Hey Paul, God Didn’t Say That!

[Dawn Davidson]

Paul said in I Timothy 2:11-2:15:

“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”

But it seems God had other ideas.

Genesis 3:13 - “And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me and I did eat.“ This is a confession of the female ironically stating (given the “accusation” of Paul) that she was indeed “beguiled” or tricked, even deceived. She willingly spoke her truth before God. As such, this was a fallen but proven righteous female who a traditionally-minded Paul saw fit to lodge attack against anyway. She confessed in black and white to exactly what he is still accusing her of these many ages after, and we must ask, particularly in the face of continued subjugation of the female (even from the time of Paul), that's righteous? But what about her approved confession of Genesis 3:13, and how much greater would that teaching from him have been? That she was “beguiled” was all she confessed to, and all she proved having need to confess of in the garden before God.

I John 1:9 says, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Proverbs 28:13 says, “He that covers his sins shall not prosper, but whoever confesses and forsakes them shall have mercy.”

Despite the clear word of God, and despite a Christ who commands that we ourselves confess in order to be set free, the tradition of the Church falls in line behind a Paul to justify subjugation of a rightly confessed female before God. Note also, God asked her this question, and that God asked confirms that what she too said (and even in the presence of a man) would matter according to the plan of God. Unlike a Paul, even at a moment as critical as the fall, God did not prove to desire her silence (and particularly given that the man only saw fit to lodge accusation). If all she sought to do was learn from and then follow the example of an Adam, then she too would have, as did an Adam and like the enemy does, accuse the brethren. But she did not, operating with respect for her own separate “head,” she alone did not lodge accusation against the brethren but confessed truth to the glory of God instead.

Genesis 3:14 confirms His belief of her confession, saying, “Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.” Here is where we know God had respect for her statement as a confession of truth. A soon to be punished Adam however did not confess a truth that a righteous God could act on. Who knew that the words “Because thou hast done this” by God in Genesis 3:16 proves a demonstration in righteousness by the female in Genesis 3:13, and even today according to the actual truth in word, stands (whether acknowledged by the traditional male pulpit or not) as our first biblical example of making a right confession before God? In the aftermath of the fall, with a stubborn Adam still rejecting God, she alone emerged as a model citizen! The male tradition certainly won’t teach us this, but astounding isn’t it? So whether intended or not, Paul actually launched attack against one justly walking in the righteousness of God (and even subjugated by the man), and it was an attack even first against God as it is his righteousness.

But Paul said, “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.” Due to the male tradition, a blinded Paul proves not to comprehend that the transgression of Eve WAS obediently covered by confession of her sin before God. In a world where the God who created already knew it would fall, Eve proved to function according to call. She alone demonstrated respect and fear of God by justly confessing the truth of her sin, and doing so in right alignment with the provision of Confession already made available by God. Further, pride went before the fall, so how is it that the accusing, un-broken, proud attitude of a soon to be punished Adam, arrogant even while standing before God, is not evidence that he too was deceived (and even more so than a now confessed Eve) by the enemy? How selectively convenient of Paul. Yet at the Return of Christ, acting in like mind of a garden Adam will be enough to take each of us straight to Hell.

Genesis 3:15 says, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” This confirms the difference God was only able to draw between the serpent and the “head” of the female but not also between the “head” of an Adam and the serpent.

In Genesis 3:16 God says to the female, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow.” What we fail to note is that in order to “multiply” her sorrow, there must first be, in whole or in part, at least a seed of that sorrow to begin with, otherwise there is nothing to multiply. Hence we have proof of her sorrow (as even acknowledged by God) at the top of Genesis 3:16, a sorrow expressed by her in direct aftermath of the fall, confirming crucial repentance, and even a repentance first evidenced in her confession of Genesis 3:13. I am not getting into issues as to why Genesis 3:16 only represents consequences due to the fall itself for the female (even as it still does today for us) and not a personal punishment of her by God, except to say, given a confession of her sin in Genesis 3:13 which God proves respect for in Genesis 3:14, and then even that God acknowledged her repentance in Genesis 3:16 (saying that he would “multiply“ what was already her present “sorrow“), unless God is a liar and not who he says he is, a God proving faithful and just to forgive us our sins, she was not punished. There is a sound explanation in word inclusive of the Hebrew dismissing the issue of punishment in Genesis 3:16, but given that her confession and state of repentance was already fully endorsed by God at and prior to the beginning of Genesis 3:16, all other details regarding Genesis 3:16 are academic in nature only. God, who is no respecter of persons, did not position a proven unjust man to “rule over” (even) a female proving to walk in his righteousness. To do this, He might as well give Heaven to be ruled over by Hell as well. It sounds ridiculous, but it’s the same mind-set.

