What is the Point of the Hebrew in Word, and Specifically the Garden Word in Genesis?

[Dawn Davidson]

Speaking to the glory of God, what do we gain in the absence of the Hebrew when interpreting the garden word of Genesis? And when we fail to employ full use of the Hebrew in the Genesis garden word are we walking, or putting ourselves at risk to walk in, idolatry and even idolatry of our own minds?

I ask with my own answer in mind but would like to poll the issue and find out what you think. I speak with specific reference to the garden word but even as a broader issue, is the authority of the Hebrew in Old Testament of the same critical and decisive nature as is the Greek in the New Testament?

In my opinion, it is critical to proper discernment and understanding to employ full application of the Hebrew in the Old Testament, and specifically to the garden word, in like manner as the Greek to New Testament. In the absence of doing so, whether well intended or not, we are at immediate risk of, or even already walking in, idolatry by preferring those things constructed in our own mind(s) to that which is clearly rooted (as perhaps found in a Strong’s Concordance) in the word and even of God.

The intention of this post is not to specifically speak about Hebrew terms of the garden, but only whether full application of the Hebrew in the garden should have priority in interpretation and what does it mean, if anything, when we fail to do so?

[Dawn Davidson]

Brother Watson,

“Hearkened” in the Hebrew is a primary root meaning to hear intelligently (often with impl. of attention, obedience, etc.). The Hebrew gives more description using additional words expounding upon this basic meaning. My perspective is, Adam was not judged by God because he merely “hearkened unto the voice of his wife,” the full matter was deeper than that. Adam was designed and purposed as a husband to Eve, even as Eve was designed and purposed as a wife to him. Any and every spouse ought to intelligently give attention to his or her spouse, hearkening even unto their voice, anything less is a show of disrespect and not in alignment with the desires of God. I find, given that the two were equal in creation, and further given the true motives of Adam, the word “obedience” has no right application in this verse between the man and the female, but only between the man and God.

I believe God was making a show of Adam in Genesis 2:17 because a garden Adam absolutely never rightly, even obediently, hearkened unto God in the garden. The only time Adam did choose to hearken was to the still living voice of his wife (as he thought she might die given the word of God in Genesis 2:17). He waited without interruption for her to eat so that he might safely satisfy his own desire to eat the fruit as well. God was not pleased. This is why God states that the man “hearkened unto the voice” of his wife first, a motive such as this was at the very root of his actions. Adam sought to determine the aftermath of her state so that as a secondary action, he might then make his own decision about eating the fruit. Was God indeed a liar, would she in fact die?

Consider, Adam did not hearken unto the will of God to obediently speak his word in the garden. God even brought him into the garden early to give command, example, training and testing. Yet he did not obediently call the female “Eve, he did not call himself “Adam,” he did not even hearken unto the female to multiply and even after having witnessed example of the animals (the animals were created with help meets in Genesis 2:20. Here we have a creative act of God purposed also to demonstrate to the man how and that he too should multiply with his wife - reproduction, the very point of giving a help meet to the animals).

Adam also failed to properly dress and keep the garden as purposed by God in Genesis 2:15, because how can he dress and keep ripe and then falling fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil having fruit which he told the female could not even be touched? He had to now keep the lie. We know from Genesis 3:6 that to her the fruit did not even initially look desirable, so what was up? Was it even now on the ground? Rotting? How could fruit created by God not look good, ever? Small wonder she at least had to be tricked.

Adam failed to “hearken” to the need of Eve for truth in Genesis 3:1-6, as only he and the serpent knew the fruit could be touched, only not eaten and he even more failed to prove a desire to hearken himself unto her protection and even of her very life. What’s more, even just prior to Genesis 3:17, from Genesis 3:12 until Genesis 3:17 Adam also fails to “hearken” unto the voice of his wife as an example and even to what would have been the utmost sheer delight of God. She by voice made confession in Genesis 3:13, she having already received better name and title from God as even Adam recognized but refused to speak calling her “Woman” in Genesis 2:23 instead. In Genesis 3:15 God is speaking to her alone in the face of the serpent with purpose to use not only her “seed” as righteous, but also in full acknowledgement of her own independent (from Adam that is) “head.” That was victory in the face of the evil! But did Adam submit, even hearken to follow her righteous example and make full right confession himself? No. He confessed to the fruit but what he didn’t confess to was everything that led him to finally “hearken unto the voice of his wife.” Adam followed a deceptive, murderous spirit whether he fully understood it or not, he knew it was not of God. He knew the truth. The truth of God is always our standard. God judged him for it.

