The California Collection

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ The California Collection / TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr / his126 / misc3.arj / MISC3.TXT

Wrap

Text File | 1991-01-04 | 32.5 KB | 592 lines

FIRST ADAM... THEN EVE... THEN ??? The Word of God abounds with exhortations such as these..."add thou not unto His words lest he reprove thee and thou be found a liar" (Prov 30:6), .... "I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this Book, if any man shall add unto these things God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this Book and if any man shall take away from the Words of the Book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life" (Rev 22:18,19). In a world that seems to be overflowing with "authoritative" voices, God has given us these passages as beacons to guide us safely to the harbor of truth. The currents are swift, however, and the oceans of religion are filled with beacons of another sort. Tides run swiftly to the ports of tradition and religious myth, and many an honest and well-meaning individual is caught in their deceptive flow. Per^^haps most beguiling of all is that every harbormaster holds a copy of God's Book in his hand. These are men of renown, respect and position. They have earned their reputations in a very competi^^tive arena and have risen to the top of their "callings" in grandiose and charismatic fashion. Popularity, influence, and in most cases, wealth, asssure them continued success. They have contributed a great deal to molding the religious clime of our day. Without entirely realizing it, many of their teachings have taken a position of equal authority alongside the Word of God itself. As a result, modern evangelism has become a house built upon sand. It's foundations are laid upon a bed of Christian cliches, phrasology, and terminology, that are completely foreign to the Bible. To challenge the validity of such extra-biblical expres^_ sions as "accepting Christ" and "inviting Christ into your heart", is tantamount to heresy. But alas, man's words HAVE replaced the words of God: Words which He had chosen so precisely and preserved so faithfully through the centuries: only to find the masses of our day following men who have twisted the scripture to their own (and our) destruction. The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate how easily we accept as "Biblical truth", that which is little more than religious tradition. I offer for your consideration the issue of Cain's wife. One of the most widely accepted ideas concerning the early chapters of the Word of God is the belief that Cain was the first child born to Adam and Eve. When someone asks the question..."where did Cain get his wife from?", very few Christians are able to give a Biblical answer. Those of us who are able to answer at all, usually are unable to show from the Bible WHY we believe the way we do. I believe that God has indeed given ample evidences concerning this issue IF we will pay close attention to his Word and lay aside our preconceived ideas. Please take a few moments to read Genesis chapter 1:1-2:3. Notice that our attention is directed primarily on the "chronology" of events recorded there. In fact, the days are actually numbered for us and they unfold consecutively. From Gen 1:1 through 2:3, God has given us a very brief account of His entire work of creation up to and including the seventh day: a day in which He rested from all His work. Read it again, if necessary, and follow each day as God gives us the account. Notice that it was on the SIXTH day He created male and female and gave them the commission to be fruitful and multiply (1:27-31). Keep this important point in mind as we continue. Now lets read a little further. From verse 4 of chapter 2, through verse 8, God is giving us a CLOSER LOOK at the SIXTH day... "every plant of the field was in the earth...there WAS NOT MAN to till the ground...the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul". God then says that He planted a garden eastward in Eden and there he put the man whom he had formed. From verse 9-14, God gives us a closer look at what the garden was actually like. Beginning with verse 15 we read..."And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the Garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it". Next, God gives man the command to avoid eating from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the consequences for disobedience are clearly spelled out for him..."thou shalt surely die" (verse 16,17). After all this detailed information, God says... "it is not good that man should be alone: I will make him (future tense) a helpmate his like". This passage assures us that it is still the sixth day for BOTH of them were made on that day. God then brings the man all the beasts of the earth and all the fowls of the air that he might name them (verse 19,20). In verses 21 and 22, we get a CLOSER LOOK at exactly how God made the female. In verse 23, after she was formed, we find Adam making this