Why Did God Make Eve?

Why did God make Eve? Why not just stop with Adam? God made Eve for the same reason God makes anything—as a celebration of his own glory.

God was up to something of eternal importance in making his special image-bearers male and female. When God made Eve he was magnifying his supreme glory. He was making a womanly creature who could enjoy him and reflect his glory back to him forever. I would like to suggest to you that Paul says “woman was made for man” (1 Cor. 11:9), ultimately, because the Church is made for Christ (Rev. 21:2).

Eve was not Adam’s original idea. Our first parents did not woo, solicit, or choose each other. This was an arranged marriage, a match literally made in heaven: “Then God said, ‘It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him’” (Gen. 2:18-24).

Eve was God’s original idea. God approaches Adam with the blueprints for a male-and-female creation. If it were not for God, Adam would have never realized that it was not good for him to be alone. He did not know any better. He was not lonely, and if he was he didn’t know it. In an unfallen world, walking with God is not lonely.

So why did God say “it is not good that man should be alone”? When we read this passage, we tend to automatically insert a few extra words, “it is not good for Adam that Adam should be alone.” But in doing so, we have slightly missed the point. God’s creativity is not about us. God’s creativity is God’s way of seeing and savoring God’s own glory. “Everything comes from God alone. Everything lives by his power, and everything is for his glory” (Rom. 11:36). “The Lord made everything for his own purposes” (Prov. 16:4). If this is true of creation in general, it is especially true of the creatures made in God’s own image and likeness. The woman is good “for the man” only because she completes God’s pattern for his special creatures to reflect God’s glory back to God (1 Cor. 11:9). The reason it is not good for Adam to be alone is ultimately because it is not good for God’s glory that Adam should be alone, “everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory” (Isa. 43:7).

Adam did not design Eve’s female body or her feminine heart for his own pleasure. Eve was not made merely to help Adam with the dishes and laundry. Adam is not Eve’s ultimate ground and final goal. Eve is the absolute pinnacle of creation, the crown of Adam, “the glory of the man” (1 Cor. 11:7). She was sculpted to “make known the riches of God’s glory upon vessels of mercy” (Rom. 9:23). And Eve was made to join Adam in knowing and treasuring and showing the glory of God above all else.

Eve was God’s idea, made for God’s glory.

Eve is a Gift…
Without Eve, the image of God’s own Trinitarian glory in man would be insufficient, lacking. So God sovereignly declares, “it is not good that man should be alone.” Then he immediately follows up with his special divine solution: “I will make him a helper fit for him.”

But what happens next? Don’t we tend to jump immediately to the creation of Eve? God says it is not good that Adam is alone … so God makes Eve. But this is not how the story goes. By jumping to the creation of Eve, we miss the scene in between the “it is not good” announcement and the creation of Eve. The text reads:

Then God said,
“It is not good that man should be alone;
I will make him a helper fit for him.”
So out of the ground God had formed
every kind of animal and brought them to the man
to see what he would call them.

What just happened? We were reading about the creation of Eve, but now we are reading about a day at the zoo? Instead of getting a few helpful tips about sex and romance, Adam gets a lesson in taxonomy, in the scientific study and classification of animals? There is something here that is often missed. The story reads on:

Whatever the man called the animals, that was their name.
But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.
So God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man,
and took one of his ribs and made it into a woman
and brought her to the man.

So why did God wait to make Eve? Why this season of delay and aloneness? And why the field trip to the zoo? The answer, I think, is that God wanted to teach Adam something. But what? The moral of the story cannot be that Adam is “just another animal.” Adam alone has God’s breath; he alone has dominion over the rest of creation, and this is witnessed in the naming of the animals, for the authority to name something is an enormous power. Adam is a creature, but he is not just another organism among organisms. So what was God trying to teach Adam in the naming of the animals?