I think from what you have said you have a theological issue also. I know as you have stated many times that you believe in the equal creation of the female. So if equal, why do you still hold to the idea that God would judge an Adam for merely hearkening unto the voice his wife? Repeating the same sin I can understand, but in merely hearkening? To his partner, his equal? The two beliefs cannot rightly exist at the same time.

Also, if we are to take the blame for our sins, even to the point of the death penalty (which is what Adam got) then what is the point of a slain and resurrected Christ? What is the point of our confessions? But I think I remember that if we confess our sins God is faithful to forgive them. About King David, which instance of his sin are you speaking of? David was busy. We must also keep in mind that David was king and responsible to God as a leader of his people, his character, even his judgment would be judged by God on a higher level. But we are talking about an Adam who was equal to an Eve.

Regarding Genesis 3:24 as you will note, word only records that it was the man who was driven out, not a fully confessed and honored Eve. Eve left due to completion of purpose according to the will of God only. It was only the man who was not fit to eat from The Tree of Life and he alone was barred from the garden. And all of this due to punishment for refusing to make full confession (as if God was dim, God knew what Adam did in the garden, only Adam thought he could get away with it). Eve however, was in the same state you and I hope to rightly be and remain in before God as well. She was fallen, rightly confessed, and forgiven - God even proved it by honoring her. I would follow Eve any day.

Finally, it was the will of God for Eve to be and remain as a wife to Adam. The entire point of Genesis 3:16 is that a sorrowful God is speaking to a now sorrowful Eve (sorrowful due to the impact of the loss of eternal life in the earth, and yes this is an entirely new conversation not for here) about the change Adam would one day see. That is a verse completely misinterpreted by the tradition of the Church in absence of the full application of the Hebrew.

[Dawn Davidson]

Chaplain Harris

I make no assumptions about being more knowledgeable than you (and doubt that I am) or anyone else. I am a student of word but have no formal training and am ultimately just asking questions based upon Church teachings in light of what the Hebrew expresses as truth. This for me is a treacherous, exacting, and exhausting walk in a quest to ferret out what is the true message of God to us from the garden in the full absence of tradition. God is Absolute. So it is difficult for me to digest a conflicting word regarding not just my own creation as a female, but even that of the man. There are many more details to that of course.

I guess, I am not understanding, based upon your words, how you get a clear understanding of Scripture in the absence of right definition of the Hebrew (and even Greek). Within the context of the Scripture itself, how do you rightly assign meaning to what you are reading if you don’t first know what the specific words are purposed to convey? In other words, the Hebrew in the garden is based upon what we have from the foreknowledge of God. He is a God of all knowledge, speaking even the end into the beginning. It to me is not like we are reading a story for ourselves, allowing the story to interpret it’s meaning, but first and only exalting what God first said is true about key elements in the story or better said, text of the holy word. The mindset that God proves to have about a thing or person is our first guide. God called him an Adam, it was the later proven will of God that she be called an Eve. But His will, in relation to even the circumstances of his revealed knowledge is eternal. For sake of example, she was an Eve even in the beginning and even in Genesis 2:23 when Adam calls her “Woman” (and likewise himself now “Man” though God always calls him an “Adam”). Here is where He is giving us his opinion in the garden, it is how he saw it. So if God is our standard for truth, even a truth purposed for our good, then how are we then right to discard it in making our own interpretations?

I have yet to make up my full mind about the so called “feminist” or “women’s” movement, everything comes with its complications, but I am thankful within the world that it got me the right to vote as a female and fights for equal pay. I served God for many years, even hard years, as a subjugated woman. Yet even in the midst of all of those years, thinking the subjugation was wrong I remained his committed servant. God spoke what I know is a better word to me, a higher word even as rooted in the full Hebrew and not the tradition. So here I am, even as he directs asking my questions, probing for truth. And if the full Hebrew bears out what I am saying, then it is not me who is getting the label.

The better question is, given the subjugation of the female and the reality of the historically suppressed Hebrew, what did God purpose even in the beginning as a remedy for the exalted tradition of men (a tradition beginning with an Adam that even He has allowed) in the last days of our end? That is, what is God going to do about this? The female has surely been wrongly subjugated and even based upon a false word. As man or woman, one cannot support the female to preach and then rightfully circumvent this as an issue even before God and not for sake of the female but for sake of his own word.

