrected life is brought through death, then it is reasonable to believe that Adam’s “completed” life with his bride is brought through pain and death. Though Adam, after he awoke, was not the exact same as the glorified and resurrected Christ, Adam being put into a deep death-like sleep was a type for Christ being put to death.[6] Therefore, it seems appropriate that Adam experienced a painful death-like process like Christ.
Reply to Objection 3. Jesus bore the marks of his death even after the resurrection[7]. If Jesus’ glorified body was not incomplete with holes in his hands and side, then Adam (a type of Christ) would not be incomplete without a rib. For the spiritual is not lower than the physical, and the higher cause is not subservient to the lower cause. We are not to call incomplete that which is done in service of a higher cause. Completeness is not to be judged by physical mass but by perfection. By Jesus’ death and scars, we are saved in our spirits[8]. Jesus’ body is not “imperfect” by this sacrifice but is rather “perfected”. Likewise, Adam is not made “imperfect” by this giving up of his rib to make a wife, but is rather made whole by the addition of a proper helper. Therefore, the glorification that Christ received from his scars can show the glorification that Adam received from his scar.
Max Graham is a US Naval Officer living in Annapolis, MD. He enjoys reading/writing, chats on a porch over cigars, and boating on the Chesapeake Bay.
[1] The Roman Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft has said that the two greatest styles of argumentative writing are the (entertaining/imaginative) Socratic dialogue and the (clear/thorough) Scholastic disputatio. I believe he speaks the truth here.
[2] Genesis 2:22
[3] Genesis 2:23
[4] Genesis 1:1
[5] Romans 5:12
[6] The resurrection life is greater than the garden as an adult is greater than a child. That being said, there is continuity operating here as well. Certain parts of the garden reflect the resurrection life just as certain aspects of childhood reflect adulthood.
[7] John 20:27
[8] 1 Peter 2:24
