Patristic Exegeses on the Creation of Eve
Then the Lord God
said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a
helper as his partner. . . . So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon
the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place
with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a
woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, "This at last is bone
of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of
Man this one was taken." (Gen. 2:18, 21-23 NRSV)
Genesis contains
two at times mutually contradictory accounts of creation. The first one, the
so-called priestly (or P) narrative, extends from Gen. 1:1 to 2:4 and relates
the progression of creation in a systematic, basically "evolutionary"
manner which culminates with humanity. This is the account in which God makes
humanity in His own image, male and female, and gives him dominion over the
earth. In their exegesis of Gen. 1:27 - "So God created humankind in his
image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created
them" (NRSV) - the Greek Fathers stress the common divine inheritance of
male and female created in God's image. They interpret the phrase "male
and female he created them" in an inclusive, not a descriptive or normative,
sense. In other words, they do not understand gender to be an aspect of God's
image in humanity; rather, they interpret the verse to include both man and
woman in the full reception of God's image. The second (although
chronologically older), or Yahwist, account, Gen. 2:4 to 2:25, places the
creation of humanity, Adam, before that of any other life form, plant or
animal. Woman, on the other hand, is created after all other beings, in the
manner related by the colorful account quoted above.
How do the Greek Fathers deal with these two sometimes
conflicting descriptions of creation? Some, most notably John Chrysostom, treat
it at length. The variance between the two creation accounts in Genesis is
usually noticed, if not always dealt with successfully. Chrysostom, for
example, claims, with reference to the phrases "male and female" and
"them" in Gen. 1:26-28, that the first creation account alludes to
what the second creation account, at least insofar as Eve is concerned, will
describe in greater detail: . . . he teaches us this cryptically, since
after all he has not yet taught us about the manner of formation, or told us
where the woman comes from. He says, "Male and female he made them."
Do you see how he describes what is not yet created as though already created?
That's the way, you see, with the eyes of the spirit. . . .
Other Fathers -
among them such luminaries as Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Maximus
the Confessor - simply ignore the second account. But although many of the most
important Fathers do not treat the story of the creation of Eve, it is useful
to examine just how Chrysostom and others explain its meaning both
anthropologically and theologically and relate it to the first account, in
which woman clearly participates equally with man in God's image and in human
dominion over the earth.
The Collective "Adam"
Many have thus
equated the account of Eve's creation from the side of Adam with the myth of
the androgynous man, similar to the one found in Plato's Symposium. However,
this theory is not borne out by the patristic literature, since the Greek
Fathers attach no ontological value to gender. Indeed, Theodoros Zissis claims
that Chrysostom seems to argue specifically against this concept by saying that
God replaced the removed rib from Adam and thus demonstrated that each sex is,
in human terms, ontologically complete and perfect. And, with respect to the
theory of the sexes as complementary, the history and tradition of monasticism
(Mt. Athos being perhaps the most extreme example) obviates any anthropology
that is based on the notion that male and female somehow "complete"
each other and that both sexes are needed to manifest humanity in its spiritual
fullness.
Woman as Companion and Helper
But if the Greek Fathers did not understand the
creation of woman in terms of complementarity, how then did they understand it?
The pre-Christian Palestinian Jewish community provides the first clue. In the
Aramaic Jewish community, the desire to unite the two creation accounts
produced a unique gloss on Gen. 1:27: God created humanity male and
"companion." This is the same word used later in Gen. 2:18. A second
Palestinian targum, that of pseudo-Jonathan, which is considered the most
paraphrastic of all the Aramaic targums of the Pentateuch, translates the same
verse to read that God decided to make for man a woman to be a "support
before him."
The significance
of, "It is not good for man to be alone" was not lost on the Greek
Fathers; they recognized the fundamental truth of the need for human
companionship. This is in itself a reflection of the image of God as Trinity in
humanity. The intimate relations among the persons of the Trinity, described in
the patristic literature as perichorisis - interpenetration - create a communal
life of Three in One where, in the words of the French Orthodox theologian
Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, "the opposition between unity and plurality is
superceded." As Behr-Sigel continues, "God's being is relation,
personal love." John Zizioulas applies this to humanity's reception of
God's image:
(a) There is no
true being without communion. Nothing exists as an "individual,"
conceivable in itself. Communion is an ontological category.