The remedy of God for this, which I believe is even consistent with the Answer of God in a fallen garden, begins with full employ and recognition of God’s truth as rooted in an uncompromised word in today‘s Church. I don’t believe that God is going to overlook the misapplication of his word in the garden, and that regardless of how willing the tradition of the male pulpit is to go along with it. How can He be without spot or blemish and do this? It is the very Righteousness of God that we put to the test. In light of New Testament and the Good News of the Gospel, we might present that we want to be done with the garden but in a Church still standing upon subjugation, it is only as and when it suits us to be. I just happen to believe, that just as God returned to the garden in Genesis 3:9 to execute judgment, he will not allow his word, in a continuation of garden drama, to return unto him void in this either.

I tell you the truth, I love all of my brothers and sisters, and where I am right now in this (although clearly not perfect, still having much to learn) is God-given.

[Chaplain Pat Harris]

I think I am beginning to understand where you are coming and from. Where "man" is used in scripture, it is defined in Hebrew as a male with no authority. Where "Man" is used in scripture, it is defined as male with authority. Am I correct so far?

When God created Eve from the rib of Adam, (Gen. 2:22) the scripture states the Lord made he a "woman" and brought her unto the "man." I think here is where you see both Adam and Eve as equals.

Now, when Adam spoke in Gen. 2:23, that "she shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man," here again they are shown as equal. Yet, you seem to think Adam was being hypocritical or in error because he did not address her as Eve until Gen. 3:20. This statement tells me that Adam was merely stating or declaring that his help meat is female by calling her Woman. I didn't get the impression that she was created as a subservient. However, God created Adam first then Eve. That in itself speaks the divine order of humanity that was established by our Creator. The fact that God took a rib from Adam to create Eve tells us that she was created to be his help meat, not a slave and they were given dominion over the earth.

Now, even though the scriptures do not show that Adam never called his wife by her given name before getting to Gen. 3:20 doesn't mean that he didn't know her name nor does it prove that he never addressed her by her given name. Therefore, to try and look for some hidden knowledge beyond the simplicity of what was written could cause us to misinterpret the truth of the Word. Because not every scripture written has a hidden meaning. Some of it is just as it is written.

If I'm off base, I respect and welcome the correction from those who are well learned in theology and doctrine.

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

Technically speaking, there is no such term as "help meet".

[Chaplain Pat Harris]

Thanks Bro. Trevor. I was merely quoting the KJV of scripture, Gen. 2:18. I believe the interpretation for "help meet" is helper.

[Dawn Davidson]

Brother Greene,

Please share.

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

Its quite simply really:

Genesis 2:18 "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."

The Hebrew word there for "meet" is nagad or naw-gad' ( כְּנֶגְדֹּֽו׃ ), and this means "suitable". It also means "in front of, in sight of, opposite to". This whole phrase basically means that GOD made a being suitable, equal to, and yet opposite to Adam. Eve was his co-equal counterpart. She was equal and yet opposite. So the Bible verse literally says:

And Yahweh God said, It is not good that Adam is alone; I do make to him an helper as his counterpart.

[Chaplain Pat Harris]

Thanks Bro. Trevor. I knew you or Bro. Watson would clarify Genesis 2:18 with accuracy.

[Dawn Davidson]

Brother Greene,

Thank you for this. It is essentially in meaning what I have. What I forgot as you are now reminding me, is that the two words are not a word. I guess that is what you mean in saying technically it is not a term.

[Dawn Davidson]

Chaplain Pat Harris,

Again, speaking for myself, I receive this as an opportunity for us to learn from each other. My desire however for this post is to discuss the relevancy for full use of the Hebrew in the garden word, so we can address specific Hebrew, but let’s keep it also within the context of the discussion. I am speaking to myself more than anyone, as expounding upon specific meaning in the Hebrew of the text is always tempting for me.

You said: “Where "man" is used in scripture, it is defined in Hebrew as a male with no authority. Where "Man" is used in scripture, it is defined as male with authority”

I have never heard it expressed this way, but essentially agree with it in meaning based upon my own source which is “The Strong‘s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.”

