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
-
The difference between the words of an Adam and an Eve and the response of God to them is tremendous. To begin, Adam unlike Eve, did not receive a name from the foreknowledge of God speaking to life, Eve did. Adam also did not respectively receive a like title from God as "mother of all living" as did Eve, and even as a virgin, childless female in the aftermath of the garden. God also did not give validity to the statement of Adam in 3:12 as he did with Eve in 3:14. Only in response to Eve did God turn to the serpent saying, "Because thou hast done this," and then go on in 3:15 to draw a line of separation between the good and the evil, between the “head” of the female (only) and the serpent, but not also Adam and the serpent (as God was not pleased with Adam) but only Eve and the serpent.
And before you get to 3:16, speaking to her repentance, God also first acknowledges that she was already in a sorrowful state after 3:13 (her just confession), saying “I shall greatly multiply thy sorrow.” How can you multiply anything which is not first there? She was at this point not only confessed but repentant. This is true prior to anything else he goes on to say in 3:16, confirming as well, in addition to 3:15 that is, that she was surely not punished but only suffered consequences to sin only. Why did God allow for her to have name and title speaking to life and not also Adam if there was no difference? That is your real question to answer. In the garden "life" (anything speaking to it) = evidence of His Righteousness.
And isn’t it interesting that Adam actually confessed to the fruit and yet was punished anyway by God? So what else did God see that the tradition of the garden misses?
The female was also not wrong to identify the serpent as the source of evil in the garden, she did what she was supposed to do. It certainly did not come from God. Here again, we can point to an Adam who, like the enemy and unlike Eve, only saw fit to accuse the brethren. -
-
Permalink Reply by Joseph Gill on
-
The difference between the words of an Adam and an Eve and the response of God to them is tremendous. To begin, Adam unlike Eve, did not receive a name from the foreknowledge of God speaking to life, Eve did. Adam also did not respectively receive a like title from God as "mother of all living" as did Eve, and even as a virgin, childless female in the aftermath of the garden.
But of course this has nothing to do with any difference between their confessions in 3:12 and 3:13.
God also did not give validity to the statement of Adam in 3:12 as he did with Eve in 3:14. Only in response to Eve did God turn to the serpent saying, "Because thou hast done this," and then go on in 3:15 to draw a line of separation between the good and the evil, between the “head” of the female (only) and the serpent, but not also Adam and the serpent (as God was not pleased with Adam) but only Eve and the serpent.
God confronts Adam and the latter points a finger at Eve. God then confronts Eve and she implicates the serpent. Then God condemns the serpent without even seeking a word of explanation from him. In no sense does God treat Adam differently than he treated Eve. His treatment of both is paternal, and to be contrasted with how he treats the serpent.
And before you get to 3:16, speaking to her repentance, God also first acknowledges that she was already in a sorrowful state after 3:13 (her just confession), saying “I shall greatly multiply thy sorrow.” How can you multiply anything which is not first there? She was at this point not only confessed but repentant.
But the Hebrew does not support your theory. The word KJV translates "sorrow" is not a synonym of "repentence"; it is itstsabown, which means "toil" or "labor." It is the same word used in 3:17: "cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow [itstsabown] shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life..." It is the same word used in Gen. 5:29: "And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil [itstsabown] of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed." The Hebrew word that means sorrow to repentance is nacham, as in Hosea 13:14.
This is true prior to anything else he goes on to say in 3:16, confirming as well, in addition to 3:15 that is, that she was surely not punished but only suffered consequences to sin only. Why did God allow for her to have name and title speaking to life and not also Adam if there was no difference? That is your real question to answer. In the garden "life" (anything speaking to it) = evidence of His Righteousness.
I agree that Eve is not personally punished, "but only suffered consequences to sin." The same is true of Adam. I don't understand why you would say Adam "was punished anyway." Nothing happens to him personally. The ground he and Eve must live off of is physically cursed and "with sorrow" or toil he will have to till it. That is a repercussion of the introduction of sin, just like the "sorrow" or labor with childbirth. God was really as gracious with Adam as he was with Eve. -
-
-
Joseph,
I will come back to this later when I can return to the post. But quick question for now, why then did God say, "cursed is the ground for thy sake" when speaking to Adam? -
-
Permalink Reply by Hezekiah Ben Israel on
-
Sister, I hope you put this away. You did not answer my questions because you don't have enough understanding to answer them. If I asked those questions to Brother Pharoah, or Sister, Ana they would understand and answer the questions with no probs. YOu want to get away from the rest of the Bible, and stick to your own doctrine. You made this up because you have an issue with being a woman in a pulpit of men.