Genesis 3:20 says, “And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.” - Not only is this the first time the perspective of Adam in word acknowledges the female as his “wife,” but even post-fall she is still honored by God in name and title as an “Eve” meaning “life-giver” and “mother of all living” as a childless, virgin in a fallen garden.

Genesis 3:21 says, “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.“ What we must focus our attention on here is the word “also.“ The use of “also” in this verse makes the man Adam secondary in this work by God (symbolically covering sin) to the primary who is the female Eve. God only made “coats of skins” for two people, and he only referred to Adam in this process as an “also“ because his actions are actually first directed to the female Eve. Adam, her husband, again, is only referenced by God as “also.” This confirms that God was only able to cover the sin of both due to the just actions (confession/repentance) of the female alone and not a still stubborn Adam. Remember, Adam did not confess, he did not repent, and he alone was punished. How could God have justly used him for anything in such a state?

Genesis 3:24 says, “So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.” It was Adam alone who was driven out of the garden by God, never also a confessed and honored Eve. She left according to the call of God only to remain as a wife to Adam. In a confessed state she was not even barred from the tree of life, else then what does that say of us?

So when Paul says, “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in transgression“ it is he and others thinking like him in obedience to the tradition, who prove themselves deceived and grossly, even dangerously, in transgression. Again I say to the Church, give me proof in word that your subjugation of the female is of God and not the work of subtle, clever, and manipulative unclean spirits, because if you are depending on Paul to do it, this isn‘t it.

What are your comments?

[Dawn Davidson]

Joseph,

You said: “Now, to my mind, proof of the cleverness of Adam is that when circumstances gave rise to an even superior name for the woman, he asserted his right to rename her.” What circumstances? In 3:20 she was still a virgin, childless female. Further, the term “Woman” for her name is not contested because it does not speak well of her. Unlike the term of “man” synonymous with the name of “Adam” in the Hebrew, even the gender term of “woman” spoke highly of the female. It in and of itself is of no insult. It means to be a person of high degree, a wife, a champion, to be great, mighty, of no adultery. All things pleasing before God. The issue is, her gender does not and never did, define her as a unique person, an individual created by God. God knows each of us by name. He gave the man Adam a unique name, he did not call him “Man.“ But you argue that for some reason, God would want, or would even tolerate less, for his daughter the female. Would you call your daughter “Girl?” Why think so then of God?

I think what trips you up is this. In order to justify the known wrong actions of Adam, you claim immunity for him based upon his “independent authority.” My biggest point to you, is that there is no such thing as “independent authority” in God. The authority we walk in is His. So it is either His Way or it is the wrong way. That doesn’t mean that we are not free to choose independence from God, but in doing so, we even by definition are no longer walking in the Authority first belonging to God. It is an Authority only on loan to us, and as provided in the New Covenant, for us today in the Name of Jesus Christ. Would you attempt to successfully cast a demon out by way of your own “independent authority,” or does it take the Authority first rooted in what is the will and word of God? Without obedience it is impossible to please God. Obedience to the Standard of God always matters to God and is always key.

Joseph, what you are really proving to believe is that God does not punish evil, that’s a problem.

You said: “: but it leads me to think this was not the first time the prospect of progeny was revealed to Adam).” And again, it wasn’t. Adam had the example of the animals, and in Genesis 1:27 word says, “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply…” Even by your own reasoning, if Adam obediently called her “Eve” and declared that she was “mother of all living” in the first place (2:23), he would certainly have known what was the will of God between them. My biggest issue however in this is what we do to God. If we don’t see that Adam knew the will of God to multiply, and to even understand how to multiply, then we have a God issuing command and expressing desire for the humans to multiply all the while knowing that they were inept to do so. I reject that. Adam knew what was the will of God and it made no difference to him. A selfish Adam did not desire to multiply, giving him all the more reason to reject the female as an “Eve” meaning “life-giver” and to deny calling her “mother of all living.” This points to another layer in this however I think. It was not just about having full authority for Adam, but he actually proves to have no respect for life, a disrespect so intense that he not only rejected the truth of the female, but even neglected to make confession for sake of his own life. That’s tragic.