What if by bringing Adam the animals “two by two,” as it were, God was showing him not only that he has an authority over these animals, but that there is a fundamental need of the two sexes for each other? You see, the other animals had a completeness Adam did not have. The man had no complement, no “helper.” The text gives us a strong clue that this is the moral of the story: “But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.” In the naming of the animals, God was drawing Adam’s attention to an arrangement, a norm.

Only after Adam realizes that he is missing out on the fullness of God’s male-and-female design do we read: “So God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and took one of his ribs and made it into a woman and brought her to the man.” Immediately, as the direct result of God’s creation, the text says: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” This one-fleshness and rich otherness, this cleaving and completing and complementing of being male and female, is paradigmatic of human flourishing. It is essential to worship. It is a foreshadowing of Christ and the Church (Eph. 5:32).

In delaying the creation of Eve, God was giving Adam a lesson in the basic pattern and design of how humanity is to bear God’s own image and to bring him glory: as man and woman. Adam and Eve together complete the wondrous monument to God’s name that is man. Eve was made to join Adam in loving God, to help him in bringing God glory. God’s gift to Adam is ultimately a gift for God’s own exultation.

By spacing out the creation of Adam and Eve, God was also drawing Adam’s attention to the gift of Eve. Failing to notice a gift dishonors it … and the giver. But to turn the gift in your hands, to say, “This is beautiful”—this honors the gift and the giver. Maybe this is what God was trying to teach Adam in delaying the gift of Eve: Notice the gift. Be astonished by it. Be glad for it, and care about it. To treasure the gift is the greatest gift Adam can give in return. And to remember what the gift is for—enjoying and sharing the beauty of the Lord. “You are worthy, O Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being” (Rev. 4:11).

… Made from Adam’s Side
With his own hands and breath, God personally formed Adam from the mud of the land. Then he personally cut a rib from Adam’s flesh and formed Eve out of it and brought her to the man. This is not merely history. This is parable.

“At last,” Adam says. “This is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken from Man.” The woman is an divine gift, Adam’s ezer kenegdo, his “lifesaver suited for him,” or “helpmeet” (2:18). Later, Adam names her Eve, “mother of all living.”

Why didn’t God make Eve from the ground, like Adam? Why from Adam’s own flesh? And notice that Adam did not have to do anything. The man was fast asleep when God cut the rib from his flesh and formed the woman out of it. Adam could never say, “I did that.” Eve was an unmerited gift.

I would like to suggest to you that the creation of Eve is a parable burdened with meaning that will only get heavier throughout the biblical story: a man, God’s life giving breath or “spirit,” a pierced side, a death-like sleep, the building of a bride, undertones of salvation: in other words, the new Adam on the cross giving over his spirit to his new Eve, drawn from his pierced side.

“Woman was made for man” (1 Cor. 11:9), ultimately, because the Church is made for Christ (Rev. 21:2). The church is the bride of Christ, the new Adam’s new Eve. She was prefigured in creation, prepared for in the Old Testament and announced by John the Baptist, founded by Christ, fulfilled by his cross and resurrection, and has been empowered with the filling of the Holy Spirit. She will be perfected in the glory of the Father as the assembly of all the baptized faithful (Rev. 14:4).

God’s Enduring Passion
Think of the juxtaposition of the sexes as a manual for the maximization for the glory of God. This is the rock bottom reason God looked at Adam and Eve and said, “It is very good.” God designed people in such a way that they could join God in loving God. This is why sexual differentiation is a “good” thing. This is why God created a person like Adam yet very unlike Adam. It is a unity and a fruitfulness that would otherwise have been impossible. Together, Adam and Eve are able to tell the story of God’s glory. Together, they are specially designed to be able to enjoy and to share the beauty of the most adorable Trinity.

The creation story issues a clarion reminder of God’s enduring passion to glorify himself through the unity-in-diversity of his male-and-female creation. It comes to a climax in the incarnation, when Christ became the new Adam born of a daughter of Eve. Adam and Eve are a parable of Christ and the Church, the marriage feast of heaven and earth.

