Mary, the New Eve
It is a common misconception that, when people convert or revert to the Catholic Church that they only do so when they fully understand all of the Church’s doctrine. This certainly was not true for me. I had come to the point of recognizing that Sola Scriptura made little sense and that Christ founded a visible Church. However, there were many of the Catholic Church’s teachings I didn’t really understand. For me, most of these difficulties surrounded the person of Mary. I just couldn’t wrap my head around the Catholic fascination with the mother of Jesus…
All this started to change when I discovered Biblical Typology and started to see Mary pre-figured in the Old Testament. I have written before about how Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and how this helped me to understand Mary’s Holiness. I have also written about how Mary is the Queen Mother and how this aided my understanding of her as intercessor. Today I would like to write about another very important parallel which I discuss in the talk Mary & The Early Church. Once I began to see Mary as the New Eve I began to see the significance of Mary in the story of Salvation History…
Patristic Witness
Within the pages of the New Testament, we find the idea that Jesus is the New Adam. This idea is found throughout the Bible, but Paul explicitly articulates this in his letter to the Church in Corinth (1 Corinthians 15:45).
Although Sacred Scripture doesn’t explicitly identify a “New Eve”, one cannot read the writings of the Early Church and be left in any doubt. I’m currently reading Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought, a book which surveys the Early Church writings concerning the Blessed Virgin. While reading this book, two things have been striking. The first concerns the number of Early Church Fathers who describe Mary as the New Eve. The second is how early these descriptions appear.
Probably the pithiest expression of the New Eve idea is found in St. Irenaeus of Lyons in towards the end of the Second Century:
“Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith”
– St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies (~AD 180)
If you are Catholic, chances are that you have come across the Novena entitled “Mary, undoer of knots”. The theology expressed in this title is drawn directly from the great Second Century Bishop of Lyons.
Irenaeus was not the first Christian writer to note the parallels between Eve and Mary, however. That honour goes to St. Justin Martyr. Thirty years before Irenaeus wrote his work “Against Heresies”, St. Justin had been in theology dialogue with a Jew named Trypho where he said the following:
“For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her”
– St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho (~AD 150)
In this description, the great martyr articulates both the similarities and differences between Mary and the mother of humanity. I would contrast the two in this way:
| Eve | Mary |
|---|---|
| Virgin and undefiled | Virgin and undefiled |
| Received the word of an angel (Satan) | Received the word of an angel (Gabriel) |
| Responded with distrust of God | Responded with faith in God |
| Responded with disobedience | Responded with obedience |
| Actions result in death to all | Actions result in life for all |
These two women are hinges on salvation, around which so much turns. Eve’s distrust of God lead her to reach out and grasp the fruit of the tree, but Mary’s faith resulted in the fruit of her womb being nailed to a tree for the salvation of the world. When viewed this way, it is hard to downplay Mary’s important role in Salvation History.
Biblical Evidence
From where did the Early Church Fathers gain this insight? Well, neither Justin in Italy nor Irenaeus in France present the New Eve theology as though it is a new invention, pointing to an older patrimony for this belief.
John and Genesis
When we look to the New Testament itself, we see considerable basis for this parallelism. If you carefully read the opening chapters to John’s Gospel, you will quickly notice that John is paralleling the first book of the Bible. Both example, Genesis opens with the following words:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
– Genesis 1:1
The opening to John’s Gospel is eerily similar…
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
– John 1:1
In the opening verses to both books we find similar motifs. Both speak of creation, lightness, darkness, water and the spirit. It is clear that John is doing this intentionally. Whereas Genesis tells us about the original creation, John is preparing us for a New Creation, a re-creation, a recapitulation of Old Testament events with a New Adam.
Culminating in a wedding
When reading the first chapter of Genesis, the author narrates the days of creation. The climax of this is found on the Seventh Day. The day before, Adam had been naming all of the animals, but when no suitable partner can be found, he is put into a deep sleep and Eve is drawn from his side. When Adam opens his eyes, presumably on the Seventh Day, he sees a beauty which blows out of the water the creatures he had seen the previous day! Inspired by this radiant vision he can’t but launch into poetry, declaring:
“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.”