[Dawn Davidson]

Joseph,

You said: “I don't see how Adam not being renamed "father of all living" has much bearing on why Adam renamed Eve. Perhaps he didn't presume to rename himself (after all, that would technically be outside of the parameters of the assignment that God gave him in 2:19)? Perhaps he saw God as the truer "father of all living"?” The truth is, any person first called an “Adam” by God could not qualify as “father of all living.” Secondly, even if he did, that would not serve to replace his name. To think that also means that the foreknowledge of God failed because it is God who named him. The same likewise applies to Eve. The foreknowledge of God had ONE name for her, it was to be “Eve.” Adam was supposed to, was even designed to, speak the word of God only. It was as you say, the “independent authority” of Adam that called her “Woman,” it was never of God and that is why she is called “Eve” post-fall, after the return and correction of God in the garden. Again, there is no such thing as “independent authority” in God. Absolutely never is any knowledge apart from God complete, which is why we know the term “Woman” was never to her from God to begin with. If Adam has so much respect for God not to call himself “father of all living” then why didn’t he prove it by way of obedience in the garden? But also, it is not as if “Eve” called herself “mother of all living.” It was a spiritual title, spoken through Adam, but given by God, which she by way of making right confession before God earned from God.

There is a spirit that teaches that man was designed as a god in the garden and it seems to be where the idea that Adam had authority to operate freely as he pleased in the garden comes from. God is God all by himself and we are but his created things.

[Dawn Davidson]

Joseph,

You said: “Moreover, I think both the names "Adam" and "Eve" are morally neutral.” I could not disagree more. At issue is the difference in our sources. Yes, in looking at the Hebrew itself apart from Strong’s your definition is accurate with the exception of not also mentioning (so far from what I can tell) that “Adam” also speaks of him as a man of “low” and not “high” degree (again, definitely not morally neutral). But Strong’s goes on to say “hypocrite, common sort, mean man” (all things speaking to his character). She as an “Eve” is simply “life-giver,” and she earned (according to her actions, as did Adam according to his) this name from God in the garden as a virgin, childless female. But she is “life-giver” of what? She is not God, so she is certainly not “life-giver” in the creative realm of life, in either creating, sustaining, or saving it. She also as a female was not a “life-giver” of her own means, it took (and takes) the seed of a man to bring about life in her body. So in the physical realm, a man is just as much of a “life-giver” as is a female. It is her body which continues to support and nurture that life into existence, but it takes both the male and the female to physically create and give it life. But what Eve did do was confess truth in Genesis 3:13. It was a truth spoken by the female providing a righteous God with a now proven just instrument in the earth to justify his own desire and then decision not to completely destroy all in the face of sin. Again, nothing about this is “morally,” I would more specifically say from the perspective of God, “spiritually” neutral. In this sense only was she a “life-giver” even as she (as a virgin childless female) was also “mother of all living.”

You said: “Once God explained the process by which the couple would have progeny (which of course He did in relaying to Eve how she would labor in childbirth), Adam chose a descriptive name for her.” And yet she should have been called “Eve” as early as 2:23, long before 3:16, again proving that Adam was supposed to name according to the will of God only. Further, the animals were an example to the man of how to multiply with the female. God after all, makes it clear (even speaks to them) that his greatest will is for the man and the woman to be “fruitful” and “multiply.” He did not leave them in the garden without an example or knowledge of how to do so pre-fall, else it is he who is at fault. Just speaking to life, even young children in their innocence play doctor.

[Joseph Gill]

This is a very esoteric interpretation of the names given to man and woman. Consider how your reading compares to Gen. 5:2, for example. If "Adam" is such low and demeaning name, and the woman was to be exalted with a far superior name, why does the bible narrator say that God "called their name Adam, in the day when they were created"? Why insult the woman by saying her name was "Adam" too? Obviously, the bible does not consider "Adam" an insult... it is just a description of the origin of a human being... from the red clay of the earth. The man is fashioned from the dust, the woman is fashioned from a part of the man, ergo they both are made of the same stuff. They are male Adam and female Adam.

I think I stated in an earlier post that the confessions of both Adam in 3:12 and Eve in 3:13 are interchangeable. "I did eat" is the admission that comes from the mouths of both. Your thesis needs there to be a difference, so you have announced there is one without any textual evidence.