Without Eve, we would not know the eternal Son of God as the incarnate Son of Man. Without Eve, we would not be God’s beloved “coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband” (Rev. 21:2). Without Eve, Jesus would not be the Bridegroom (Mark 2:19), and the Church would not be his “betrothed” (Matt 22:1-14; 25:1-13; 1 Cor. 6:15-17; 2 Cor. 11:2). Eve is a parable of the Church, and she is the spotless bride of the spotless Lamb (Rev. 22:17; Eph. 1:4). And this is the gospel treasure: “Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her” (Eph. 5:25-26).

God has joined us to himself in an everlasting covenant. We are flesh of Christ’s flesh and bone of Christ’s bones. What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.

Editor’s note: The image above is a detail from “The Fall of Man” painted by Hendrik Goltzius in 1616.

Tyler Blanski


Tyler Blanski, a Catholic convert, is the author of When Donkeys Talk: Rediscovering the Mystery and Wonder of Christianity (Zondervan, 2012) and Mud & Poetry: Love, Sex, and the Sacred (Upper Room Books, 2010). www.holyrenaissance.com

  • Watosh

    There is an undoubtedly apocryphal story that the way Eve’s creation came about is the Good Lord asked Adam what he would like Eve to be like, and Adam went on and on about what he wanted Eve to be, and when he finished God said to Adam, “That will cost you an arm and a leg.” When Adam heard that he replied, “What can I get for a rib?”

    Seriously Tyler Blanski provides some excellent insights into the creation of Adam and Eve.

  • publiusnj

    What a wonderful way to glorify God! By doing that which He did–creating life–even if we often start out just wanting to get invoved with a love mate!

    Male-female love rarely starts out totally altruistically. Instead, there is often a heavy component of eros in it (what might be called “opposite sex attraction” in PC-speak). Yet, as we are drawn by the process of male-female love into loving the product of that love–children who are “bone of our bones and flesh of our flesh”– we can begin to grow beyond self-love into loving our creations altruistically. We can see ourselves in them; yet they are NOT us. And then, our love for the mother of our children can also take on a new depth and reverence. Thus, God draws us out of self-love and we can learn something about how to love the way He loves.

    I hope in making these remarks that no one thinks I believe I know God’s thought processes. That is way beyond my pay grade, to paraphrase B.H. Obama. As God said: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways….For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. “

  • Ford Oxaal

    Really fascinating. And now I guess Mary is the mother/queen of the living — the church, including the angels. It will be so interesting to see where Adam and Eve fit in within the pantheon of saints.

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      The parallel between Eve and the BVM is drawn out by three very early writers, in a way so similar that they are obliviously following a tradition that may well go back to the apostles

      Thus, St. Justin Martyr (A.D. 120-165) – “We know that He, before all creatures, proceeded from the Father by His power and will, … and by means of the Virgin became man, that by what way the disobedience arising from the serpent had its beginning, by that way also it might have an undoing. For Eve, being a Virgin and undefiled, conceiving the word that was from the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death; but the Virgin Mary, taking faith and joy, when the Angel told her the good tidings, that the Spirit of the Lord should come upon her and the power of the Highest overshadow her, and therefore the Holy One that was born of her was Son of God, answered, ‘Be it to me according to thy word.'” —Tryph. 100

      And Tertullian (160-240) – “God recovered His image and likeness, which the devil had seized, by a rival operation. For into Eve, as yet a virgin, had crept the word which was the framer of death. Equally into a virgin was to be introduced the Word of God which was the builder-up of life; that, what by that sex had gone into perdition by the same sex might be brought back to salvation. Eve had believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel; the fault which the one committed by believing, the other by believing has blotted out.”— De Carn. Christ. 17.