-
-
-
Because of what Adam had done... his introduction of sin into the earth... the very ground was cursed as God described it. Sin often has terrible repercussions. God will forgive us for our sins when we repent, but we do not necessarily escape these repercussions.
Remember King David? How the prophet informed him that "the LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die" [2 Sam. 12:13], yet "the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die." David was forgiven by God, but suffered a heartwrenching repercussion for his sin. -
-
-
Joseph,
If you look at Genesis 2:5 where it says "for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground." This is what God did, what God "caused" that is. The only reason why God "caused" the water to now fall from above, is because due to his plan for Adam's punishment the earth had to be made resistant to him (unlike the beauty and supply of the garden). He removed a measure of his own goodness in order to punish Adam. That was not the work of the enemy.
Even the word between 2:6 to 2:9 I find extremely interesting. The earth of 2:6 is freshly misted by God from within, and yet in 2:7 it renders but only "dust" of the ground in the creation of Adam and then in 2:8 God plants and grows a lush garden using the same ground, without yet another misting of the earth. So we know God was making a statement about this man even this early given the otherwise impossible occurence of "dust" on a freshly watered ground (the "whole face" of it word says), even a ground which goes on to lushly grow seed. -
-
-
Joseph,
I greatly appreciate your responses because you are opening up to other issues but you don't seem to take the foreknowledge of God into consideration. It is due to the foreknowledge of God that the difference in their names make a difference. God was never surprised by any of their actions in the garden and even upon his creation he called the man an "Adam," a name not speaking to his favor and according to his will, she was finally in the end properly called an "Eve" a name speaking even to that of "life" as "life-giver" and she alone was respectively recognized as "mother of all living." To say that doesn't matter and is not applicable to the real details is to also say that neither does the opinion and judgment of God matter. Those names were not given (even earned from God due to their human actions) by God in isolation of the word itself. They speak not only meaning but they give us correct context to this word. You are going to contest that based upon what?
You said: "In no sense does God treat Adam differently than he treated Eve. His treatment of both is paternal, and to be contrasted with how he treats the serpent." I agree that God was paternal toward both, both not pleased with both. I don’t know how you can say that Adam was not punished when the very ground was punished for his sake by God. That means God used the ground as an instrument of punishment for Adam. The goodness he once knew in the garden he would know no more and only by the sweat of his brow would he now even eat. There was a reason why Adam was alone created from the “dust” of the ground. The enemy brought us death but it is God who withdrew that measure of his goodness from the earth. Prior to the fall, the earth was watered from within, it did not fall from above. God withdrew a large measure of his goodness according to his plan to punish Adam. Eve suffered as Adam suffered because she was his wife, in life and before God the two were one. She however was not herself banished from the garden and nor was she personally barred from the tree of life. She was in a fallen but rightly confessed state before God - Adam wasn’t.
Eve rightly identified the work of the serpent in the garden, upon what other basis did God turn to curse him? You even say she was not punished. She said that she was beguiled (tricked) by the serpent in the face of God and if that was not true then she should have been punished for the lie. No? Why then was she not punished for such a lie even receiving a name and title from God speaking well of her instead? Unlike the gender term “man” for Adam, even the gender term “woman” spoke well of her. You can’t have both here Joseph, you can’t say that she wasn’t punished but then indicate also that she lied to God. In saying that she was “beguiled” by the serpent, she either spoke the truth to God or she lied.
Also, it was not the fault of Eve that Adam ate of the fruit. Adam was present the entire time, knowing the truth (that the fruit could be touch but only not eaten) during her temptation but said nothing. How evil a thing. Yet Adam did it, because he wanted to know if the fruit was safe even for him to eat. He stood there allowing Eve to eat it, after she did all she did was hand it to him. How is it that you fail to hold him responsible for his actions?
The “sorrow” Eve was only multiplied by God, that means that even before God spoke to her in 3:16 her “sorrow” was already present. That is what speaks to her repentance. It certainly wasn’t pain in childbirth, she wasn’t pregnant. Nor is “sorrow” anything that represents a mentally healthy pregnant female. “Sorrow,” not even in the Hebrew, equates to the physical pain of childbirth. I find that to be completely ridiculous. This issue was addressed in more detail earlier in the thread.