– Genesis 2:23
This is covenantal language (“bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”). We are effectively witnessing Adam’s marriage vows. The Seventh Day culminates in a wedding.
Returning to John’s Gospel, we see that it too speaks of seven days:
Day #2: “The next day…” – John 1:29
Day #3: “The next day…” – John 1:35
Day #4: “The next day…” – John 1:43
Day #7: “On the third day…” – John 2:1
So what takes place on the seventh day? Should we really be surprised that John tells us that there was a wedding?
On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples.
– John 2:1-2
I am sure that many of us are familiar with this Gospel story where Jesus turns water into wine at the prompting of His Mother. We are so familiar with it, in fact, that I think we must come to the text with fresh eyes to notice something rather peculiar about John’s account – he never tells who was getting married.
There’s a good reason John never names the bride or groom. It’s because he doesn’t really care! The two people primarily mentioned in the account are Jesus and Mary. This is what John really cares about. As he has carefully narrative this New Creation in the opening chapters of His Gospel, he wants us introduce us to a New Adam and a New Eve, Jesus and His Mother.
However, John has more to tell us about this wedding. He explains that there is a shortage of wine and Mary intercedes with her Son. Jesus’ response to this is often misinterpreted as being hostile:
“O woman, what have you to do with me?…”
– John 2:4
There is a lot which could be said about this response, but for the sake of this article I would like to focus on how the Lord addresses His Mother…“woman”. Where else have we heard the title “woman” before? It should come as no surprise that we have heard it before in the Book of Genesis, in the “protoevangelium” (“first good news”) where God speaks about the promised Messiah:
[God said to the serpent]…”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.”
– Genesis 3:15
We see something very similar if we fast-forward through to the end of John’s Gospel. The fourth Gospel is structured around a number of miracles which the Evangelist calls “signs”. The first sign was the miracle at the wedding in Cana. The final sign is the Lord’s Passion and Resurrection. As Jesus is hanging on the cross we read the following:
When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.
– John 19:26-27
Once again Jesus’ Mother is present and once again she is referred to as “woman”. Jesus gives His Mother to John’s care (incidentally a proof that Jesus was an only child) and spiritually therefore to all of us. After the Fall, Eve became the mother of all the living (Genesis 3:20), but at the tree of the cross we see that Mary becomes the mother of all those who have been supernaturally brought to life through her Son, a New Eve to the New Adam.
While there are some correlations between Mary and Eve, enough to even say Mary was a type of Eve (or would Eve be a type of Mary), I don’t believe the correlations are strong enough to call Mary the New Eve. The biggest problem with this is that Mary is mother of the Last Adam, not His wife. I would also say that the seeming connection between Mary and the protoevengelian you point out of Jesus calling her “Woman” once you see in John 4 Jesus called the Samaritan woman “Woman” and also Peter referred to the woman he denied Jesus to as “Woman” as well is shown not to be a real connection. I realize from other articles you’ve written them both to be the New Eve, but to me the Church being the Bride of Christ fits the title of the New Eve better than Mary. One last quibble, I realize you got this from Irenaeus, but scripturally speaking we don’t know if Eve was a virgin at the time of the Fall or not.
I meant to say I realize from other articles you’ve written you consider both Mary and the Church to be the New Eve.
Hey Joseph, welcome to Restless Pilgrim!
I’m afraid I don’t really understand your objection. You agree that Eve is a type of Mary, but for some reason you don’t think it right to call her the New Eve. If you concede that there is a typological relationship between the two, what’s the problem with the adjective “New”? There is a typological relationship between Moses and Jesus which finds its fulfillment in Jesus, so Jesus is the New Moses. Moses is the type, Jesus is the antitype. Likewise, there is a typological relationship between Eve and Mary which finds its fulfillment in Mary, so Mary the New Eve. Eve is the type, Mary is the antitype.