      And St. Irenæus (120-200) – “As Eve by the speech of an Angel was seduced, so as to flee God, transgressing His word, so also Mary received the good tidings by means of the Angel’s speech, so as to bear God within her, being obedient to His word. And, though the one had disobeyed God, yet the other was drawn to obey God; that of the virgin Eve the Virgin Mary might become the advocate. And, as by a virgin the human race had been bound to death, by a virgin it is saved, the balance being preserved, a virgin’s disobedience by a Virgin’s obedience.”— Adv. Hær. v. 19

      • Ford Oxaal

        Excellent. One of the many things that persuaded me to become Catholic was a writing about just such a parallel between Eve and Mary being drawn — something like “as from a man came woman through whom sin entered the world, so from a woman came a man through whom sin leaves the world” — I want to say it was from a sermon by St. Augustine, but I can’t seem to find it…

  • Ed McDonald

    This is a delightful meditation on the creation story. However, I am doubtful of this section: “If it were not for God, Adam would have never realized that it was not
    good for him to be alone. He did not know any better. He was not lonely,
    and if he was he didn’t know it. In an unfallen world, walking with God
    is not lonely.”
    Well, presumably, in an unfallen world human reason is even less flawed. If it was not good for him to be alone, he most certainly would have figured it out. There is no robust argument that justifies the claim that Adam wouldn’t have realized his state or would not have been lonely. After all, one should point out, “hey, he wasn’t alone”… but in some meaningful sense he was, despite his “walking with God”.

    • Agreed! If G_d thinks it is not good for man to be alone, man, who is in his image must be thinking the same as well. Why then Adam’s exultation as soon as he sees Eve?
      It is the story of all of us isn’t it? The hidden treasure, the pearl of great price.
      Things click in place when one’s vocation is revealed to them/they discover it …
      The old age question, ‘why am I here, what’s my purpose…?’

  • Martin M

    The fall out of this article and indeed from my understanding of JPII’s Theology of the Body is that sad singletons like me are indeed missing out on the fullness of life, love, joy , and happiness. It’s not all in our heads. There’s a reason most people strive for marriage and why so many are miserable alone. There seems to be this conflict within the Christian religion of the supposed sufficiency of God alone yet the real emptiness of life lived without marital love. I’m off to cry into my single pillow…

    • msmischief

      Well, yes, in this life. The single vocation is not of this world, it points to the next, and only comes to fruition there.

      • Martin M

        And yet even in the Church, officially at least, last I heard was that the single life is not regarded as a vocation. It is regarded as a non-state, a non-vocation. The married life, priesthood, religious life, are vocations. But the single life: not a vocation. It’s a non-vocation. So whilst the consecrated virgin, religious, or priest has his life celibacy mean something, for guys like me, we’re almost non-persons. Irrelevant. Sad. At least that’s how it feels. Nice, huh?

        • gsk

          My dear brother Martin: yours is not the path I would choose first for my son, but it is a rich and valuable path nonetheless. With all the lonely people in the world who do not know God’s love, with all the thoughtless couples who squander their gift of purity, with all the failed marriages due to the short-sightedness of selfish persons, with all the wounded souls whose attempts at love were rebuffed, with all the children who wanted the love of their absent father, you stand as victim soul. Painful, yes, but your particular suffering speaks to each of these situations (where God willing, you would have done better) and you hand back the ache in your own breast for their salvation. There are so many like you, and in this generation that shows itself clueless about love and fidelity, there you are before the Tabernacle with the greatest sacrifice possible: a faithful but bruised heart. I’ll pray for your steadfastness in this extremely fruitful path. Blessings always!

          • Martin M

            Thank you gsk. Please pray for me that I will love God. Right now, I feel far from Him, lonely and sad as I am. Yet what you say has great value and meaning for me.

            • msmischief

              Offer up your suffering — Jesus felt pretty far from Him on the Cross.

              • dustin

                If I remember correctly, the holy women and the beloved apostle were not standing by the cross of Jesus telling him to offer up His suffering like a champ.