Let me ask you, why did God put Adam into a deep sleep before he removed his rib? Do you believe that it was not due to the pain Adam was otherwise due to feel? How did Adam even know what area of his body something was taken from if he did not feel pain? He likely even had to heal, just like any other “body” would have too. If not, then why not? Why did God commit such an invasive act upon the newly created “flesh” of the man? In the Hebrew “flesh” in the garden is base upon a primary root word meaning “to announce (glad news):-messenger, preach, publish, show forth, (bear, bring, carry, preach, good, tell good) tidings.” The word “flesh” itself speaks to it’s “freshness.”
So again, what moved God to cut Adam’s flesh? A man who God already knew would fall in the garden and lodge accusation only? I say that to say, this had nothing to do with Adam as a foreshadow of Christ in the mind of God. -
-
-
I greatly appreciate your responses because you are opening up to other issues but you don't seem to take the foreknowledge of God into consideration. It is due to the foreknowledge of God that the difference in their names make a difference. God was never surprised by any of their actions in the garden and even upon his creation he called the man an "Adam," a name not speaking to his favor and according to his will, she was finally in the end properly called an "Eve" a name speaking even to that of "life" as "life-giver" and she alone was respectively recognized as "mother of all living." To say that doesn't matter and is not applicable to the real details is to also say that neither does the opinion and judgment of God matter. Those names were not given (even earned from God due to their human actions) by God in isolation of the word itself. They speak not only meaning but they give us correct context to this word. You are going to contest that based upon what?
Dawn, I must admit that I don't hold as much significance to Eve's naming as you do. First of all, as I read the scripture, Adam himself chose her name: "Now the man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living" [Gen. 3:20]. Naming other creatures was a prerogative God entrusted to the man {Gen. 2:19]; Eve's naming isn't attributable to God the way Adam's naming was.
Moreover, I think both the names "Adam" and "Eve" are morally neutral. The former means "red," and I have heard it speculated that this was because the soil from which he was fashioned was reddish brown in color. If this is accurate, it means the name is simply descriptive. The same is true of "Eve." 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.
I don’t know how you can say that Adam was not punished when the very ground was punished for his sake by God. That means God used the ground as an instrument of punishment for Adam.
Again, you have asserted that Adam is being punished by the consequences of his sin, but I do not see the passage as indicative of that. Like the passage I mentioned from 2 Samuel about the repercussions for King David's sin, I think the curse upon creation was a repercussion, not a personal punishment. If God was punishing Adam, He would have cursed Adam, not the ground. 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.
I will consider a more informed answer about Eve's sin, repentance (such as it was) and the nature of the increase of her "sorrow" (I do encourage you to check a Hebrew lexicon yourself, though, to confirm that the word translated "sorrow" in the KJV in fact means "labor" or "toil," and not "repentance"). I think I should follow your suggestion and review some of the past entries in this thread. I do want to be certain I understand what you are trying to say. But may I make one other correction, if you don't mind? You have confused me with some other correspondent when it comes to accusing Eve of lying. I never made that accusation. The scripture certainly shows that she inaccurately reported to the serpent the commandment God gave Adam, but we do not know whether Adam told it to her that way, or if she if her memory failed her. To accuse Eve of lying is to say she was trying--for some reason we couldn't begin to guess--to deceive the serpent. I think that suggestion is fanciful. 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). The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. But, again, I assert that I do not believe Eve was consciously deceptive. -
-
-
Joseph,
I am going to break up these answers so that the length of any one thing is not too long.
You said: “Dawn, I must admit that I don't hold as much significance to Eve's naming as you do. First of all, as I read the scripture, Adam himself chose her name:” True, Adam finally spoke the truth of her name as “Eve” (and not “Woman”) but the entire point was that Adam was supposed to name ALL things in the garden according to the will of God first. This is why God tested his ability to rightly do so in Genesis 2:19:
“And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.”
In interpreting this, we must first agree that even before the man spoke what he would call a thing, a God who knows all things ALREADY knew what Adam would say. God was in no way surprised or wondering how this man would make a decision to name in the garden. So when the word says that God did this “to see what he would call them” it is telling us that God was giving opportunity for this man to prove his ability to properly discern the will of God in the garden. Adam was being tested, God FIRST had a will about what the animals (or “woman“) should be called and it was up to Adam to properly discern the will of God and then accurately, even obediently speak his will in naming either the animal or the woman. Adam proved an ability to do so accurately and within the will of God among the animals but proved to fall short in Genesis 2:23 in naming the woman. It is only in Genesis 3:20 that a now fallen, punished and corrected Adam obediently calls her “Eve” and not “Woman.” Her name as “Eve” was just as attributable to God as was his as an “Adam.” At no point was Adam given unchecked authority in the garden. Everything had to line up with the will of God.
