Is God Now a Fool?

[Dawn Davidson]

Though I would like to be done, the Lord led me to realize that in previous garden discussions I neglected to make reference to Genesis 3:14 which states:

“And the LORD God said unto the serpent, 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.”

The question is, when God says, “Because thou hast done this,” what specifically is he referring to? The preceding verse (Genesis 3:13) says:

“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.”

It is my assertion that God validates the truth of the female’s confession in Genesis 3:13 (and therefore true initial lack of intent to sin in Genesis 3:1-6) by saying to the serpent, “Because thou hast done this” in Genesis 3:14. That is, God proves to believe the female was tricked into this sin just as she confessed (and was subsequently proven honored in alignment with the will of God in Genesis 3:20).

But what do you think? Did the female speak the truth in Genesis 3:13 and God believed her? Or did she lie in Genesis 3:13 and make God into a fool because he proves to believe her by cursing the serpent in the very next verse saying “Because thou hast done this” (and even allowing her the honor to be called “Eve” (life-giver) and “mother of all living” in Genesis 3:20)? Or if you don’t believe God was speaking in Genesis 3:14 about the confession of the female in Genesis 3:13, what then in reference to the serpent was he speaking about saying, “Because thou hast done this?” What specifically did the serpent otherwise do?

Keep in mind Genesis 3:15 when God 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.”

Genesis 3:14 and 3:15 are written as one sentence (one complete thought/action of God) separated only by a colon (and even positioned as a direct response of God to the words of the female in Genesis 3:13). So we know whatever was the justification of God (a justification determined by the free-will and dominion of humans causing God to either destroy, save, punish, or honor) to punish the serpent in Genesis 3:14, and to even make a difference between his “seed” and her “seed” in Genesis 3:15, had nothing directly to do with Adam. In action, this is solely between the serpent and the female, otherwise Genesis 3:15 would have been inclusive of Adam yet it is not (though we know both sinned).

What do you think?

[Dawn Davidson]

Hezekiah,

Post #2: The second use of the word sorrow in the Hebrew is based upon the same primary root word above and specifically means: an earthen vessel; usually (painful) toil; also a pang (whether of body or mind):-grievous, idol, labor, sorrow.

In the Hebrew this same word “sorrow” has a slightly different meaning. While based upon the identical root word of the previous “sorrow,” this term indicates a sorrow occurring within, or affecting an “earthen vessel” and once again speaks of “painful toiling; grief, and labor, either of the body or the mind.”

Subsequently, now every child (as an “earthen vessel”) born to Eve would, due to the now spiritually fallen, grief-stricken human race, face a mortal death. Hence reason for the “sorrow” as it directly relates not only to the death bound lives of her children, but also to what would always remain her unfulfilled purpose as well. This was a woman purposed by God in the eternal as “mother of all living,” and according to her purpose, a purpose now seized, denied, and mangled, the circumstances of the fall brought about more than just a slight job demotion and nothing less than death itself. One who should never have known the death of a child in the spiritual or physical soon would, one who should have never experienced torment in the aftermath of murder would. This was tragedy to come in a future still unknown to Eve, but was without question, already known to a Compassionate and Omniscient God. But again, despite the consequential circumstances at hand, this was an issue of faith for an Eve who just received promise of Victory to come in Genesis 3:15. We easily honor an Abraham who received such a tremendous promise of God, what happened here? By the way, in order to “bruise” her head in 3:15 she had to be thinking in like mind of a Christ to come, who was himself Crucified on a Cross, else what would have been the difference between she and the serpent?

On a personal note, as the mother of two, I would never equate “sorrow” to the healthy physical birth of children. Yes there is pain involved, but even God knew there would be pain involved in birthing us into the earthly realm, and excruciating pain he got, but does the word prove God sorrowful that he did it? Further, in the physical, what was the point of putting Adam into a deep sleep before cutting him to the bone in Genesis 2:21 if not to shield him from the worst of the pain? If there was no short-term effect upon the body of Adam, then how did Adam even know God took the rib? (Without of course reading more into word than is actually there). My point is, God created us with sensory systems even to alert us that something is causing harm or pain and to protect us from damage. I don’t see anything in word that tells us that Eve would not have experienced physical pain in childbirth. What is this based on? So if they were to trip and fall down they would not have felt that either? They would not have felt touch even of each other? Where does it end? They either had functioning sensory systems or they didn’t, and to say that they didn't means God did not create in full.

