Is God Now a Fool?
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?
“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?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dawn Davidson on
-
Brother Hezekiah,
But I am sure glad Eve did not choose to be silent in Genesis 3:13 which is what my last post was really about, a spoken confession. If she was supposed to remain in silence, if her words were to have no effect, then why did God even ask her a question?
And was Adam not also deceived? How can we say that he was not also deceived? Standing there the entire time, hearing the serpent speak, yet saying nothing and eating only after she proved to physically survive it? They were both deceived, and unless we make assumption in word which is not there, only Adam received the original word about the fruit from God, which speaks even further about his intent. Additionally, if Eve lied in Genesis 3:1-6 then why did God accept her words in Genesis 3:13, saying "Because thou hast done this" in Genesis 3:14 to the serpent? She only confessed to being deceived, again that is what she confessed to, was it to be of no effect? The problem I have with Paul in this instance that he is pointing to her sin, not her confession, was that not the better work in God? And if the serpent did not actually trick her, then why did God accept it?
Thank you for your response but in the garden according to truth in word and not tradition, for me it does not settle the issue. I am glad you brought this word up as it underscores my point still more, why do we ignore the effect of Genesis 3:13? Even a Paul who taught confession in Jesus Christ ignores it. How was even he right to do it?
-
Permalink Reply by Hezekiah Ben Israel on
-
Read the thread I set up, and read the whole thing, the scriptures will give you understanding.
-
-
Brother Hezekiah,
Thank you again. In truth I was away yesterday fighting what seemed to be the on-set of the flu. I am better now but have not had an opportunity to look further into what you gave me, but I will. But what do you say about Genesis 3:13? God asked a question, she gave an answer, and she was honored (even according to the foreknowledge of God) in name and title. What does word mean then if this was not due to God's approval of the female's (what I say is) confession in Genesis 3:13? What else would have moved God to allow her name and title (Genesis 3:20) speaking to life (as a virgin) in a fallen garden and given that Adam likewise did not receive the same? Explain to me how God made the difference between the two if not due to Genesis 3:13, it certainly wasn't an arbitrary act by God.
-
-
She was not honored, but forgiven for her sin, but still died. She kept the law after she sinned, and by Jesus she will be saved when the first resurrection happens.
-
-
Her name means "life-giver," as a virgin she was called "mother of all living" in the aftermath of sin in the garden and in a world in which death just fell. Adam did not likewise earn the same. His name does not speak well of him and he is not identified as "father of all living" though he would physically father every child born to Eve. I say God honored her because God honors life and he named and allowed title for her alone speaking to the same. Why? Yes, she was forgiven but God spoke well of her even spiritually. Why?
-
-
Brother Morton,
You said this: "Ah...but does this excuse both her and Adam from stealing?" Sorry for my length, but in short, they both fell, what perplexes me is the focus upon sin in the garden given the example of confession Genesis 3:13, except that it was the female who made it and not the man. But it was still a confession (statement) that God proved to honor. She unlike Adam was honored in name and in title as "mother of all living" and it was her "head" alone that God used pointing to a difference between a human and the serpent. I don't believe this makes the female any better in creation than the male but from the God perspective she did better in the garden due to making a right confession. How is it that we miss how critical making right confession before God is? Is this not what we desire for ourselves within our own lives before God? That is what baffles me.
Thank you for the references, but it seems I don't have the right program to open them.
-
-
Brother Morton,
Forgot to say, I haven't heard that every word was a musical note with the exception of Psalms, but in Psams I have heard that in the Hebrew there is meaning in the letters and even the arrangement and use of the letters (according to their Alphabet). I don't know much about it, but would like to know more.
-
-
http://abcpreachers.ning.com/forum/topics/a-womans-place
Click this link
Then you will understand. Then you will not fight, but post and know.
