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.

Read more

I was in a friendly conversation with a fellow pastor some years ago. The tone changed rather quickly when I spoke positively about C.S. Lewis. In his perspective, Lewis was a dangerous writer who could lead people away from the safety of Reformed confessionalism.

Suddenly, in his eyes, I had gone from a faithful Reformed pastor to someone compromising my orthodoxy. The experience was so shocking and his tone so harsh that I kindly asked if we could continue this conversation another time and left. I knew nothing fruitful would come from that chat. Of course, we never continued that talk and I am frankly grateful. Such reactions stem from an over-reactionary perspective of theology. The idea is that we must be glued to our Reformed forefathers and read nothing else outside our tradition for fear that it might damage our pure ideas of interpretation.

As we approach Reformation Day, I find myself more and more grateful to God to those within and without my particular tradition. Those of us in the Reformational camp have a greater responsibility to provide a framework that is more whole, more catholic, and more complete than other traditions. After all, we produced the Puritans, Bavinck, Kuyper, Van Til, Bahnsen and Sproul. From the Reformation stemmed this gigantic sense that everything in the world is Christ’s and we are in him which means we seek to bring Christ to everything.

The idea that Lewis’ peculiar views on the imprecatory Psalms, for instance, would be a threat to the Reformation is absolutely bizarre. I could easily find peculiarities in Luther. However, the idea that Lewis’ genius would contribute to a more robust Reformation is precisely the kind of world we need to embrace. If the modern Reformed man or woman lives in fear that such and such an author or thinker will remove us from the Reformation, then we have adopted a very narrow view of the Reformation. We have failed to see precisely Calvin’s vision for the church, the Puritan’s vision for the world, and Kuyper’s vision for the culture.

So then, read broadly, hold on to your convictions closely, explore Christendom unashamedly and go to Narnia often. To be Reformed is to be unafraid; it is to know God and to know self.

Solus Christus!

Read more