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
-
Question to the Post,
Given subjugation of the female by the Church, when word says in Genesis 3:21 that God gave only as an "also" unto Adam in covering sin but "to his wife," does this not also confirm the validity of her confession and repentance as well? God after all, only made skins for two people and between the two Adam only received it as an "also." Is God again, like in Genesis 3:15, able to use her "head" but not his (Adam) in keeping his plan to continue life on the planet? It's almost as if God, already seeing subjugation of the female, hid his word to humble pride and prove his righteousness even in this day. It's been a long time coming, but God is always Good.
Genesis 3:21 specifically says: "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them." -
-
-
Brother Watson,
Lol. But what about the details of the post? -
-
-
Brother Watson,
Sorry, but in the absense of detail addressing the post I did not know what else to think. But again, God only made coats of skins for two people, giving to Adam only as an "also." Are you telling me to "stop it" because you see the truth, or "stop it" as in you don't? -
-
Permalink Reply by Hezekiah Ben Israel on
-
Good Post Brother Watson!!!!
I am impressed.... -
-
-
Brother Watson,
I am fully aware of what God did to bring us Salvation, which he is symbolizing here with coats of skins, but like the Cross, it was and is his work in total, where does the idea that Adam participated come from?
And those semantical hairs are pretty important to you when seeking to prove subjugation of the female. There is however, nothing semantical about this, but only threatening to anyone of the male tradition. This also proves her repentance and confession. Line it up Brother Watson, line it up.
Please remember, for me this is not about proving one is better than the other but only to prove that there is absolutely no basis for subjugation in the word. A traditionally-minded Paul was, like many others were and still are in this particular area of word, wrong about the female.
I am waiting to hear more about Adam and sacrifices, where is it in the canonized word? -
-
-
Brother Watson,
Where did you go? I am still waiting for those Scripture references about God using Adam to make sacrifices to him with the animals.
You said: "The coats of skin came from animals that God had taught Adam to offer as sacrifices"
So where is it? -
-
Permalink Reply by Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene on
-
No you are not. If you were, then you wouldn't try o fight this battle with called Adam a hypocrite all the time, nor would you continue on over and over as if you found something new when in fact you are simply trying to drive home your point of view. The PROPER way to do it is to bring what the Apostles taught about females, and not continue your babbling from the "Curse of the Law" found in Genesis 3. I as a leader am in total support of females in ministry and even females in leadership, so you are a fool for thinking that the Church holds women back!
Your cause is noble, but you argument tactics are, from a NT standpoint, Absolutely idiotic! In your passion for women's lib, you won't even open your eyes to see that you are trying to usurp authority. David was given the same opportunity that you are given now. He saw the perfect opportunity to kill the man that oppressed him, but he rejected it. You however are planning your assassination attempt of the king that GOD set on the throne. Regardless of right or wrong, David honored the throne that Saul sat on calling him the LORD's anointed.
Do the same and watch GOD perform TRUE women's liberation. Continue on and called a jerk with no results. The choice is yours............ -
-
-
Brother Greene,
Is the “jerk” you speak of the God returning to the garden in 3:9 proving every expectation that the man “Adam” knew his name was in fact “Adam,” even by calling him by the name of “Adam?” Yet he was the same “Adam” who in 2:23 introduced himself to his wife (think about that) as “Man,” a type of “man” which he as an “Adam” (and as a soon to be punished man by God) did not qualify as according to the Hebrew of the garden? (Note, I was not there and did not write this word and nor am I responsible for it‘s Hebrew roots).
I do know however that even Webster’s defines a “hypocrite” as: “a person who pretends to be who he or she is not; one who pretends to be better than is really so, or to be pious, virtuous, etc. without really being so.” Not my fault if the shoe fits, your opposition is to the word of God, therefore with God and not me, and it is He who you have just called a “jerk.”
Additionally, there are only two applications of the word “Adam” in the Bible, one pertaining to the person of “Adam,” which is the man we know from the Bible, and the other is a place in Palestine. So that Strong’s is in fact identifying this man “Adam” as a “hypocrite” is without question, regardless of explanation (although clear to me that it is due to his behavior in 2:23), because we only have one “Adam” in the entire of the Bible. Can you ably contest that?
