One of the most interesting aspects of Christian philosophy is Typology. Typology is a special form of symbolism in which a thing in the past dramatically foreshadows a thing in its own future. For example, in Numbers 21:4-9, we read the account of the bronze serpent. In John 3:14-15, we are told (by none other than Christ Himself) that this event was typological of Christ. In the original account, those who were bitten by the serpents, yet looked to the bronze serpent, were cured of the venom and survived. In the Gospel, those who "look upon" He who was made sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21) are purified, and receive eternal life.
It's interesting that typology does not always correspond to a manufactured symbol, like the bronze serpent Moses made. Adam was a real man, and yet, he is also typological of Christ. Just as we explicitly read about the bronze serpent being typological, we likewise read that Christ is the "last Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45). The two men are theologically comparable, "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:22).
Unfortunately, typology is very easily abused, and it is common practice of counterfeit Christian religions to do so. Wherever you find a false doctrine, you might find a corresponding false Typology. Furthermore, it may even draw upon actual typology.
Christ as the last Adam, which we've just seen is explicitly Biblical, is an excellent example. Obviously, Adam was not alone in the garden. After he was formed, God put him into a deep sleep, took out a rib, sealed his wound, and created a wife for him; Eve. If Christ is the new Adam, who is the new Eve? This is a question asked by heretical churches, such as the Roman Catholic Church, which not only teach that there is a new Eve, but that we can identify exactly who she is. Namely, Mary.
While Roman Catholics confidently ask "who is the new Eve?", a Christian may well ask if there even has to be one? Aside from being relatively silent on Mary, the Bible literally never describes a new Eve. Even when it speaks of Christ as the last Adam, it never so much as hints at the need for a corresponding new Eve. Thus, whereas Christ's role as the last Adam is drawn from the explicit teachings of the text, the very existence of a new Eve must be forced into it. That is, we imagine there is a new Eve.
To illustrate the absurdity of this, consider other examples of typology. We've already mentioned the bronze serpent. How much of this do we apply to Christ? Well, in 2 Kings 18:1-4, we see that Hezekiah, king of Judah, did right in the eyes of the Lord, with one of his righteous deeds being the destruction of the bronze serpent. Why would this be a good thing? Because the Israelites had begun burning incense to it. It had become an icon, and so Hezekiah, in obedience to the second commandment against the creation and serving of images, destroyed it. So, if we want to read too much into Typology, we may ask, who is the new Hezekiah? As in, who is going to destroy Jesus now that we have begun to worship Him?
Then there's the example of baptism. In 1 Peter 3:21, we are told that baptism is an antitype of the ark and the flood, even noting the 8 souls (Noah, his wife, his 3 sons, and their wives) were saved. Well, who is the new wife of Noah? We need not search for her, because while attention is drawn to her, she is not mentioned as having any typological significance. From this, we see that even when someone is explicitly present, we don't need to read anything into Scripture; we draw from Scripture.
From these two examples, we see that it is possible to take typology too far. As the Bible tells us explicitly that Christ is the last Adam, we cannot deny that, but we must handle it with care. That is, we must ascribe to Christ the attributes of Adam which Scripture ascribes to Him. But Scripture does not even mention a new Eve. Nor does it make any explicit connection between Eve and Mary. Rather, this is something that was done - I'll argue, in error - in the second century.
Aside from not needing a new Eve, due to the absence of such a concept in Scripture, it is actually very dangerous to add such a concept. Time and time again, as both a matter of wisdom, and of command, we are told that adding to the word of God is impermissible. It is a violation of a direct command, it leads to punishment in the form of God's curses (e.g. Revelation 22:18), it leads to further disobedience by making the word of God of no effect in order to keep our traditions (e.g. Matthew 15:6), and ultimately, it leads to being caught out for lying (Proverbs 30:6). None of these things are desirable for us as Christians.
But one might argue, as heretics often do, that we frequently add to Scripture. For Roman Catholics, the popular example is the doctrine of the Trinity. Much like anti-Trinitarian heretics, Roman Catholics argue that the doctrine of the Trinity was developed over time, and is not explicitly found in Scripture. Yet, Christians believe in the Trinity. The term is not from Scripture, yet we use it. The creeds used to defend it are not in Scripture, yet still we recite them. If we believe in the Trinity, we are supposedly believing an addition to Scripture, and so it cannot always be illogical to add to Scripture.