You said: "Now the man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living" [Gen. 3:20]” She was the “mother of all living” of what? She was a childless virgin in the garden in 3:20. Even God knew that in the physical she would go on to have two boys but lose one to murder and the other to banishment and now everyone was sure to see a physical death in the earth. So she was “mother of all living” of what? You are interpreting this as a physical description of her as a future mother, but then why is Adam not also called “father of all living” given that he would go on to father every child of Eve? By comparison to an Adam, who you say she was in the like company of before God, why did Eve get this from God and why is it that Abraham got the promise from God, as father of many nations, that Adam didn’t? -
-
-
Dawn, thanks for breaking these up. I am pinched for time, so I'll just have to respond to them piecemeal..
The implication of the Gen. 2:19 is that man was given independent authority to name the other creatures. It just isn't credible that man was an automaton, unable to make any choices other than those that were the perfect will of his Father God. If anything, the phrase "to see what he would call them” itself argues the same point: that Adam was autonomous in this regard; the last part of that verse says so: "and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof." C'mon Dawn, you're trying to explain away the plain meaning of the text!
The point is that Adam was a free-moral agent in the garden. It is the very reason we have the events of chapter 3. Adam was certainly able to do things that didn't line up with the perfect will of God... you yourself claim he erred in calling his mate "Woman." If God wanted her to be called Eve, why didn't He correct Adam personally? Why didn't He fail the man in this test, and by declaration rename the woman "Eve" Himself?
Instead of divine correction of Adam's "serious error," we have the voice of the bible narrator building upon Adam's own reasoning for calling his mate "woman" with one of the most didactic verses in the whole bible:
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" [ver. 24]
It is the next-best-thing to an imprimatur from the Lord Himself! The exposition of the bible isn't going to build upon Adam's reasoning in this way if God disapproved of Adam choosing the name "Woman"!
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. Adam calls her "mother of all living" when he hears God's declaration that she will bring forth children. Adam believed God... it would not matter if Eve had borne no children up to that moment, because once the declaration has gone out Adam believed it! Moreover, at some point God had spoken words of blessing over them to "be fruitful and multiply" (just how the first chapter of Genesis dovetails with the 2nd and 3rd, I'm uncertain: but it leads me to think this was not the first time the prospect of progeny was revealed to Adam).
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"? But again, the only reason you see something negative is because you think in naming Eve, Adam was the equivalent of a ventriloquist's dummy. How could Adam have had no free will in naming Eve, but all free will in eating the forbidden fruit?
Because I plainly read that Adam named Eve, I don't think there is any real correlation between God Himself promising Abraham he would be a father of many nations. -
-
-
Joseph,
I agree Adam had authority to name in the garden, but we must also recognize that the female was not an animal, she was like him human and should have been afforded the same level of respect and conscious awareness of her unique being as a human (even herself created to be in the image of God) in the process of naming her. Adam may have had authority to name, but let’s not forget that God, who is no respecter of persons, was the supplier of her needs as well. God had a standard even for her name. God gave a name to the man speaking on a level higher than that of his gender alone, Adam was supposed to do the same for the female Eve.
You said: “It just isn't credible that man was an automaton, unable to make any choices other than those that were the perfect will of his Father God.” I ask you, is the pulpit man able to independently preach whatever word he will and yet still be found within the will of God? Of course everyone preaches according to whatever is particular to their own person, experiences, personalities, background - but all determined first by what is the will and word of God. Adam was supposed to speak the word and do the will of God only in the garden. I will pick this up again a bit later.
You said: “The point is that Adam was a free-moral agent in the garden.” What can we say then of the standard of God that even we are charged to live by? Shall we like Adam throw it away? What of the Ten Commandments, were they intended by God to be of no effect? Did they not establish a moral standard for the people? Yes, like Adam, even we are free to make a decision and to even take action to lie, cheat, deceive, even kill - but that we do so does not mean that we are within the will of God to do it. The Standard that is of God is ALWAYS relevant and the basis upon which he judges. We certainly don’t set what will be His standards.