Someone brought it to my attention that “hypocrite” might well just point to a statement by Job in 31:33. But taking an even closer look at it now, even Job is identifying “Adam” as a “hypocrite” saying: “If I covered by transgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom…”
But Adam (as can none of us even in mankind) certainly never “covered” his transgressions before God, that is impossible. The only person he was able to “cover” his transgressions before is the female he was able to mislead by way of practicing deceit in the garden.
What you would like to do is continue to benefit as a man from the elevation according to tradition while at the same time rendering yourself above it all in the face of the female by professing that you believe she is equal, but yet doing so while readily still seeking to suppress the very word in the garden that it takes (given the failure of the Church to apply the Blood of Jesus) to set her free. Should I call you an “Adam” too? In my opinion, you are more dangerous than the man who honestly simply outright says “Female you ain’t equal.” I might not agree with it, but as an honest expression of faith and belief I can respect it. The territory you are in is “lukewarm” at best.
This is what stands against you as well. As an African-American male you would never stop at a White society promising your freedom without getting what you know it takes to legally enforce that freedom. Why? Because if not, you can already see into the Deep South where you might well find yourself still beaten, naked, and strung by your neck up a tree before a sick crowd filled with jubilation, already knowing that though committing such a heinous, despicable act against humanity, and against you, they are yet still favorably endorsed by blind, rebellious leadership and will thus remain totally free of prosecution.
You said: “He saw the perfect opportunity to kill the man that oppressed him, but he rejected it. You however are planning your assassination attempt of the king that GOD set on the throne. Regardless of right or wrong, David honored the throne that Saul sat on calling him the LORD's anointed.” This is what you don’t see. The entire point of my writings is to prove what is the truth of the garden, what is it that God actually did? Did He in fact as you portray it, set men to be upon a throne before the female? (I have so many issues with that, but I can’t go into it here, but I will say, it is in your best interest before God to find a way to humble yourself and even before the female).
Where is your proof that God set you, as a man upon a throne before me, as a female? We know it was God who put Saul on the throne, without question. But who gave it to you? The word does not bear out the truth of it, but yet you are also saying to me, that I should yet still bow down to it. Interesting too that you point to a word in which the people first proved to reject the leadership of God.
You said: “Regardless of right or wrong, David honored the throne that Saul sat on calling him the LORD's anointed.” Yet if it wasn’t God who gave it to you, then who are you actually telling me to bow down to, and then critically also for yourself, who have you made a choice to bow down to and to even defend more so than seeking to prove in word that unlike what tradition ultimately teaches, God is not, like an “Adam,” a hypocrite.
You cannot say that the female is free and then profit from the mangled word of a tradition, not only aborting her full call and office, but in so doing, making the God who gave us a Slain and Risen Christ as Savior, into the hypocrite. Brother please.
Peace and love. -
-
Permalink Reply by Joseph Gill on
-
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.
Actually, there is no Hebrew equivalent to the word "also" in the verse. In a literal word-for-word translation the sentence would read: "Jehovah God made Adam [and] woman garments of skins [and] clothed them." [Declension of the nouns tells us the subject, objects, and prepositional phrases in the sentence; the conjuction "and" is understood from the context.] The King James translators may have added "also" from their sense that there should be a transitional word identifying how verse 21 is thematically different from the passage that directly precedes it. But in any case, the Hebrew texts have no such word, so unless the English translators were receiving a special new revelation, there is no reason to assume God was indicating that Adam was clothed secondarily to Eve. -
-
-
Brother Joseph,
But I ask you, how did God justify covering sin in the absence of a confession? I believe that the female fully confessed and that God proved to honor it. If you read the earlier threads, you will see how word actually proves it.
But please tell me first how does God justify the covering of sin not first confessed? -
-
-
By you repenting for your sins, then be baptized, and keep the commandments to the best of your ability from that point on.
-
-
-
Hezekiah,
The question is, how did God justify the covering of sin not first confessed in the garden? Of course as you know I believe she did confess and that even God acknowledged her repentance, but, in the absence of that belief, upon what basis did God justify his actions to cover un-confessed sin in Genesis 3:21? -
© 2024 Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..
Powered by