(b) Communion which
does not come from a "hypostasis," that is, a concrete and free
person, and which does not lead to "hypostases," that is concrete and
free persons, is not an "image" of the being of God. The person
cannot exist without communion; but every form of communion which denies or suppresses
the person is inadmissable.
Thus, communion
among human persons is a fundamental aspect of God's image, and the second
creation account emphasizes this human need for communion. Even Gregory of
Nyssa, while not referring specifically to Genesis, asserts in the third
chapter of his work On Virginity that "the sum total of all that is hoped
for in marriage [is] to get delightful companionship." St. John Chrysostom
is far more direct. He paraphrases Gen. 2:18 to show God's desire that man have
someone to provide him with comfort and companionship. Chrysostom says that God
created Eve from Adam's side because man needed someone with whom to speak, to
share in life's trials and tribulations, to provide comfort by sharing in his
very being. In fact, Chrysostom says that Eve was created at Adam's request.
This companionship,
this communion, is of paramount importance since it is the rationale for the
creation of Eve, as Chrysostom repeatedly emphasizes with the phrase
"[Adam], for whom she was created." St. Paul seems to put a
hierarchical spin on this: "Neither was man created for woman, but woman
for man" (I Cor. 11:9), and Chrysostom, while often softening this
passage's implications for woman, echoes Paul's tone of male superiority when
speaking to the men in his congregation. But he has a specific pastoral purpose
here, namely, to preserve order and the status quo in our fallen human society
- a constant theme in Chrysostom's homilies - that is supposed to work for the
benefit and salvation of all. This is part of a general paradigm of power and
authority which Chrysostom believes exists in post-lapsarian humanity; one of
the three forms of subjugation in fallen human society is that of woman to man.
However, he understands this gender-based hierarchy only within the
post-lapsarian human order as a distortion of the primeval egalitarian
companionship enjoyed by Adam and Eve in Paradise.
Another aspect of
the traditional hierarchical understanding of the creation of Eve concerns Gen.
2:18, which relates that woman was created for man to be a "helper fit for
him." The natural question that arises concerns the meaning of the word
helper (voithos). A study of patristic exegeses of the creation of Eve shows
that the Greek Fathers had no conception of woman as servant to man, nor can
the term voithos be construed in this way any more than its Hebrew counterpart,
ezer, carries such an implication of inferiority. Adam's need was not for a
servant or slave; his desire was not for someone inferior to him. As emphasized
by several authors, Adam's real need was for a true companion, one equal to
him, one with whom he could share all things.
A word that
Chrysostom uses at least twice in this respect is especially revealing. The
verb prosdhialegomai means "to converse," in the sense of engaging in
repartee or negotiation, i.e., a conversation of equals. Chrysostom contrasts
this dialogue of equals with Eve's conversation with the serpent. He stresses
that it would have been even better for Eve never to have been speaking with
the serpent at all. In fact, he wonders how she even came to be entangled in
conversation with the animal. Companionship and conversation is for equals,
Chrysostom implies, and Eve demeaned herself by conversing with a being
subordinate and subject to herself. This reflects the general patristic theme
that it was important that Adam's companion be "a helper fit for
him." The Fathers interpreted "fit" to mean comparable and equal
to man. Chrysostom, for example, distinguishes four concepts inherent in the
word fit: "like or similar," "of the same essence,"
"worthy of Adam," and "not lacking any quality." Elsewhere
he stresses the same notion of equality, quoting God to the effect that not
only did He want someone of the same essence as man for man's comfort, but He
wanted to make an appropriate helper for him. Similarly, Irenaeus embellishes
Gen. 2:20 to emphasize Adam's need for a partner like him, saying that God made
Eve "car, parmi tous les autres vivants, il ne se trouvait pas d'aide
egale, comparable et semblable a Adam ("For among all other living beings,
he did not find an equal helper, comparable and similar to Adam")."
But what was the best way to create a companion for Adam who shared his essence
and was truly equal to him?