[Dawn Davidson]

Hezekiah,

Post #3: Regarding “and thy desire shall be to thy husband” (Genesis 3:16). The entire meaning of this scripture pivots completely upon what it actually means to “desire.” This word in fact has like meaning in both the Hebrew and the English. Specifically in the Hebrew, it means “stretching our after” something (be it a thing or person) and to have “a longing” and hence desire. The critical question is, how do you command someone to “desire,” can you, and then would God? The answer is of course no. It is impossible to force desire from someone for anything, you might compel obedience but not desire. Desire is a willing response given only in reaction to whatever it is that is found to be pleasing, to be sought after, appealing, or good. God doesn’t even command humans to “desire” him and that despite the consequence of eternal damnation.

Thus, that the “desire” of Eve would be to her husband mandated that her husband would first become, even to her, someone to be desired. In fact, it is completely impossible to properly interpret this area of Scripture without first hearkening back to Genesis 2:24. Here Moses tells us, in the place of an Adam, that in marriage a man is to leave father and mother and “shall cleave unto his wife.” In the Hebrew this use of the word “cleave” is primarily defined as “to cling, to adhere, to follow close (hard) after, to be joined together, to overtake and to pursue hard.”

What we must therefore take heed of is that the “desire” in Eve would only, even by the design and ironically desire of God, occur if and when an obedient Adam began to rightly “cleave.” Obviously, this speaks to a “wooing” or even mating process, that as apart of human nature we experience today, and should have taken place between Adam and Eve as early as Genesis 2:24 (coincidentally fulfilling the command of God to multiply, and we are talking about an Adam who witnessed the example of the animals).

It is important to note that the word “cleave” is an action word. Therefore a command, or expressed desire of God, for the man to “cleave” to the female was completely within the ability of Adam to do so and it is only by choice that he disobediently did not. However, given what we now know, that God would say that the “desire” of the female would be to her husband is a prophetic statement and without doubt tells us that the spirit of a now dark and punished Adam would begin to see a future change.

[newview]

"...(Without of course reading more into word than is actually there)..."

Sister Dawn, surely you jest.

[Dawn Davidson]

newview,

Like I said in the post(s) I am not married to all of the details, but if the confession (statement) of the female in Genesis 3:13 was accepted by God, and it was, then how is God just to punish her? Genesis 3:16 does not support punishment. With all due respect, explain what otherwise appears to be contradiction in God, don't just post a mocking response lacking in substance. It doesn't profit us to go down that path.

[Dawn Davidson]

Hezekiah,

It occurs to me that when God says to the female: “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception” in Genesis 3:16, it confirms for us that she had “sorrow” to begin with in the aftermath of the fall, confirming as well that Genesis 3:13 was indeed a confession accepted by God. To multiply something means that you begin with at least a seed, whether in whole or part, of what that thing is, there is otherwise nothing to multiply. The “sorrow” she already felt, which even God proves now to acknowledge, confirms repentance, a repentance even first evidenced by her confession in Genesis 3:13. But this is who the male tradition thinks it right to demean, devalue, persecute, subjugate, and even order for the silence of? Yet I ask, what is our own expected hope before God except that a humbled confession of sin will profit us in our end as well?

In His Name, the evidence of this alone confirms that it is well past time to repent and reject the tradition, boldly believe that man is in fact a liar, and then demonstrate that our greater faith is in God. Unless we are to now throw the garden word out in full (which in itself shames the male tradition) short of God himself, it is difficult to fathom what else it takes to acknowledge the true path of righteousness as it occurred in the garden. Just remember, for the same like issues of pride the foreknowledge of God elected to cut the flesh of a now bleeding future arrogant Adam (symbolically now even in the dark) to the bone. I find it hard to believe that when all is done and over, Paul himself won’t ask, “Why did you make me into the god? If what I taught as a man proved contradiction in God, reject that teaching but pursue God!”

[Dawn Davidson]

Pastor Watson,

You just keep showing up, wow. The word itself confirms what 3:13 was, I am not here to play a game of semantics I actually care about giving honor to God. But Brother Watson even you admitted in an earlier post that 3:13 was indeed a confession.

You said: “Lastly, I definitely believe that God believed that what Eve told Him was true. There is no doubt about that.”

So which argument for you is it going to be today? Is God a fool for the sake of your tradition, or did he as you say above, approve 3:13 as truth from Eve? And if God received it as truth it means it fulfilled his requirements for confession in the face of her sin. But I guess it's hard for you to keep up with all that you say, afterall, it takes a lot to keep tailoring arguments in denial truth, especially while having your foot on the neck of the female.

And with all due respect, it was only due to the traditional mind-set which you subscribe and adamantly (although inadequately) defend, that I felt a need to write a book. It is time to revisit the true issues of the garden and stop ill-affecting countless lives and calling it a work in Christ Jesus.