        • Phil Steinacker


          You are partially correct but unfortunately you’ve been given an unnecessarily negative view of things.

          I speak as a lifetime single Catholic man, over 60, who squandered all those years when I could have been forming a family on pursuits of the flesh. After reversing course for that very reason I encountered a series of obstacles which leaves me childless and still unmarried. I regret it all, so it is easy at any age to get down on oneself about being single, but it is unwarranted.

          Let me try to clarify a few things. I remember quite clearly instruction Official Church teaching on vocation and states of life is ensconced in Church Tradition, which I received at a Catholic college when I was about 20 or so. I’ll add I didn’t like it much, for reasons I’ll get into after I impart it to you.

          There are three states in life: single, married, and religious life, including the priesthood. However, Church Tradition holds that there are only two vocations: married life and religious life, including the priesthood. Note that vocation is viewed distinctly apart from states in life.

          My reaction was grounded in the intent already forming in my heart to participate in the sexual revolution exploding everywhere around me. While young women of the day (@ 1970) were still greatly attached to a traditional upbringing and the mores produced by it, there were plenty who were quite willing to join the fun. I envisioned (as only a 20 year old ignorant of life’s
          lessons could) a lifetime of great sex and a lot of variety.

          I was still in the Church at the time, and sought as many do to find a way to square my plans with Church teaching. I was not happy to find singlehood foreclosed as a vocation.

          I returned to the Church 10 years ago, and surrendered to Jesus autonomy over my life decisions. Theology of the Body restored me to a vision of the Father’s plan but in a way I never saw, even before my escapades. I yearn to marry and fulfill that call I ignored so many years ago, even if children are not possible.

          The Church has added consecrated virgins as a sort of hybrid or subset to the two vocations, and one with a very low profile. Certainly there are also men and women who have chosen to consecrate their lives to God with remaining single central to that consecration.

          It’s important to consider two essential elements of vocation which distinguishes it from a lifestyle choice: service and covenant.

          Covenant in both religious life (including consecrated virgins) and marriage is expressed through the profession of vows. This means you have tied yourself permanently to Another or another, in either the priesthood/religious life or in marriage (some religious renew “temporary” vows every few years; others take “perpetual” vows akin to the lifetime commitment of the
          priesthood and marriage).

          Service can be easily seen in the priesthood and religious life, and three consecrated virgins I’ve met (at a TOB class in PA) also live a life of service doing the sorts of things you’d expect to see religious doing.

          Marriage is sealed by the same lifetime covenant as the priesthood and some religious, and service is to one another and to the children in providing them all which is customarily expected in a family setting. Of course, the primary responsibility of any husband or wife is to help their spouse into Heaven. THAT’S SERVICE!

          Contrast this to the more general description of the proposed Catholic single vocation, which usually means some variation of holding a full time job serving a Church parish or other institution or a Catholic agency doing good works. It may include volunteer work in the same vein, and membership in a third order (also available to those in marriage).

          As fine a life as a single Catholic may lead in any of the forms I mentioned above (including any I’ve failed to mention), without covenant it remains the province of whim. By whim, in this case, I simply mean a good Catholic can live such a life until he or she decides that they now wish to change that life by becoming a stockbroker. In doing so they are unencumbered by any vows and commit no sin or violate any agreement.

          So, the argument against a single vocation is that it fails the test of covenant and also service under that covenant.

          Of course, there is a sticking point I’ve seen addressed only ONCE in dozens of articles and blog posts promoting single vocations to be seen as legitimate in the eyes of the Church. Through all these arguments what is missing is an affirmation of chastity as essential, specifically regarding the abstinence
          appropriate to the single state in life. The failure to mention it concerns me because it is widely known that a significant majority of Catholics are sexually active outside marriage. Concern for sin was long ago rationalized away.

          Let me add some individual comments to round this out.