Adam's Rib
According to the
Greek Fathers, this need for an equal partner was ingeniously fulfilled by
God's creation of Eve from Adam's rib. Unlike the naive literalness exhibited
in the Palestinian targum of pseudo-Jonathan (that God used the thirteenth rib
on Adam's right side!), the Greek writers showed sophistication in their
interpretation of the significance of God's creation of Eve from Adam's rib. In
fact, John Chrysostom cautions against taking literally the phrase "took
one of his ribs." Rather, he says that Scripture uses such language
because of our intellectual weakness, so that we might somehow understand these
ineffable mysteries.
And what is the
significance of Adam's rib? The Fathers point out several aspects. Perhaps most
curious is the line of reasoning of Clement of Alexandria, who sees the account
of Eve's creation as an allegory for and explanation of traditional male and
female characteristics. In his Paedagogus, Clement equates body hair with
activity and hairlessness with passivity. He notes that the beard is the sign
of the man, who is older than Eve, and signifies his "greater" (i.e.,
physically stronger) nature. He explains that God covered man's whole body with
hair except the smooth part by the rib so that he could make Eve as helper in
procreation and housekeeping. Clement believes that woman is passive, while
man, who has lost the smooth part of his body, is more active because hairy
bodies are drier and warmer than hairless ones (he also applies this line of
reasoning to eunuchs). However, while Clement's biological interpretation of
Eve's creation has certain parallels with Aristotelian anthropology and the
medical theories of the time, it avoids the excesses of those secular views,
which considered women biologically to be, respectively, crippled or childlike.
Basil of Seleucia sees a different significance to the
story of Adam's rib. The reason why God makes Eve after Adam is to show Adam
that God is his Creator. How can Adam otherwise learn who his Maker is if he
hasn't seen Him create? But by watching Him make a creature similar to him,
Adam can recognize God as his own Creator. On a more pragmatic note, Theodoret
of Cyrus postulates that God made Eve of the same nature as Adam so there would
be no strife between the sexes. "Flesh of my Flesh" - Homogenis
and Homoousios. But most importantly, the creation of Eve from Adam's rib
symbolizes the fundamental relationship between man and woman, their oneness of
essence. The Fathers see confirmation of this exegesis in Adam's recognition of
Eve as "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh." Chrysostom, for
example, in a philosophical manner reminiscent of the earlier discussion
regarding the meaning of the word voithos, stresses the egalitarian,
nonhierarchical nature of Eve's ontological relationship to Adam.
The specific story
of Eve's creation from Adam's rib, according to the Greek Fathers, shows that
woman is homogenis (same race) to man, that the two are homoisioi (same
essence). In fact, the prefix homo (same) occurs frequently throughout the
exegeses of Greek Christian authors on the creation of woman: homogenis,
homoisios, homotimos (same honor), etc. Other words are also used. As mentioned
above, Irenaeus paraphrased the kat auton (according to him) of Gen. 2:20 to
read homoion auto that is, "similar" or "like" Adam, a
substitution that Chrysostom also makes. But homoios (similar), while an
egalitarian term, does not have ontological import, at least not in a positive
sense. In fact, for many of the Greek Fathers the word is stained with the
implications of Arianism; extrapolated to humanity, the term could imply that
man and woman are similar but not substantially the same. And so it appears
that the Fathers are not content with the simple sense of equivalence connoted
by homoios. Far more common are the terms homotimos and, especially, homogenis
and homoousios, which define as well as describe the relationship between Adam
and Eve, between man and woman.
Basil of Seleucia
finds this parity even in the similar wording God uses in deciding to create
humanity, comparing Gen. 1:26 to Gen. 2:18: "Let us make man in our image,
after our likeness" in the former, to "let us make a helper fit for
him" in the latter. In both cases God takes counsel with Himself and in both
cases He creates a human being as a result. Basil continues by reasoning that
the wording of God's counsel is similar because the creatures are homogeni,
their forms are similar for they are homotima. John Chrysostom also notes the
parallel structure of Gen. 1:26 and 2:18.
Embellishing on
Genesis, Basil has God decide to make humanity isotimos, sharing equal glory,
with woman lacking nothing by way of isotimia lest she be insulted as being of
a lesser (literally, bastard) race. Noting that in piety and virtue man and
woman are equal, Basil declares that faith does not distinguish between the
sexes (literally, race). He buttresses his argument by quoting Paul in I Cor.