statement..."This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called WOMAN BECAUSE she was taken out of man". This is a very pivotal text and is one which can very easily be by-passed without too much consideration. Lets read that verse again and pay particular note of every word recorded. "SHE SHALL BE CALLED WOMAN BECAUSE SHE WAS TAKEN OUT OF MAN". Notice that Adam said she SHALL BE (future tense) CALLED WOMAN. Adam was precisly correct for she WAS called woman for the remainder of chapter three. Also of note is the fact that she was being called woman for a specific reason...BECAUSE she WAS taken out of man. More on this later. Beginning with verse 1 of chapter 3, God has SKIPPED AHEAD in time to when the serpent comes on the scene, but before we examine these events, a word of explaination may be in order. Although this portion of Genisis is recorded for us in chronological order, we must realize that NOT ALL events that actually took place are mentioned. From verse 4 of chapter two through to our present text, for instance, no mention has been made concern^^ing God's command to the man and woman to replenish the earth. Also absent is any mention of the seventh day, the day on which the Lord rested from His work. We are certain these events did take place because they ARE recorded in chapter 1 verse 28 and chapter 2 verses 2 and 3. The answer is simple if we remember HOW the Lord is giving this record. Chapter one was a GENERAL STATEMENT of His entire work of creation: including His day of rest found in 2:1-3. Chapter 2, beginning with verse 4, however, MORE DETAIL is given concerning those events which God chose to emphasize. God simply did not see fit to RE-RECORD certain incidents and therefore He SKIPPED AHEAD in time to the Temptation. Time had passed. We cannot know how much, but some amount of time had definitely gone by. How do we know ? Because chapter two ends with the man and the woman being united by God and chapter three begins with the temptation. No seventh day and no command to multiply. The following is a sequential account (events unfolding in the order of their occurrance) of the temptation and fall of mankind... CHAPTER 3 verse 1..."He said to the WOMAN, yea hath God said ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden ?" verse 2,3..."and the WOMAN said unto the serpent, we may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, ye shall not eat of it lest ye die." verse 4..."and the serpent said unto the WOMAN, ye shall not surely die." verse 5..."for God doth know...your eyes shall be opened and ye shall know...good and evil." verse 6..."and when the WOMAN saw that the tree was good for food...she did eat and gave also unto her husband with her and he did eat." verse 7..."and the eyes of them both were opened." verse 8..."and they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden..." verse 9..."and the Lord God called unto Adam and said where art thou?" verse 10..."he said, I heard thy voice...and I was afraid...and I hid myself." verse 11..."hast thou eaten of the tree?" verse 12..."and the man said, the WOMAN whom thou gavest me, she gave me of the tree and I did eat." verse 13..."and the Lord God said unto the WOMAN, what is this thou hast done? and the WOMAN said, the serpent beguiled me and I did eat." verse 14...God curses the serpent... verse 15..."I will put enmity between thee and the WOMAN..." verse 16..."unto the WOMAN he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and they conception: in sorrow thou shalt (future tense) bring forth children." verse 17-19...God curses the ground and the man... verse 20..."and Adam called his wife's name Eve because she was the mother of all living." Remember why Adam called the female "woman"? It was BECAUSE she had been (was) taken out of man. This account of the tempta^_ tion has referred to the female NINE times. In every instance she has been called "WOMAN". In the midst of all this, the context seems to change abruptly and verse 20 informs us that Adam changes the way he addresses his wife. All of a sudden he names her "Eve". (The events are sequential remember). Why the sudden change? No need to be in the dark: we have the reason recorded for us... "BECAUSE she WAS the mother of all LIVING". Our only problem is, that no birth has been mentioned. Some will say that the word "was" in this passage really means that Eve "WAS TO BE" the mother of all living. This cannot be the case for a number of reasons. First and foremost among them is because God did not say it that way. He surely could have, had He meant it that way. He chose rather to use a past tense verb, (and the translators agreed with Him), to say EXACTLY what He wanted to say. Others argue that since no birth was recorded, none could have taken place. If we follow that line of reasoning then Cain could not have had a wife at all, for the birth of his wife is NOT recorded anywhere in the Word of God. In fact, we do not read of the birth of ANY woman BY NAME until Genisis 22:23 ! If her birth had to be recorded in order for her to be born, then she wasn't born at all. But the