You raise the issue that the relationship between Adam and Eve was spousal, whereas the relationship between Jesus and Mary is parental. I don’t see this as a problem. Pick any typological example you like and you will find dissimilarities as well as similarities – that’s what makes it an analogy as opposed to an identity. For the purpose of the New Eve typology, the important part is that sin entered the world through Eve’s disobedience and Adam’s subsequent failure, but salvation through Mary’s obedience and Christ’s subsequent victory. Adam and Eve were partners in the downfall of humanity, whereas the Lord and His mother were partners in its restoration. (It’s also worth noting that Mary is spouse in the sense that she represents all of Israel, and it’s also worth mentioning that there is a long history in the Church of describing the relationship between Mary and the Holy Spirit as spousal).
You point out that Jesus called the Samaritan woman “Woman”, which is fair enough. However, I would point out two things. Firstly, that this is just one part of the case for Mary as being New Eve. Secondly, the use of the term “woman” at the Wedding in Cana is dramatically more important because of the clear parallels in John’s Gospel with the book of Genesis.
You say that “scripturally speaking we don’t know if Eve was a virgin at the time of the Fall or not”. All I can say is that you find this belief present and uncontested in the earliest successors to the Apostles.
Lastly, I just want to point out that, regarding Mary and the Church, it doesn’t have to be a case of either/or, but rather both/and. Mary is the New Eve and she is the pattern for and model of the Church.
Thank you for the welcome. My objection is that there is a lack of precision in calling Mary the New Eve, that she isn’t the best fit for that analogy. Just because there are some typological connections between the two isn’t enough to justify that title. It would be like someone calling Tom Brady the New Joe Montana and the only point they made that held water is that they both won a lot of Super Bowls. The only thing connecting the two that holds water for me is what Justin Martyr and Irenaeus pointed out.
Your points from John fall apart. For one thing, Adam and Eve almost certainly didn’t marry on the seventh day. It is even possible based on the biblical evidence they weren’t created during the seven days, but at a later time. At the very least, it’s very likely Eve wasn’t created from Adam’s side (Hebr. tsela) until after the seven days. Additionally, it’s debatable whether or not John really described a space of 7 days in his gospel. How to interpret what “on the third day” meant actually is open is a big question. Was John continuing from chapter 1 or was he referring to the third day of the week, Tuesday? I would also point out ancient Jewish weddings/wedding feasts lasted 7 days and it would be odd for them to run out of wine on the first day. The only potential connection between Eve and Mary was Jesus connecting his mother to the protoevangelium, but that turns out not to be a real connection because upon looking further in the gospels the way Jesus addressed his mother as “Woman” appears to be a common way New Testament Jewish men addressed women.
If there was more connecting Eve and Mary, I would have no issue calling Mary, a New Eve. I do find it interesting that you along with the Catholic and Orthodox churches refer to Mary as the New Eve using a definite article instead of using an indefinite article. This suggests the belief that Mary is either the only or at least the best fit for the title of New Eve. The church, to me, is a far better fit for being a or the New Eve. The church is Jesus’ body like Eve was Adam’s. The church is “bone of (Jesus’) bone and flesh of (His) flesh. The church is one with Him in a way Mary isn’t in her capacity as His mother, now in her capacity as a part of the church, she is, but we’re speaking of her in her capacity as His mother.
How many connections do there need to be?
Maybe you need to be American to get that analogy (I’m English).
I don’t understand. Two of the earliest Fathers deliberately point out the parallels between Eve and Mary (virgin, belief/disbelief, obedience/disobedience, life/death) and this is picked up by subsequent Fathers such as Tertullian, Gregory, Jerome, Ephrem and Augustine. That’s pretty solid patrimony right there. That’s even before we’ve looked at John’s Gospel and his clear imitation of Genesis.
You’re going to have to provide some evidence for this.