An essential distinction must be made here between the development of an existing doctrine and the creation of a new one. In the case of the Trinity, this concept is taught in Scripture, and indisputably so. How? Well, the Bible teaches Monotheism very explicitly by telling us there is now, always has been, and always will be, one God. Yet, it teaches that He exists in three separate persons. It identifies the Father as God, the Son as God, and the Holy Spirit as God, all while maintaining that they are independent persons. Of course, I shouldn't need to explain this to a Roman Catholic. They believe in the Trinity, and they cannot afford to maintain the denial that it is taught in Scripture, because that would go against their own doctrine.
Thus, rather than "adding" to Scripture, what the Church is actually doing is coming up with refined ways to collect and express Biblical data. We come up with new words, like "Trinity" and "Monotheism", and we come up with new creeds, like the Apostles' Creed, but these are not additions to Scripture because the content of them is found in Scripture. Furthermore, we are not devoted to them in the way we are to the actual word of God. The term "Monotheism", for example, can be easily replaced with terms like "the oneness of God", or "the Divine Singularity" etc. We can afford to change our theology to conform with Scripture, but we cannot change Scripture to conform with our theology. Thus, it's not an addition, but a summary.
But consider this. The Bible does not explicitly say God is Triune. Yes, it describes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but it does not say these are His only persons. Furthermore, it describes the Father, and it describes the Son, yet the logical implication of a father having a son is that there is a mother. Now, as much as Roman Catholics cling to giving Mary the title "Mother of God", I think even they would shy away from calling her "God the Mother". But why should we object to the idea that there is a God the Mother? There is actually a pseudo-Christian denomination, called the World Mission Society Church of God, that teaches this, and even argues for it in the same way I just did.
From this, you see the difference between developing a doctrine based on what the Bible says, and creating a doctrine based on inference and the absence of excessively explicit condemnation. The Bible does teach the doctrine of the Trinity, it does not teach that there is a new Eve.
But for sake of argument, we're going to pretend there's a possibility. In fact, in this hypothetical scenario, we're not even going to elevate this to the level of "doctrine", merely analogy (as I believe even the Church "Fathers" originally intended it). Like comparing Jesus to a parachute. It's not Biblical, it's just an analogy. With that in mind, I am going to analyse Mary's claim to be the New Eve, and present two alternative contenders for the title.
Contender 1: Mary
First, let's ask exactly how well Mary actually fits this role? Well, first there's the more obvious question: If there is a new Eve, why would it be the mother of the last Adam? Eve was Adam's wife, not his mother, and in fact she was created from his rib, meaning if anything, he is her father. Furthermore, Adam and Eve had a healthy sexual relationship, which resulted in the creation of children, whereas again, for obvious reasons, this is not how Mary and Christ related.
Ironically, a key comparison Roman Catholics draw between Mary and Eve is their virginity. Whereas Eve sinned while apparently still a virgin, Mary obeyed God in her virginity. Roman Catholicism also teaches that whereas Eve obviously gave her virginity to Adam, Mary retained hers forever. This distinguishes her from the historical Mary. From Scripture, we know that Mary was a virgin until she gave birth to Christ (Matthew 1:24-25), but that Joseph did take her as his wife as planned, and this marriage actually resulted in children. Jesus has siblings, who were well known in His community (e.g. Mark 6:3).
Aside from this, Mary's own conception is said, in Roman Catholicism, to be immaculate, which is another way in which they compare her to Eve. Eve was "conceived" without sin, Mary was conceived without sin. Whereas Eve disobeyed and fell into sin, Mary obeyed, of course ultimately leading to the reversal of that curse. But that's all made up too! You won't find any Scripture to suggest, or even justify, that Mary was conceived without sin. In fact, every reference to the depravity of man would logically have to exclude Christ, but there is no logical justification to exclude Mary. She even called Christ her Savior (Luke 1:47), and gave sin offerings (Luke 2:22-24). Thus, not only was Mary a sinner, she knew it.