And yet she should have been called “Eve” as early as 2:23, long before 3:16, again proving that Adam was supposed to name according to the will of God only. Further, the animals were an example to the man of how to multiply with the female. God after all, makes it clear (even speaks to them) that his greatest will is for the man and the woman to be “fruitful” and “multiply.” He did not leave them in the garden without an example or knowledge of how to do so pre-fall, else it is he who is at fault. Just speaking to life, even young children in their innocence play doctor.

I broached this "Adam made a mistake naming the woman" argument in my earlier post, so I won't venture there again. But I will concede that the other creatures in the garden should have been examples (or at least hints) of the human reproductive cycle. It may be reasonable to say that man and woman were more knowledgeable about childbirth than I originally supposed. But, of course, if Adam's knowledge was from what he observed in nature, it could very well explain why he associated femaleness with life-giving (in that he only saw progeny emerge from the female of the species). This might very well explain why he called Eve "the mother of all living" and seemingly overlooked how he was the human father of all. But of course this is exceedingly speculative... we really don't know what Adam and Eve knew about childbirth before 3:16.

Speculations will have us tumbling over ourselves. Remember how in the previous post you asserted that Eve was a virgin? Well, if God gave the couple examples and knowledge of how to be fruitful and multiply, why do we assume they hadn't begun their sexual relationship? Genesis 4:1 may not mean it was the first time Adam carnally knew his wife, only that it was the first time "the rabbit died."

[Joseph Gill]

I'm not being allowed to answer the new subsections of the thread. Perhaps it is for the best, since we seem to have come to a place of speaking past one another. I think the distinctions you make between Adam and Eve are biblically unsupported, but I know I won't divest you of them. I'll just answer a handful of points.

I see from the scripture that God gave Adam authority to name every living creature... that applied to Eve, as she was alive and a creation of the Lord's.

You ask whether in the pulpit a man may "independently preach whatever word he will and yet still be found within the will of God?" Of course not, but then I wouldn't call Adam a preacher. I can't help wonder if he failed in his true assignment as a teacher of God's word, given how easily his pupil Eve is lead astray be the serpent, but the record isn't specific about where things first went wrong with the communication of God's commandment to his wife. Still, as far as his naming responsibility, I see no similarities with a preacher or teacher.

But even if I believed Adam was supposed to only name the creatures of the garden what God willed them to be named, I still would have no basis for believing Adam made an error in 2:23. There is no correction of Adam recorded after he called her "woman."

I like the observation that Adam actually does rename himself "Man" (that he is the first to use the Hebrew word iysh). It fascinates me to know that the biblical narrator then picked up Adam's terminology, and used it to mean "husband" to the ish-shah ("woman" or "wife"). I think the use by the narrator validates these words Adam coined. I think that sinks your supposed case against Adam for naming himself and Eve in chapter 2.

You write that the term of “man” ia synonymous with the name of “Adam” in the Hebrew, but you are mistaken. Iysh is a word that signifies maleness, while Adam signifies humanity. Both the first man and women were in that true sense "Adam" [5:2].

I don't think God cried a tear for Eve being called Ish-shah. After all, He refered to her as Ish-shah Himself [3:17].

Thanks for an interesting exchange, anyway, Dawn.

[Dawn Davidson]

You said: “The curse of the ground is comparable to the pain in childbirth, it is sin's corruption of God's original plans for human beings. Both Adam and Eve suffered consequences for their sin... but they both were forgiven, as I interpret His clothing them both in the skins of animals [Gen. 3:21]. God accepted the repentance on both their parts and was gracious toward them both.” And yet, why did God put Adam into a “deep sleep” when taking the rib if not to shield him from the worst of the physical pain involved? “Sleep” is one thing given even just the sight of it, but a “deep” sleep speaks to the presence of pain and we have absolutely no other reason to suspect that this man‘s ability to feel pain was suspended or altered according to what was the unchanged blueprint of God in making the human body. He indeed had a functioning nervous system and other sensory organs. So to point to pain in childbirth as a result of the fall just does not hold water (no pun intended). Further, God felt the pains of his own “labor” given the fall of the humans (that he even saw coming in creating them), so you cannot connect pain in childbirth to the fall in anyway.

Yes, God only cursed the serpent, but that the world fell under the effects of sin was due to a choice made by the human being Adam (who failed to exalt God and rightly confess truth). God punished Adam as his child, and yes, he was now consigned to live under the curse that sin brought, but that was due to his work in rejecting God. In His mercy and given the work of a now proven just Eve (giving Him cause not to destroy all), God cursed the ground for the “sake” of Adam. He purposed the ground as a means for this man’s punishment. You indicate also that Adam repented in the garden, where did he do so?