fact is she WAS born and her birth WAS NOT recorded. This should not present a problem however. Remember, God chose to leave out certain events before, didn't He? Well He chose to leave this one out too! How can I make such a statement? Because it is a biblical fact that God, for reasons known only to Himself, does not record the birth of the first female! Let's pick up our account where we left off and we will see that the entire context continues to unfold in sequence... verse 21...God made them coats of skins verse 22...God said "man has become like one of us..." verse 23...The Lord sent him forth from the garden to till the ground from whence he was taken... verse 24..."So He drove the man out..." Chapter three closes with that final passage; chapter four opens with this one..."And Adam knew his wife Eve and she bare Cain". Everyone agrees that this is the precise point in time when Cain was born. And why shouldn't we? God is unfolding events chronologically for us and thus far, the only birth recorded is that of Cain. But if we pay close attention to the words of that text, we will discover that the female was ALREADY called EVE when Adam "knew" her! It does not say, Adam knew the "woman" and she bare Cain. Those who believe that Cain was the firstborn child of Adam and his wife have a real dilemma here. Nine times she was referred to as "woman" in the detailed account of the temptation and fall, but NOT ONCE after Adam called her Eve. Incidentally, the word "Eve" in Hebrew is the word "Chavvah", pronounced "khav-vaw", and means "life-giver". Those who are familiar with the contents of scripture, probably are aware of how the names of children are usually selected in the Bible. The births of the twelve sons of Jacob are a perfect example. Each of those children were named in memory of a specific situation that existed AT THE TIME OF THEIR BIRTH (see Gen 29:32-30:24). This was a standard initiated with the creation of the first female,"...she shall be called woman BECAUSE...", "...Adam called his wife's name Eve BECAUSE...". According to the inspired record God has given us, the female was ALREADY CALLED EVE when Adam knew her and when she gave birth to her son Cain. One of the notions that lends itself to the idea that Cain was the first child born, is our conception of time. It would seem to us that the record of events are not only chronological but that they also occurred in RAPID SUCCESSION. This simply is not the case. We have already observed that certain events between the sixth day and the episode in the garden were Divinely omitted: a fact that may not have been previously noticed. Maybe certain events between the fall of man and the birth of Cain were also left out. Granted, it SEEMS to us that as soon as the man transgressed, God was on the scene to pronounce the curse and cast them out. If all this happened on the same day, then the woman would have had no time to give birth to a child. Could she have had a child BEFORE the fall into sin? No, because of what the bible teaches elsewhere, "...ALL have sinned...", and "...in Adam ALL DIE...". And besides, when the curses were being pronounced, she was still being called "woman". No, if there was one, a child had to have been born somewhere between verse 19 and verse 20 of chapter three. But what about the time element? Most of us think along these lines concerning the fall of man...the woman transgressed, she caused the man to do likewise, God was immediately present to curse and cast them out of the garden..."lest they eat of the tree of life and live forever". He then hurriedly assigned a guardian to the entrance of the garden to keep the man from entering again. After this, Adam knew his wife Eve and she bore Cain - the first child. Time, and our apprehension of it, can be extremely misleading when reading ancient Biblical history. Occasionally we find references that inform us in a general way about these things. Chapter 4, verse 3 is a good example..."and in the process of time it came to pass..."; In this text there is no way of knowing exactly how much time has elapsed. In other places we are given precise information concerning the passage of time..."And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years and begat a son in his likeness..."(5:3). We are not always so fortunate, however. Most often, an accurate perception of time can only be obtained by carefully analysing both the larger and the immediate contexts. I believe this to be the circumstance dictated by Genisis 3:7 - 4:1 and following. I do not believe that this portion of scripture was meant to convey the idea that it all took place on the same day. We must not allow any false notions of time to guide our understanding of God's Word, so let's lay that " feeling " aside for a moment and look closely at the recorded events... The text immediately following the Fall of mankind is the place to begin: chapter 3, verse 7..."And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig-leaves together and made themselves aprons." This act of gathering leaves, and of fashioning instruments