As the Roman Catholic Mary differs from the historical Mary, she obviously cannot be an antitype of Eve, because she never existed, and God isn't in the habit of ascribing typological significance to legendary embellishment. But the historical Mary, lacking all of these attributes, also cannot be the new Eve, because the embellishments are the entire justification for calling her the new Eve.
Contender 2: The Church
A significantly more obvious contender for the role of the new Eve is the actual bride of the last Adam; the Church herself. Of course, this would include Mary, but in a more general sense, via the things she shares in common with her fellow believers. There are many reasons we fit the bill, of course starting with the fact that the Church is described as the bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:22-33; 2 Corinthians 11:2). If Eve is the bride of Adam, then the new Eve would likely be the bride of the last Adam. Certainly more likely the bride of Christ than the mother of Christ.
A further comparison can be drawn based on the wound in Christ's side. We are healed by Christ's wounds (Isaiah 53:5), including the wound in his side (John 19:34; John 20:27), just as Eve was originally given life from a wound in Adam's side (Genesis 2:21-22).
For this reason, Adam says of Eve "“This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”" (Genesis 2:23). And so Moses tells us "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." Paul later cites this in Ephesians 5:30-32, saying "For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church."
This stops just shy of calling us the "New Eve" (and indeed, actually calls it a "great mystery"), but if you believe in a New Eve, you couldn't ask for a more solid comparison. As a man and wife become "one flesh", on the basis of Adam and Eve, so also do we become members of the body of Christ. That's a much clearer connection than anything Roman Catholics can bring for Mary.
Contender 3: Christ Himself
A final, significantly less obvious contender for the title of the new Eve is Christ Himself. This is less obvious, because aside from being a man, He also already occupies the role of the last Adam. But this does not exclude Him, for the same reason His gender does not prevent him from atoning for the sins of women also.
Scripture actually pays very little attention to Eve overall, even when you would expect it to pay vast amounts of attention. She is only mentioned twice by name, and in spite of the fact she was the first to eat of the forbidden fruit, Adam receives sole blame for the entry of sin and death to the world (Romans 5:12). Thus, just as Eve played little part in the entry of sin and death into the world, yet Adam's sin is sufficient to bring the curse upon women as well as men, so also is Christ's sacrifice sufficient to atone for women, too.
But here's where it gets interesting. In the Garden paradise, Satan tempts Eve. In the wilderness, however, Satan does not tempt Mary, but Jesus. If Mary is the new Eve, where is she in this account? Why does Satan go to Christ first?
Well, the Biblical answer would be the so-called "protoevangelium". In Genesis 3:15, we read "And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel.”" This is God's curse upon Satan, foretelling of an endless strife between the "seed of the serpent" and the "Seed of Eve". But there are two notable details here: The seed is Eve's, and He is singular. We see a similar concept in Galatians 3:15-18, where Paul explicitly notes the singular nature of Abraham's Seed, which he specifies is a reference to Christ. In the same way, Genesis 3:15 refers to the singular Seed of the woman because it is referring to Christ. This is further evidenced by the use of male pronouns, not plural, or female. He, that is, Christ, crushes the head of the serpent.
This is where Roman Catholic blasphemy really comes in. Whereas Scripture ascribes this to Christ, Mary's role as the new Eve means she is also believed to have crushed the head of the Serpent. This is just one of many of Christ's attributes the Roman Catholic Church has taken from Christ, and ascribed to its so called "new Eve".
Conclusion
Typology, being a symbol, does not require a type and antitype to share every conceivable element. Thus, while Scripture explicitly teaches that Christ is the last Adam, there is no need to assume the existence of a corresponding new Eve. Even if we accept that, by way of analogy, there might be one, Mary is one of the least likely candidates. Ironically, one of the ways she closely resembles Eve is how remarkably little Scripture pays attention to either of them. A less obvious candidate for the new Eve is Christ Himself, our all-sufficient Savior. Far more obvious is the actual bride of the last Adam; us, the Church. If there needed to be a new Eve, we fit the bill far more than Mary, in her single person. Therefore, the Roman Catholic assertion that Mary is the new Eve fails on every level.
AI usage:
No AI was used in the production of this article.