In Genesis 3:16 God says he will “multiply” the “sorrow” of an Eve who even he is now proving is already sorrowful. An already present “sorrow” by the way proving also that her “sorrow” had nothing to do with childbirth. Her “sorrow” was already present in the immediate aftermath of the fall and she was not now pregnant. Genesis 3:13 was a confession of her truth and the top of 3:16 proves her repentance. Where did Adam repent? I agree God covered the sin of both in 3:21 but it was not due to Adam, only the confession of Eve.

(I am not contesting that “sorrow” means to “labor” and to “toil” but only that it means she would do so physically. Check the primary root word upon which this definition is based, it does not speak to anything physical. The definition itself therefore, is only speaking to the mental, emotional state of an “earthen vessel,” nothing physical. That such “labor” and “toil” of mind is what is taking place in an earthen vessel. I am looking at the Hebrew in addition to the Strong’s. But again, you need to check out the common primary word upon which both uses of the word “sorrow” are based.)

I apologize if I confused you with someone who said that Eve lied. It is just so rare to encounter one who does not also believe that. I do feel a need to say, you must consider what it means that Adam was present when she inaccurately made the statement yet he knowing the truth said nothing even while she was being “beguiled” by the enemy into eating the fruit. He silently stood there knowing she was being tricked. Did he confess to this?

[Joseph Gill]

In Genesis 3:16 God says he will “multiply” the “sorrow” of an Eve who even he is now proving is already sorrowful. An already present “sorrow” by the way proving also that her “sorrow” had nothing to do with childbirth. Her “sorrow” was already present in the immediate aftermath of the fall and she was not now pregnant. Genesis 3:13 was a confession of her truth and the top of 3:16 proves her repentance. Where did Adam repent? I agree God covered the sin of both in 3:21 but it was not due to Adam, only the confession of Eve.

Dawn, I explained earlier that the word translated "sorrow" in the KJV bible really means "labor" or "toil" in the Hebrew. Don't take my word for it... check out a Hebrew lexicon yourself. God didn't say her "sadness" or "sorrow to repentence" would be multiplied in childbirth, He said her labor or difficulty would be. This supposition of yours that Eve repented but Adam didn't is based on an imperfect translation of the Hebrew word itstsabown. Scripturally, there is no direct statement that either Adam or Eve repented, other than the allowance God made for both of them in 3:21. I am convinced that is a picture of animal sacrifice for their spiritual as well as physical nakedness. Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins. This "clothing" of Adam and Eve came via substitutionary death, and I cannot imagine God would have made such allowances for either of them if they weren't contrite and chastened in their hearts.

God is very specific in Genesis when he punishes. The serpent is cursed. Cain is cursed [4:11]. But Adam is not cursed. The ground is cursed as a consequence of Adam's sin. It is clear this is not punishment.

By the way, there is a long debated question as to whether Adam was present at the time of Eve's temptation by the serpent. I think not--I see you take the opposite view--but I think we both have to allow that the evidence can be read either way. That the serpent only addresses Eve in 3:1 supports my contention; that Eve seems to eat and then immediate give to her husband to eat in 3:6 seems to support yours. Either case is flimsy.

[Dawn Davidson]

Joseph,

You are funny, “the rabbit died.” It’s been a long time since I heard that one. I will get back to it later.

You said: “Consider how your reading compares to Gen. 5:2, for example. If "Adam" is such low and demeaning name, and the woman was to be exalted with a far superior name, why does the bible narrator say that God "called their name Adam, in the day when they were created"?” First, I would never say there was anything superior about Eve than Adam, but that they only made different choices in God. Secondly, in reference to 5:2, in the day that they were created she like he, did fall. During that time she too became like an Adam - she was made to be ashamed. The difference is, she by way of making right confession did not stay that way.

You said: “Obviously, the bible does not consider "Adam" an insult... it is just a description of the origin of a human being... from the red clay of the earth.” I don’t consider the name of Adam as an insult either. It was a name given to him by God speaking the garden truth of this man. Again, we disagree about the definition of his name, my definition is from “The Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.” Yet even the Hebrew apart from Strong’s defines his name as yes, as you say (from the red clay of the earth) but also as a man of low degree (The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon).