to sew them together had to have taken at least some little time to accomplish. Time which could have been used far more profitably by rushing to the tree of life to eat of it also and live forever - if that had been their immediate craving. But their most pressing desire was not to sin again. In fact the opposite was true. They wanted to hide the evil they had already done! And the Lord patiently waited for them to accomplish their feeble efforts. Notice also the serene, almost casual nature of the next passage..."And they heard the voice of the Lord walking in the garden in the cool of the day." (whether we under^^stand this verse to mean..."they heard the voice of the Lord (as He was) walking in the garden..." or..."they heard the voice of the Lord (as they were) walking in the garden..." has no bearing on the issue in question.) This line seems to be oozing with calm and tranquility. To this point in the narrative, there isn't the slightest hint of urgency to cast out the sinful man. I should think that if God was anxious to expel the man and to prevent him from feasting upon the tree of life, He would have done so as soon as there eyes were opened! But no, neither God nor man were immediately concerned with that tree. Furthermore, this unhurried atmosphere continues, as God calls to the man and questions him concerning his act of diso^^bedience. The woman also was querried and each of them, (includ^^ing the serpent), were addressed personally during the horrible anathema (v 9-19). I believe that the content of that ominous malediction was a sufficient detterent to keep the man and the woman long from displeasing the Almighty a second time. Long enough, I suggest, for Adam to have "known" the woman and for her to have brought forth at least one female child - the future Mrs. Cain? Who knows. His wife may have been born much later; but we are certain of this much...it is at this very place that Adam decides to change his wife's title from " woman " to " Eve " and the ^SBible ^S says it was because she was the mother of all living . It is true that man, now full of sinful tendencies, eventually would have "stretched forth his hand and taken also from the tree of life", so the Lord clothed them with coats of skin and sent them forth from the garden. There are, of course, objections to these conclusions and it is necessary to examine them in the light of "what saith the Lord". 1. Some will say that every verse of Scripture from Genesis 2:15-4:1 belong exactly where it is except verse 20 of chapter 3. Keep this in mind as we consider this argument...If we agree that solid Biblical evidences are needed before we cast aside long respected and widely accepted views that men teach, what kind of proof should we require before we are so bold to say that God means something other than exactly what He is saying...or that He shouldn't have made that statement when He did because it didn't happen in quite that order? (While it is true that many places in God's Word are not chronologically sequential, they always are self-evident and easily discovered). If we are going to say that all of the account in question is in it's proper place except where the woman is named Eve in 3:20, my question is...where then does it belong? Surely, we can't eliminate the verse entirely. All agree on that. The verse cannot belong in chapter 2 anywhere because in chapter 3 the female is continually addressed and referred to as "woman". Also, we have to consider the fact that the fall into sin didn't happen until Gen 3:6: If Adam named her "Eve" before the fall, and she really was named for the reason God says, that would mean that she gave birth to at least one daughter who was without sin ! No one wants to make that assertion. Besides, the people who want to move this verse somewhere else, need to put it somewhere after Cain was born so their "idea" about Cain being the first child born would not have to be altered. But the problem with trying to re-position the text to someplace after Cain's birth is the fact that we would have to change the language used in verse 1 of chapter 4,..."Adam knew Eve " to "Adam knew the woman ". If we dare go this far we would be guilty of not one but two offences...moving the text and changing the language: all this just to support something we have been "taught". Anyone who is willing to engage in such Biblical "gymnastics" is just not being honest and doesn't care about scriptural accuracy at all and this study is not intended for that person. For those who don't want to tamper with the language or the position of Gen 3:20, but still insist that Cain was the first offspring, the answer must lie in another place... 