11:11, that "in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of
woman," concluding that while there is a difference in gender (literally,
"nature"), the path of virtue knows no such difference.
Procopios of Gaza
emphasizes that God deliberately did not make Eve "from scratch," in
the same way as he made Adam, although he could have done so. He compares her
creation from Adam's rib to the Father's begetting of the Son outside of time
(and logic); Eve is complete and perfect in essence, lacking nothing with
respect to Adam. Even the word Adam chooses to describe her, woman, is "a
duplicate noun, from her relation to man, from whom she was drawn." She is
his helper in life in all things, and so shares the homotimia of nature. She
differs from the male neither with respect to possessing an immortal and
rational soul, nor with respect to essence (ousia)
In fact, the
theological term homoousios is one of the most popular among Greek writers and
is used in exegeses of the creation stories even outside of specific reference
to the creation of Eve from Adam's rib. In a work spuriously attributed to
Gregory of Nyssa, for example, the author uses it in the context of his
comparison of Adam, Eve and Abel to the Holy Trinity. Didymus the Blind finds
proof of the consubstantiality of man and woman in the first creation account,
Gen. 1:26-27. Procopios reasons that the use of the singular in some instances
and the plural in others in referring to humanity proves that man and woman are
homoousioi and fall under one category. He believes that even the mention of
"male and female," a phrase not used for the animals, demonstrates
that, although the manner of creation for man and woman differed, they have one
essence, an essence that metaphysically, is the image of God.
John Chrysostom
speaks perhaps most forcefully on this subject. He reasons that a helper for Adam
had to be of the same essence (ousia) as Adam because Adam needed someone with
whom he could engage in reciprocal conversation; he needed communion with
another of the same essence. Therefore, he argues, God made Eve from Adam
specifically so that she would be of his essence, to be a voithos homoios auto.
Further, he counters arguments that survive to the present day that God's
creation of woman is inferior to His creation of man. Chrysostom avers
specifically that God's taking a rib to make Eve is no less than His taking
earth to make Adam. This rational creature is perfect and complete and like man
in every way. In fact, he argues that Scripture uses the word constructed
rather than formed for God's creation of Eve because God was not creating a new
type of creature, but merely making another (of the same type) by using a small
piece of the already existing one. This, again, buttresses Chrysostom's thesis
that man and woman are ontologically the same.
Chrysostom's
anthropological use of such terms as homogenis and homoousios continues in his
exegesis of the Fall, in particular regarding Eve's conversation with the
serpent. She accepted counsel from the serpent, one of the servants subordinate
to her, not homogenis. And in order to enter into conversation with him, she
left the one for whom she was created, with whom she shared the same worth, to
whom she was both homoousios and homophonos. He reiterates this point in
explaining the fallen state of woman, which he contrasts to her state in
Paradise. In the beginning she was created homotimos to man, of the same axia
(worth, value, worthiness) in all things, ruling equally with man over all
things. But she forsook him who was homotimos to her, who shared the same
nature (physis), for whom she was created. Chrysostom further declares that
Adam's sin is not simply in listening to Eve, for he implies that, since she is
homogenis to him and is his wife, that would be normal. Adam's sin is in
ignoring God's command, which was still ringing in his ears, letting Eve's
advice supersede it.
Conclusion
The Greek Fathers'
exegeses of the Biblical account of the creation of woman contrasts sharply
with, on the one hand, traditional Latin patristic exegesis - exemplified in
Augustine - which makes the male human the norm for humanity, and on the other
hand, much of twentieth-century theology, both Eastern and Western, which sees
woman as essentially other (Paul Evdokimov in the Orthodox tradition; Karl
Barth in the West with his notion of Eva als andere). To the contrary, by far
the most common Greek patristic interpretation of Eve's creation from Adam's
rib is that of its significance in underlining the shared nature of their
being. The Fathers' vocabulary supports their theological-anthropological
views: homoousios, homotimos, homogenis, tis autis physeos (of the same
nature). The theological significance of these terms leads to the extrapolation
of Trinitarian theology to the anthropological level: humanity is a communion
of persons sharing the same nature, an imperfect reflection of the Godhead as
Three Persons sharing One Essence.