You said: “The man is fashioned from the dust, the woman is fashioned from a part of the man, ergo they both are made of the same stuff.” The female was created from the rib which was the bone and not the “flesh” of Adam. Yet word proves in 2:24 that it was the use of his “flesh” that God desired, never his bone. “Flesh” in the Hebrew means, just that, the flesh of a human being but it is based upon a primary root word meaning “to be fresh, i.e. full (rosy, (fig.) cheerful); to announce (glad news):- messenger, preach, publish, shew forth, (bear, bring, carry, preach, good, tell good) tidings.” So for what reason, if Adam proved to meet the will of God in the garden (and even was not punished), did the foreknowledge of God choose to reject the use of Adam’s flesh (against His own original desire and design) if it proved to manifest in a like manner such as this? The “glad news” is the “good news” of God, his word, the gospel. If this is what He indeed saw in Adam’s “flesh” why did he reject it? The two were to be “one flesh” but it is clear from the difference between what was the will of God versus what God was actually able to do, that the man and the woman were not of “one” flesh, that in fact their flesh proved to be different one from another. I say God rejected it not because Adam fell, but because Adam did not make right confession. A fallen Eve did.

You said: “I think I stated in an earlier post that the confessions of both Adam in 3:12 and Eve in 3:13 are interchangeable. "I did eat" is the admission that comes from the mouths of both. Your thesis needs there to be a difference, so you have announced there is one without any textual evidence.” They are certainly not interchangeable. Just judging from the response of God we know that they are not interchangeable even if we don’t fully understand why. If interchangeable, then why was God only able to use the “head” of the female in striking (even setting) a difference, drawing a line in the sand, between the female and the serpent? If God made no difference, where is the “head” of Adam in Genesis 3:15, as important and critical in speaking to Salvation as this verse is?

You said: “But, of course, if Adam's knowledge was from what he observed in nature, it could very well explain why he associated femaleness with life-giving (in that he only saw progeny emerge from the female of the species). This might very well explain why he called Eve "the mother of all living" and seemingly overlooked how he was the human father of all. But of course this is exceedingly speculative... we really don't know what Adam and Eve knew about childbirth before 3:16.” You make a good point in saying that Adam would have only witnessed the effect of reproduction in the body of the female animals and thus associated it with the woman, but she still should have received her name as early as 2:23. I addressed that more in a recent but earlier post. Adam physically was “father of all living,” the point is as a virgin, childless female she earned this title from God (as it was in the will of God first for her to receive it), it had nothing to do with the fact that she would physically be a future mother. God required a proven righteous instrument in the earth to work through. Eve alone provided him with that by way of making right confession - hence she earned title as “mother of all living” in the earth. It is not a title equated on the God level but everything that happened in the garden was spiritual in nature first and that is why God gave it to her even as a virgin childless woman.

You said: “Well, if God gave the couple examples and knowledge of how to be fruitful and multiply, why do we assume they hadn't begun their sexual relationship? Genesis 4:1 may not mean it was the first time Adam carnally knew his wife, only that it was the first time "the rabbit died." I appreciate this point but 4:1 indicates that Adam “knew Eve his wife.” This verse (along with 3:20) represents the very first time that Eve is recognized by Adam in any way as his “wife.” While the word itself refers to her as his wife, he calls her “Woman” and “the woman” only, never his wife. He doesn’t even acknowledge her in equal standing of a name as a true husband would of his wife. Also, the word “man” which is synonymous with “Adam” in the garden is not the definition of “man” in the Hebrew which speaks of a husband, although the word “woman” for Eve does mean “wife.” Also, I have heard people question this before but I can’t accept it because God’s biggest desire in the garden was for the two to become one and multiply. It is too difficult for me to believe that they were having physical relations and she didn’t conceive in the garden of life even just as quickly and as easily as she seems to do in 4:1 post-fall estranged from it. This was the first couple, created without effect of sin and according to the perfect blueprint of God. Why ever should she not be able to readily conceive at any time in the garden? The word in no way proves that she as a woman was not ready to conceive in terms of physical maturity while in the garden.

Also, you will note that in Genesis 3:6 word says “and gave also to her husband with her.” But we can’t forget here that Adam introduced himself to her as “Man,” a use of the term which (among other positive traits) means “husband,” something which any “man” first called an “Adam” by God did not prove to be. And if he did not qualify to the foreknowledge of God as a “husband” to her (it was God who called him an “Adam”) that intrinsically also means that he did perceive or regard her as a wife.