You said: “you yourself claim he erred in calling his mate "Woman." If God wanted her to be called Eve, why didn't He correct Adam personally? Why didn't He fail the man in this test, and by declaration rename the woman "Eve" Himself?" Adam called the female “Woman” in 2:23 while simultaneously also changing his own name (which he knew was Adam) to “Man.” Changing his name was a conscious act of disobedience on the part of Adam and establishes his mind-set also in naming the female. But God returned to the garden in 3:9 calling the man not “Man” but “Adam” and this man “Adam” not only answers to the name of “Adam” but post-fall in 3:20, as a now punished man, suddenly is found calling the name of the female not “Woman” but “Eve” - all only after the return of God. God corrected “Adam” because he was calling himself “Man” before the female and not “Adam” and as a punished man Adam was compelled also to obediently call her Eve.
God did not by declaration rename the woman because it was God who gave Adam the authority to name in the garden and it was the enemy who led Adam to rebel against what was the will of God in so doing. God would never have to “rename” the woman, he only had one name for her in his mind to begin with. God was not going to repent of his will in the life of Adam (for him to name) as if God had no power to overcome the work of the enemy in Adam’s life, and to even prove ability to do so through Adam - he did. God worked in the life of Adam just as God works in us today, he is an unchanging God. God does not act to correct the free-will disobedience of or even mistakes made by humans by way of Declaration, by passing the mind of the person committing the offense. It is rare that God will even interfere in the affairs of man in any overt way. God works through the minds and hearts of people. The garden is a blue-print for us of Creation and God’s Righteous mind in relation to us as everyday Christians. This is not Exodus, you will not find God parting Seas and bringing about seven plagues to exert and accomplish his will. What God is establishing in the garden is his word, his will, and that we are to obediently rise to the standards of a judging God having all power. Adam was not a free-will agent devoid of accountability before God in the garden. He was free to choose to be disobedient, but there would also be a price to pay.
You said: "and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.” Again, in doing this, Adam was not acting as a free-agent in God, there is no such thing. Adam was naming the animals according to what was the will of God for each of them. God formed each animal, even entire species of animals. To ignore that God first defined what it was that he was forming is ridiculous. Further, what is the point of in 2:19 to say “to see what he would call them” for a God who had all knowledge? Regardless of circumstance God has no way of ever getting around the fact that he has all knowledge. He did not have to wait to see anything. The only thing God is seeking here is for Adam to prove his ability to rightly name the animals according to God’s will, because God already knew this man would rebel in the act of naming the female. God used the affairs of 2:19 to stand against the evil act of Adam in 2:23 and to prove that it was due to no fault according to the design of God. -
-
-
Joseph,
You said: “Instead of divine correction of Adam's "serious error," we have the voice of the bible narrator building upon Adam's own reasoning for calling his mate "woman" with one of the most didactic verses in the whole bible: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" [ver. 24] It is the next-best-thing to an imprimatur from the Lord Himself! The exposition of the bible isn't going to build upon Adam's reasoning in this way if God disapproved of Adam choosing the name "Woman"!” The point of the Author (it is attributed to Moses, a man who spoke “mouth to mouth” with God. (Numbers 12:8)), is to make it known to future readers what was the actual desire of God in marriage given that Adam just introduced himself to his wife as “Man” and not his God-given name as “Adam,” and that he electively chose to call her “Woman” and not according to the will of God (which he already demonstrated ability to do in 2:19) “Eve.” Adam just perpetrated fraud before and upon her and committed grand larceny even against God in the garden. The tip we get from Moses that this man will not represent what is the will of God in the garden is this: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother…” Adam had no parents to leave.
Thus Moses immediately and purposely excludes a garden Adam (even from consideration) as one who accomplishes the will of God in marriage and Moses does so all in the first stroke of his pen in 2:24. In fact, had Adam proven obedient in 2:23, the content as we now have it in 2:24 would not have become necessary as an insertion (according to the will of God) by Moses. We would have had the right example of an Adam. But instead the actions of Adam in 2:23 were so grievously against the will of God even Moses felt compelled by God in this word to stop the presses and blatantly tell us that this man “Adam,” who is now calling himself “Man,” should no longer be considered as one operating within the will of God in marriage. Understanding the agenda and subtle work of the enemy through Adam, Moses was seeking to ensure that our generations would not be (as Eve by Adam just was) snared and misled in the word. Not only did Adam misrepresent himself to her, but he (stealing first from God) raped the female of her God-given identity. Moses was in no way endorsing this, which is why he mentioned parents that we all know Adam did not have. So, the exposition of this word through Moses does not build upon Adam’s disobedient reasoning in any way at all. The word could not be more opposite. -
© 2024 Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..
Powered by