          Neither you or I are non persons, almost or otherwise. That’s “stinking thinking.” You must man up and decide and then act to cast aside those thoughts. They are of Satan, because they are not of God.

          The notion of a single vocation has in recent years reared its ugly head. The Church has not changed its view, but certain elements within the Church have been advancing the idea that the Church must change on this point and embrace the single vocation. Sadly, this includes a handful of bishops, priests, and religious.

          They lack authority to make that change, so we must be on guard not to embrace what we want to hear just because the speaker wears a Roman collar. This has happened for over 45 years with priests in the confessional telling penitents that contraception and even certain sexual activities were exclusively a matter of conscience. That’s a green light which a majority of Catholics were only too eager to embrace.

          Do not be discouraged. I know it sounds trite, but constant prayer is essential to bring about what you seek. One tip is that people often think of prayer as changing things, but the reality is that prayer changes YOU in ways you don’t see at the time. End all your petitions – no matter what they are and how badly you wish to see them granted – with “Thy Will be done” or a variation (I developed one I love; I alternate it with the first one). I promise you nothing about how or when God will act in your life, but I do promise that if you pray persistently and then surrender daily to His Will on what you seek that over time you will see yourself growing.

          One last thing. It is a sad truth that some people, particularly after they’ve been around for a long time, are alone because of their woundedness. Some are so badly bruised by past abuse that they understandably fear making themselves vulnerable again in relationship. For others, the damage sustained in the recent
          or even distant past affects them so much that they constantly fail in relationships, often through self-sabotage but also making life a living hell for the person(s) attempting to love them.

          We should always pray for such folks because that sort of
          loneliness is especially painful, but also keep in mind that these are powerful reasons why they are single. Often we hear someone say, “Well, God just never sent me the person I was supposed to marry.” Perhaps, but the Church has always seen relationship as central to vocation so it’s unlikely God is directing
          love away from these folks. The inability to function in relationship or the aversion to it are problems requiring prayer by those so affected and by anyone able to observe it in others.

          Also, notice the Church does not make moving out of the single state mandatory or sinful in any way. One may remain single all his life, and the Church will not condemn him, nor is it a sin to be confessed. This is not a perfect comparison, but it is in some ways similar to the Church calling us to holiness. She offers a number of avenues; practices which She knows will move us along that path; i.e. daily Mass, daily Rosary or Divine Mercy chaplet, Adoration, etc. However, there is no requirement or penalty for failure to follow the indicated path. Same with vocation.

          I think it boils down to the wisdom of the Church is that we
          realize and then encounter ourselves as who we were intended to become through committed and meaningful relationship, and not just any relationship but in a form exalted over what we might be inclined to pursue left to our own devices: one based on Covenant and Service.

          God bless you, Martin. This is a long read and I appreciate
          your attention to it.

        • Roscoe Bonsweenie

          to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as
          they are, as I do,” 1 Corintians 7:8

          Matthew 19:10-12 mentions that is it better to remain single.

          Not so sure marriage is a “vocation”, gotta look that up. Having a family – sure. But not marriage for the sake of marriage.

          So, you are so not irrelevant because you are single and since being single is not a vocation, go find a vocation, like teaching the teens of your parish. Be good and be happy.

          Peace out.

          • msmischief

            Of course it’s a vocation. It’s even a sacrament.

          • joan

            “But not marriage for the sake of marriage?” Marriage is a lot more than just having children – we lead each other to Holiness.

    • Roscoe Bonsweenie

      “There’s a reason most people strive for marriage and why so many are miserable alone.”

      oh, there are plenty that are miserable married too so, don’t think that logic works.

  • joan

    It is only through God’s Grace you’ve written this. One of the very best examples of putting God first and foremost. Thank you for this ~ may God bless you richly

  • hombre111

    Don’t know of a single non-literalist scripture scholar who would risk his reputation on the interpretation of the text presented here. Once you grant that a poetic myth-like story filled with metaphors underlies the thing, it is not bad reading.

