Hey Paul, God Didn’t Say That!
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?
“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?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dawn Davidson on
-
Hezekiah,
You also said, "Don't turn this into a single doctrine because is apart of doctrine. Go further. What about us keeping the commandments? Feats, and dietary law? What about all of that stuff?"
What you miss about me is that I agree with you in this. My issue is that while we have been set free, the female is still subjugated by the Church based upon the garden word. Given that the Salvation of Christ wrought by His Shed Blood has not yet proven enough to set her free before men, we must go back to the garden to disprove subjugation. If you want me to cease and desist (as I know you would rather lol) then stop subjugating the female. You cannot have both. Even aside from it's detrimental effect upon many lives, it's not even theologically sound according to Doctrine, it's an affront to the Righteousness of God.
We find ourselves free enough to chew on a pork rib, but the female must always remember her subjugated place before men even while freely acknowledged in the Heavenlies as joint-heirs with Christ Jesus. So the man is now better than God? But isn't Christ still our example? Or, are we to be an example to Him, and he is just proving too slow to rightly comprehend and then apply subjugation to the female Himself? But the truth is, among men (as in mankind) subjugation of either the male or the female is not within the will of God.
I am not turning this into a single doctrine but the truth of the garden only serves to prove what we know is sound doctrine. -
-
Permalink Reply by James Pierce on
-
Dawn,
Are you a feminist? -
-
-
James,
Are you able to respond to this post employing sound word? -
-
-
James,
In the very least instead of seeking to cause distraction, speak specifically to this area of the post:
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."
What is your opinion of this devoid of attack against me? -
-
-
Brother Sibley,
I am pointing you to Genesis 3:16 when God says I will greatly multiply your sorrow, how could God multiply what is not already there? She admitted what were her actions in 3:13, 3:16 seems to prove her repentance, if not then why not? How else could God multiply without first proving to at least have seed?
In conception, Eve had seed through Adam, makes sense in 3:16 speaking to human reproduction, but how was he to muliply any "sorrow" that she was not first feeling in the aftermath of her fall? He could bring her to feel sorrow, cause her to feel sorrow, but the word says he was going to "multiply" her sorrow. To do this he had to start with something. Aside from what the word actually says, we all know rules of multiplication, anything times zero is zero. I think God knows that. God works by way of multiplying seed, you know that.
If someone were to say to me, I am going to "multiply" your love (or hate) for someone, that would have to mean that I had at least a seed of love (or hate) for that person to begin with. Otherwise, you are starting with nothing. -
-
Permalink Reply by Hezekiah Ben Israel on
-
I agree with Brother Lahry
-
-
-
Lahry,
I have already read the thread ahead and know that I am no longer acknowledged by you as a sister in Christ so I will skip the greeting as such here as well.
You speak as one who is not familiar with the of concept forgiveness. Regardless of what you say the "sorrow" was (as the interpretation you apply is incomplete) the issue is, it seems clear that she was already feeling "sorrow" at the top of Genesis 3:16 and even God acknowledges this before he even goes on to speak to her. Which is when he says, "I will greatly multiply your sorrow," my question, if you can get around to it, is how do you "multiply" something that is not first there? The mathmatical principle is clear, zero times zero is zero. But even if you check the Hebrew you will find that every word in definition of it speaks to increasing or causing a greater abundance of something which is already there, Address this.
Further, God speaks of this in the same breath as multiplying her "conception" for which, as we know by way of her husband Adam, she already had "seed" to use to gain the increase, hence the multiplication of human life. I believe He was speaking in the same way regrading her sorrow, if not then why not?.
Telling also is that even you say she felt guilt. How does one feel guilt without first recognizing that they have done something wrong? Only God and Eve prove to express sorrow given the effects of the fall, never Adam. Adam expressed no guilt whatsoever, he only lodged accusation by way of arrogance. It would speak better for him had he too felt guilt and even sorrow, he too like Eve would have been in the like company of God. Also, while Adam lodged accusation, Eve correctly identified evil as the work of the serpent. That is what an accusing Adam, thinking in right mind of God and not the serpent, was supposed to do also. -
-
-
Lahry,
You said: "It is obvious and should be moreso to any mother, that having a baby is even in the beginning unconfortable. That is what God multiplied."
How ridiculous is this statement? How many babies have you carried? I have personally carried two. Speaking to pregnancy, any early discomfort is not "sorrow" or "pain." Nausea does not even equal "pain." If a female is physically feeling "pain" then something is dangerously wrong with the fetus.
But to the point in word, now Eve was pregnant prior to the fall and we just didn't know it? How else, but for a fetus already present, could she have felt this multiplication of "sorrow" that you speak of? What you have stated is so ridiculous I can't even address any more of it.
But wait, speaking of the "obvious" (your word), when word says in Genesis 4:1 "And Adam knew his Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD" even God proves in word, according to you and this "sorrow" explanation of yours, not to have known that psst .... she was already pregnant! Really? He missed that? And you, among so many other things, call me blind?
Lahry, I can't wait to see where you go next. Wow. I'd call you Brother Lahry but well, you know ... -
-
-
Sister, please. You are trying to give women power than God gave to women. This is simple sister because don't let those demons put a strong delusion on you to have you believe a lie because if you continue to push this doctrine, it makes you seem as if you are serving Eve and not the God of Israel. The LOrd said keep his commandments if you want eternal life. The Lord said in the garden, If you eat from the Tree of Life you will live, and if you eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil you will die. Has not changed ever. All of this talk of garden doctrine is vain. You want a doctrine to preach, Preach the commandments, and eternal life. I am not trying to be mean, but be real. Let's get out of the imagination of your mind, and deal with what the scriptures say.
-
-
-
Hezekiah,
Dear brother, you have yet to demonstrate an ability to prove subjugation free of hypocrisy in God (I say only with much love to you). -
-
-
This is one thing that I agree with Brother Watson on. He is correct in this post. 100%.
-
-
-
Brother Watson,
If the Church actually believed and acted upon Romans 8:1, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" then I would have no reason to prove her righteous state before God even post-fall in the garden. But the Church still subjugates, so who is in error?
You said: "Eve is sorrowful because she has rebelled against God" - exactly why else would she, or should she first prove to be sorrowful? As a Christian who professes to love and exalt God, how much more of an admirable (even right) reason for "sorrow" in the aftermath of sin can we have than that? You would otherwise be sorrowful because of why? What goodness do you have apart from God? Should she have been sorrowful because she let herself down by not proving to have enough of her own goodness apart from God? The offense was against God Brother Wartson, she was supposed to be sorry that she rebelled, it is a good thing.
You said: "Eve, even in her so-called statement in Genesis 3:13, she acknowledges eating the fruit, but claimed she was not to blame by passing the buck." You keep saying this as if to identity the evil of the serpent is wrong. Which side are you on? It was Adam who lodged accusation in the face of God and against the brethren. God proves to believe what Eve said, so you can't say that she merely passed the buck. She spoke the truth only by rightly identifying the enemy. She had plenty reason to have identified Adam also but she clearly made a decision not to.
You said: "BOTH of them were ashamed of their nakedness when their eyes were opened, BOTH sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons, BOTH hid themselves from God, BOTH were issued curses by God, and BOTH were expelled from the garden."
Yet only one made a proven honored confession before God and Genesis 3:24 reads a little something like this: "So he drove out the man ..." -
© 2024 Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..
Powered by