[Dawn Davidson]

You said: “However, I think you overreach when you assert that it is contradictory to say that Eve lied and yet Eve wasn't punished. Eve could have lied and yet not been punished for lying... I believe it is perfectly clear that Cain lied (told God that he did not know where his brother was) and yet wasn't punished for lying (God is specific that his punishment is for the murder of Abel)” I don’t think you can accurately say that. Yes Cain lies to God saying “I know not” in 4:9 but what does God do in 4:10-11? He continues to question Cain but only now doing so by no longer allowing this man an opportunity to answer given his lie. Word says: “And he said, What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground. And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand.” After asking “What hast thou done?” God did not wait to hear Cain’s answer as he did in 4:9 because in 4:9 Cain already proved to God that not only was he arrogant like his father but that he too, like Adam, would lie. Also, we have no way of knowing specifically all of what God included in this question saying “What hast thou done?” but we do know that he asked this in direct response to a lie from Cain, and this even after having already pointed to the murder of Abel by Cain in 4:9. My read is that God was accentuating for us, by saying “What hast thou done?” that Cain, like his father, just wasted an opportunity to make a confession of truth before him. That despite the consequences of the fall and the punishment suffered by his father, this has now reached down to the second generation through his son. How much worse this now was given that the enemy, despite the fall and punishment of Adam, was still able to work from father to son through his children and even in the like same ways - lack of making right confession before God.

When God said “the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth up to me from the ground” yes he was letting Cain know that he knew Abel was dead, but he was also letting Cain know that he knew he was lying. And Cain was punished for lack of making right confession, not the murder itself. In fact, he did not receive any mercy from God until he, despite his arrogance, at least humbled himself enough to confess that he could not bear his punishment. Even in circumstances of murder, God wanted to forgive Cain, but Cain had to make a right confession. Interesting too, that a murderous Cain is punished by God in the same like fashion as was his father Adam. So my question to you is also, if what God did to Adam was not punishment but only due to the effects of the fall, why then are we seeing it again almost verbatim in the punishment of Cain? How many times exactly could the same effects of the fall, fall? If only an effect of the fall and not specific punishment of Adam, the state of the earth was the state of the earth after the fall. How is it then, that God could effectively purpose this same like punishment of Cain on the same already cursed earth? What would be the difference, the earth was already made resistant. The answer of course I believe is, that whatever earth Adam sought to till was under a curse by God (and even for the sake of Adam), just as now the same would be true for a Cain given that what fell upon the ground in the earth was specifically purposed as punishment of both from God.

Certainly much of the fertile earth we know, and particularly prior to the negative environmental impact of man, does not prove a curse falling upon the ground by God. While we all know death, and some areas of the ground are certainly more difficult to tame than others, historically speaking, what has ever proven an effect of the fall upon the planting and growing of seed in the whole of the earth? It was punishment. Now there may be other natural effects of the fall, such as tornados, storms, earthquakes and the like, but effects of the fall did not make resistant ground upon the entire face of the earth for all men, yet if an effect of the fall (and not punishment of Adam purposed by God), like the effect of death among mankind, it should have. Adam’s punishment was immediate, so you cannot argue an effect in the earth over the course of time (even as we see given the misuse of man even in this day). It was punishment specific to Adam just as the same like punishment was specific also to Cain. Note also, that a silent, manipulative Adam in Genesis 3:1-3:6 received the same like punishment from God as did a Cain who murdered his brother in cold blood. It was the same operating spirit.

[Joseph Gill]

Word says: “And he said, What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground. And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand.” After asking “What hast thou done?” God did not wait to hear Cain’s answer as he did in 4:9 because in 4:9 Cain already proved to God that not only was he arrogant like his father but that he too, like Adam, would lie.

You have never and will never show that Adam was dishonest with God (or at least any more dissembling than Eve). Once again I repeat what scripture flatly declares: Adam confessed that he had eaten the forbidden fruit. Cain outright denied knowing where Abel was. Those are polar opposites on the scale of veracity. Again, I think you are being esoteric with what is otherwise a plain statement by God. "Now you are cursed from the ground [the divine sentence], which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand [the reason for his punishment]." I agree that God shows up Cain in his clumsy lie, but God is very direct in telling him why he is cursed by the land... and it's not for mendacity but for bloodletting.

You make a good observation about God not waiting for Cain to answer him when He asked "What have you done?" Sad, then, that you missed how significantly different it is from the way God dealt with his father. God asks Adam whether he had eaten of the forbidden tree, and Adam answered truthfully. It is the serpent that God doesn't give an opportunity to answer him. God dealt with Cain like He dealt with the serpent.