-
-
Brother Hezekiah,
Pertaining to the plight of the female, I am a student of the garden word as it represents what was actually in the mind of God according to Creation. I am very familiar with what you are showing me in NT, but there are other interpretations regarding this. Stephen Gola is one of the people I reference pertaining to this. But for me, how can a NT writer be correct about the female if what he says does not first line up with the truth of the garden? Knowing the truth of the garden as I do, all I can see is tradition in the NT pertaining to the oppression of the female. I have also read that much is even a misinterpretation of Paul. As I have said, right now I am rooted in the OT pertaining to the female but thus far, this is what I refer to for further insight into the NT word: http://www.gracecentered.com/women_in_ministry.htm. I will study the Scriptures you have listed in the NT but will do so looking at various sources for full interpretation of them. I can't give you an answer about this right now, but it seems to me, that you can't have both. You cannot have the truth of the garden and what (I say) the tradition in word says about the female in the NT. What I see is a mind-set embracing what they interpret as the higher creation of the man in OT but rejecting that same word when it goes on to prove that it was in fact the female who did better before God. To believe Paul was right in this Brother Hezekiah, I speak strickly pertaining to the female, don't you also then have to reject the whole of the garden word? How can you possibly receive both? In reference to the female, they contradict.
-
-
I honestly think that this garden word you refer to is not sound doctrine. In order to get understanding you must go to different books for other accounts. If you read Timothy, you would see clearly in 1 Timothy 2:4 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. The woman being deceived was in transgression. With this verse alone makes your Garden theory void according to the scripture. The only thing I can see that you have a point on is that by her repenting the Lord forgave her, and she became the mother of living, but she also had to have her husband rule over her, and she would be in sorrow when she travailed with child.
-
-
Brother Watson,
Thought you were done here, yet once again. God bless. -
-
-
Hezekiah,
(I am answering you in a series of four posts so that one doesn’t become too long).
Post #1: There were only two beings in the garden expressing “sorrow” due to the spiritual and physical fall of mankind and Adam was not one of them. A now judging God suffered the greatest transgression and heartbreak, but it was a deceived, rightly confessed Eve who alone expressed repentance due to her actions and experienced heartbreak post-fall on the human level as well. An “Eve” having a name meaning “life-giver” and called “mother of all living” as a virgin in a fallen world was honor for her yes, but also a stinging reminder of just how much un-confessed sin in the garden by Adam cost her. A rightly confessed and soberly thinking humbled Adam should have been experiencing “sorrow” too.
Genesis 3:16 states: "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and they desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” The first use of the word "sorrow" in the Hebrew means: worrisome, i.e. labor or pain;-sorrow, toil. It is based upon a primary root word meaning to: to carve, i.e. fabricate or fashion; hence (in a bad sense) to worry, pain or anger:-displeasure, grieve, hurt, make, be sorry, vex, worship, wrest.
Keep in mind this female confessed and it was received by God, so the root of her worry could not be due to punishment (but only consequence) or else God is now unjust. Her worry, labor, even pain was a product of her mind due to the way she now felt about continuing in life with an Adam. She now understood his deceit, in addition to not speaking truth during her temptation, she even now knew what was his real name, his real identity in the garden which she had not known before. But it was too late, what God had for her according to his original plan was now lost, and not only did she have to live with it, but she was expected by God to continue as a wife to a man proving to have an appetite to witness her death. The mind of this female was extremely distraught. God knew that although she would face mind-blowing tragedies yet to come, for both she and Adam, in the end things would work out, but she did not know this. For her this was a matter of proving faith in God and that her “sorrow” was a product of her mind working against that faith is proven I think by words like “to carve, fabricate or fashion.” Her “worry” was not based upon the knowledge of God but due to the aftermath of her experience in the garden with an Adam. This is why we have a compassionate God in the same breath saying that he was going to increase her conception. Children are meant are a joy from God, and although she would lose two, one to murder the other to banishment, she and Adam would go on to have even more sons and daughters in addition to Seth. Conception for the humans was the desire of God in the garden all along. There was no punishment attached to His will in this. Conception also involved both the man and the female. She proved to be honored by God in name as “life-giver” and title as “mother of all living,” in addition to confession, she would not have received this if she had not proven a willingness to God to physically submit in relations with a garden Adam. So why didn’t it happen? It seems to me God is speaking to her about the future willingness, or even obedience, of Adam as well (which of course is what we immediately have in Genesis 4:1).
© 2024 Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..
Powered by