It seems like you’ve got to throw out a lot of data here. They both begin “In the beginning…”, reference darkness, light etc and has a sequence of days.
What would John’s purpose be in telling us that this event happened on a Tuesday?
But not at all impossible. Maybe they were poor, maybe a delivery didn’t arrive, …
The phrase “Son of Man” is used in a bunch of different places in Scripture. The significance of the term very much depends upon context, much like “woman”. I don’t think even I pointed out in this article that Eve transitions from “Woman” to “Mother” at the moment of the Curse (Gen 3:20), and Mary has a similar transition at the moment when the curse is lifted (John 19:26-27).
As I mentioned in my previous comment, it’s not an either/or. In fact, the one flows from the other. Mary is a living image of the Church, which is why we refer to both Mary and the Church as Mother. Here’s what St. Ambrose says:
Well [does the Gospel say]: married but a virgin; because she is the type of the Church, which is also married but remains immaculate. The Virgin [Church] conceived us by the Holy Spirit and, as a virgin, gave birth to us without pain. And perhaps this is why holy Mary, married to one man [Joseph], is made fruitful by another [the Holy Spirit], to show that the individual churches are filled with the Spirit and with grace, even as they are united to the person of a temporal priest.
Mary is a type of Eve, but Eve cannot be a type of Mary…Biblical typology relates the greater to the lesser, but NEVER the lesser to the greater.
For example, Jesus is a type of Moses, but Moses clearly is not and cannot be a type of Jesus.
The type is the symbol which points to something higher, which is called the antitype. So, in your examples, Eve and Moses are types, whereas Mary and Jesus are the antitypes.
Greetings,
Gen 3 15 woman and seed of serpent= New EVE?as they are missing in the verse…
the offspring of woman,if is Jesus,then JOHN 3 14 Moses lifted him up..
14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,
15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”
very complex interpretations…
regards,mkyogi.
Brant Pitre also says the New Eve is Mary. But in his book Jesus the Briedgroom, The Greatest Love Story Ever Told, he explains that the duty of the bridegroom at an ancient Jewish wedding was to provide the wine. When Jesus turns the water in to wine, and a LOT of the FINEST wine, He is taking on the role of the Bridegroom and providing the finest wine in enough volume to serve His guests when he marries His new bride, His Church. BUT Dr. Pitre, in his book, The Jewish Roots of Mary, ALSO uses the wedding feast at Cana to explain that Mary is the New Eve in the same way you do.
So, my takeaway on this is that an Old Testament character or event can be a type of more than one New Testatament fulfillment. In this case, the wedding feast of Cana identifies Mary as a New Eve and prefigures Jesus’ relation with us as His Church. Would you agree?
Not just Dr. Brant Pitre, but Church Fathers from the 2nd Century onwards, such as Justin Martyr (AD ~155) and Irenaeus of Lyons (AD ~182).
Absolutely. If you look in Catholic documents you’ll always see this intertwining of Marian and Ecclesiastical imagery. This makes sense since she is our model and an image of the Church.
Umm, you are just assuming that when God puts Adam to sleep and he awakes, it is the seventh day? I want to believe that this typology is true but this is a stretch. God can put someone to sleep without the day/night cycle. It seems to me that eve was created on the sixth day of you read it literally, so the analogy sort of falls apart.
It’s a pretty reasonable assumption given that man and woman are both created on the sixth day, but that man is made first and then put into a deep sleep.
This interpretation also has a historic pedigree, both among Jews and Christians.
So where is the historical pedigree of the idea that Mary was created on the seventh day? Isn’t that when God rested? I would like to think that this lines up with John but it clearly says that God created them male and female in the sixth day and in John, the wedding is in the seventh.
Nobody ever claimed that Mary was created on the seventh day. The claim is that Adam was put into a deep sleep on the sixth day and awoke to find his wife.
How do we know that when Adam woke up it was the seventh day?
What’s your alternative chronology?