Interesting too, that a murderous Cain is punished by God in the same like fashion as was his father Adam. So my question to you is also, if what God did to Adam was not punishment but only due to the effects of the fall, why then are we seeing it again almost verbatim in the punishment of Cain? How many times exactly could the same effects of the fall, fall? If only an effect of the fall and not specific punishment of Adam, the state of the earth was the state of the earth after the fall. How is it then, that God could effectively purpose this same like punishment of Cain on the same already cursed earth? What would be the difference, the earth was already made resistant. The answer of course I believe is, that whatever earth Adam sought to till was under a curse by God (and even for the sake of Adam), just as now the same would be true for a Cain given that what fell upon the ground in the earth was specifically purposed as punishment of both from God.

To Adam: "...Cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. "

To Cain: "When you cultivate the ground, it will no longer yield its strength to you; you will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth."

I can see how, at first glance, these may seem to be comparable pronouncements, but Cain's situation is far more dire than Adam's. Adam would remain a husbandman (as he was called to be in Gen. 2:15) all his life, living off of the land, albeit with far more strenuous effort than it took to dress and keep the Garden of Eden. Cain is sentenced to have the ground withhold itself from him, which is primarily why he must take up a vagabond lifestyle. If he stationed himself in any one place and tried to work a piece of land, he'd starve to death. Cain was cursed to glean off the land for the rest of his life, or live off of others' farming.

[Hezekiah Ben Israel]

You are still on this false doctrine Sister?

The so-called Garden Doctrine.

[Dawn Davidson]

Joseph,

I agree. It is time to bring this to an end. I think that we certainly disagree in key areas of Scripture but I still greatly appreciate your perspective and have learned from you. You have a challenging mind in word, you are genuine, and you have a very good temperament. You made me consider things in ways that I had not before, especially regarding Cain and the idea that God did not punish either. I love finding the nuance of word and you have pointed me to new places. I am certainly going to continue looking at the comparative issues (or not) of an Adam and a Cain.

My point was never to suggest that the word "sorrow" itself means she repented, but regardless of meaning, God did not in any way curse a person who he proved able to use (even despite her fall) in opposition to the enemy. Perhaps not to you, but I have said before, that I am not married to all of the details surrounding what either of the two “sorrows” mean but only that a God who proved to believe her in 3:14, and then in 3:15 proved able to use her (and her alone and not also the man, an issue which you never addressed) in righteous opposition to the serpent himself, did not proceed to then curse her in 3:16. In believing this, we even give the serpent a right to mock Him for that.

The first use of the word “sorrow” is the same use even in reference to Adam in 3:17 so I assume we agree it can be applied in ways other than indicating hard maternal labor for her and besides even that, she was not pregnant, there would be no “sorrow” of that nature to “multiply.” This is the “sorrow” that I say speaks to her repentance, how can you multiply anything which is not first there? This word in the Hebrew speaks to “worrisomeness,” that is, “labor or pain:- sorrow, toil” (a “labor” and “pain” which again, Adam experiences himself per Genesis 3:17).

But the truth is, the use of the second “sorrow” can be interpreted either way, whether it be of “body or mind,” so why don’t we first consider what the work of God in this word is before calling it either way? God proves in Genesis 3:14 and 3:15 to approve of this female. God symbolically covered sin only “Unto Adam” as an “also” in Genesis 3:21 and God even specifically “drove” the man out (not the woman) in Genesis 4:24 which by extension also means she was never barred from the Tree of Life, only he in a still un-confessed state was. You can argue his confession all day, but it was God who proved to have no respect for it, I am only going by the word. Further, if both humans were in a just state before God post-fall, they would not have lost their garden home. Again, this is why word says that God “drove” the man out, not her. There is a reason why God used the “dust” in his creation and not hers. God even rejected the use of this man’s “flesh” in creating the female and it is for this reason only, that He used a “bone.” And you may say that the interpreters added the “also” in 3:21 but you must also contend with the fact that they added it for a reason and that reason, certainly preceeding me, must also be bigger than me. I am not the only one seeing more to this word than the traditional mind (and we both know those minds who approved adding it were not female - what then must they have been compelled by?).

And frankly even saying “Unto Adam and to his wife” still means, for those who still subjugate (which is what this discussion is about), that her sin was forgiven even as was his. Perhaps this is what Paul should have spent more time on. Yet there is not one sound righteous reason to continue in the hypocrisy that even Paul, himself a traditionally-minded man, clearly missed. Paul is not our God.