  • Pingback: Mean Comic Strip on Religious Freedom Ran in NY Times - BigPulpit.com()

  • BillinJax

    If we understand that Adam, as originally created, had free
    will and able to partake and enjoy anything on God’s green and lavish earth to
    satisfy his fancy it is only reasonable to assume the all knowing Creator knew
    he could never find true contentment except by ultimately sharing the joy of it
    all with his own likeness and the fruits of there love for the gift of life
    with Him.

  • KDU

    Christ was not the new Adam as the article implies. Adam was a fallen, sinful creature (Romans 3:23; Romans 3:10-18) while Christ is holy and sinless and set apart from mankind. (Isaiah 42:8).
    We must not reduce the story of Adam and Eve to a parable, just a story because it reduces the importance of the rest of this written piece. The entire bible is filled with “stories” but they are of utmost significance (2 Timothy 3:16) in order to attempt to understand the magnificence of a God we serve and poorly attempt to glorify.
    What cannot be missed is the truth of Romans 1:21-25 in this article. God had a reason for creating one man to be with one woman and He created them both. Humankind has perverted God’s creation for his own foolish satisfaction spitting upon the face of God’s purposes for His creation.

  • This is beautiful!
    Man (male and female) is made in the image and likeness of G_d (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) telling (glorifying) the Trinitarian life. It is only Man (male and female) who in revelation is specifically spoken of as being made in the image and likeness of G_d and Christ coming, the Mystery hidden in G_d (and beginning and end of creation), taking our nature and not the angels, the mystery the angels long to gaze into … our glory is indeed great!
    The enemy does not like it (envy) that’s why out of hatred of G_d he attac

  • Pingback: Wednesday Link List | Thinking Out Loud()

  • Mohammed Ali

    I am sorry God would have the audacity to think man would need a woman, its really quite laughable in my opinion, more like a forced marriage putting those two together. He was sinless, so why would God tell him before he was made to multiply and make more of themselves so that God could please Lucifer by sending billions of millions of earthlings to hell while showing demons and Satan lovingkindness and mercy as well as respect? Adam did not need Eve, I find this verse of scripture offensive, he is basically telling Adam if you dont accept the lady I give you, you’re a piece of garbage. If God would have made Adam alone and he could not procreate than we would be better off without us on this planet to destroy and overpollute it. The earth has a problem, its us, and God enabled this. Too bad God had to pull a Ted Dibiase and put a sleeperhold on Adams ass,act like a surgeon and pull a rib from his rib cage. If I was Adam I would have been quite infuriated that He would “think” that I need a woman to be “complete” for my happiness? Adam would have been better off alone as a loner, not with a woman he did not need in the garden without ever saying if they hunted and gathered, only talking about them as if they were farmers. Why would insult his own creation by thinking Adam needed a woman in his life when he was sinless and didnt even need fruit that God was imposing on him to eat? Adam would have been better if he would have been left alone as loner not as a married man to bring sinners into the world so millions of generations could burn in hell,because him and his unwanted wife were infantile savages. I’m not miserable alone, so why would I want a girlfriend and wife and children? Misquoted bible verse misused to justify incriminating racism,compliments Isaiah 29:21.

  • The Very Truth

    Since God made Eve, it is just too bad he wasn’t smart enough to make many of us very Lonely Men meet a Good Woman to share our Life with. Especially when we see so many other men and women that had been Very Blessed to meet one another and have a family like we would had certainly wanted as well. The again with so many Mean Women out there these days, how in the world would we be able to meet a Decent Woman today?

    • Delosreyes

      Yea. Women are not women anymore. They became men.

      • Seriously

        It is very sad to say that most of the women these days are very sad and pathetic, and the good old fashioned women of years ago were the best of all since many marriages back then did last a very long time. And today most of the women are the cause of divorce since they’re the biggest cheaters.