Actually, Genesis 2:22 is not where I find that God created the man and the female as equals. I find that to be true, specifically within the text, and not just because we know God is no respecter of persons, in Genesis 1:26 and proven as well by the details and judgment of God within the full text itself.

My issue with Adam in Genesis 2:23 is that he failed to confess the truth of God about his name and subsequently the name of the female also. His wife did not “discover” his name until Genesis 3:9 when God exposed the man in the garden by calling out the name of “Adam” himself. In short, speaking about the order and will of God, I don’t think that was quite it. Also, names according to the Hebrew in the garden each uniquely mean something different. So to withhold the same, especially as already given by God, is as much an act of disobedience as it is robbery from God.

The name of Adam in the garden is synonymous only with one of two definitions for the word of “man” and not for the word “man” as it is used in Genesis 2:23. I would say that Adam was simply mistaken, as he is also clearly mistaken in saying that the woman was created from both his “flesh” and “bone” (as was actually desired according to the mind of God (Genesis 2:24)) when she, as word states in two places (Genesis 2:21-22) was created from his bone alone, but it was God who first called him in name as an “Adam.” He knew that and this was introduction time to his wife. I find that he was hiding behind another use of the gender term for “man” and even now using it as a name given his own distaste for that of “Adam.” And he was right to desire more, given the meaning of the name of an “Adam,” but wrong in how he elected to do so - independently from what was already the known word and will of God.

You wrote: “Now, even though the scriptures do not show that Adam never called his wife by her given name before getting to Gen. 3:20 doesn't mean that he didn't know her name nor does it prove that he never addressed her by her given name. Therefore, to try and look for some hidden knowledge beyond the simplicity of what was written could cause us to misinterpret the truth of the Word.”

Even in writing this, it seems to me that you are relying upon assumption that Adam did better when word does not record it. I agree with what you say, if we are to believe Scripture then we cannot read into it what is not there. The only thing we have is an Adam who does not address his wife by name, that is, according to right identity, purpose, and call until post-fall in Genesis 3:20 when under punishment from God. That’s all we have. Anything else in my opinion, equates to an excuse made on behalf of a judged Adam. And if Adam were not at fault, we would also have to say that the word falls short by failing to give us information critical to prove Adam just. Assumption is not enough.

I agree with you about hidden meaning, but all I am asking for is a full rendering according to the Hebrew. It is hardly hidden, (at least not in the world now) it’s in the book sitting right next to me! This is a character issue for the Church as well. We are hurting our own witness.

By the way, what is your source for the Hebrew?

[Dawn Davidson]

Brother Watson,

Funny I need aspirin too. Your tactic is to not speak to the validity of word, ignore all that you can't answer, and then make personal assault.

The flesh of a now bleeding Adam was cut to the bone by God to remove the rib. Yes, the flesh was cut, and had it proved to the foreknowledge of God to manifest as righteous, it would have been suitable for his use also in the creation of the female as we know he desired in Genesis 2:24. But God rejected the use of it. Once again you are trying to read something into word on behalf of an Adam that is simply not there. What does the word say in Genesis 2:21-22? The word quotes "rib" only, not once but twice.

In the Hebrew the word for "rib" only figuratively means "side," literally it means a curved "rib" even just as word itself says in Genesis 2:21-22. We would rather put the blame on God than accept that the man Adam did not do well in the garden.

About Genesis 2:23. Is the Author of Genesis your God? But what did God call him, "Man" or "Adam?" Review Genesis 2:19 and Genesis 3:9. Let me know.

By the way, are you suggesting that Moses wrote Genesis free-style, devoid of God? That this is his mind, not God's? What you are showing right now is a total lack of reverence for God and a complete lack of knowledge about how God gets a word through to his servants, and particularly a Moses. God spoke to him mouth to mouth, even person to person (Numbers 12:8).

I find that you have far more interest in proving me wrong then proving God right. It's only about an Adam for you. You are so far out of line in word it is frightening to think of the people you teach. I may have disagreed regarding the creation of the female, but I have sat under excellent leadership, you my friend are all over the place. You talk a good game at times, but I see very little demonstrated knowledge even regarding the Doctrine of God, who he is, and that he is holy.

[Dawn Davidson]

I agree Brother Watson and I owe you an apology and as I hold nothing against you there is nothing to forgive. I answered your post last night despite literally have a migraine and yes it showed. I allowed myself to respond inappropriately in flesh to your flesh.