2. There are those who say that Gen 3:20 belongs exactly where it is, but it doesn't mean that Eve was the mother of all living persons . It means rather that she was the mother of all living " creatures " and " beasts ", therefore her title was changed to Eve. Well, we know for sure she wasn't the physical mother of these creatures because they were made (and even named) before she was created (see 2:19,20). The law of nature established by God concerning the reproduction of living organisms would also eliminate such a possibility...all things shall bring forth " after their kind " is the Divine Decree of Genisis 1. The "living beast" advocates are left then, with a mere hypothetical application of Gen 3:20. Let's examine that theory in the light of Biblical reasoning. Picture their scenario...the Lord Almighty has just made the man in His own Image and given him dominion over all the works of His hands. He gathers all of the lesser creatures together and brings them to Adam to see what he would call them. Next, He creates the female to be a companion and helpmate for the man. Adam calls her "woman" because she was taken from his own body. God blesses them and gives them the commission to multiply and fill the earth and subdue it. The Lord rests on the seventh day. Eventually, the serpent slithers his evil path toward the unsuspecting woman and beguiles her. She, in turn, causes her husband to follow. One cool day, God is heard walking in the garden and the man and his wife hide from the Lord's presence. After calling them out and giving each of them an opportunity to confess their mutinous act, He proceeds to pronounce the terrible curses upon the serpent, the woman, and upon Adam and all his descendents. At this most solemn and portentious of moments, Adam decides to call his wife's name Eve because she was the mother of all living... beasts ? If Adam thought of his wife as the mother of all living creatures and beasts - even hypothetically - why not call her that from the beginning ? Why wait until such a place and time to make so "frivolous" a statement ? Surely we cannot believe that "all of a sudden" it was revealed to Adam that his wife was - hypothetically - the mother of all living creatures. I think some honest consideration of these arguments will quickly eliminate the "living beast" opinion. .pa 3. "Eve was the mother of the spiritually living " is the claim from another school of thought. "The seed of the woman (Christ) would someday bruise the head of the serpent (Gen 3:15), and all who would believe and follow that Great Redeemer of mankind would become spiritually re-born - "living", if you will. It is in such a sense that Eve was called "the mother of all living". A good point, to be sure, but not entirely true! The fact that Eve was the original female progenator of the Christ child is beyond dispute but this was hardly the reason her name was changed when it was. We must keep in mind that she was also the original female progenator of the entire human race - both of the spiritually alive and the spiritually dead. It could be deduced that Eve was the mother of the future Messiah, by virtue of the fact that all mankind ultimately sprang from her, but we cannot conclude that she was named "Eve" for that rather obscure reason. The birth of the Lord Jesus Christ was yet some 4000 years in the future and we again have the problem of the language of Gen 3:20..."because she was ...". Everyone agrees that there is a difinative difference between the word "was" and the term "was to be". They simply do not mean the same thing. Either Adam named her for something that already happened to her or because of something that he knew would eventually happen to her. We know he called her "woman" because of something that had already occurred; i.e. "she was taken from man". If he called her Eve because of something that eventually would happen to her, why not call her Eve back on the sixth day when they were given the commission to be fruitful and multiply ? Adam knew at that time she would bring forth children. Why continue to refer to her as "woman" ? Why does the Lord God Himself, who uses words so precisely, continue to call her "woman" ? It would be far more Biblically consistant to change her name then. The fact is, that she was called "woman" because she was taken from man and she was called "Eve" because she was the mother of all living. Thats the account we are given in His Word. A note of interest is found in the statement Eve makes at the time of Cain's birth. She seems to be surprised because she had gotten " a man ~ from the Lord: the implication being, this birth was unusual because of the gender of the infant. Could her astonishment be because she had previously brought forth only female offspring ? This brings us to the final and, by far, the most widespread reason for rejecting the exact words of God... 4. Because the "traditional" interpretation espoused by all the "famous" Bible teachers is...Cain was born first. How could so many "great men" be in error about the same subject ? Texts such as these..."let God be true and every man a liar" (Rom 3:4), ..."Great men are not always wise" (Job 32:9), should be powerful influences when (and IF) we ponder such questions. A contextual outline of our subject material as it is found in the Sacred Word of God is offered in closing... Gen 1:1 - 2:3 ...An overview of God's entire creative work Gen 2:4-8 ...An in depth review of the sixth day, which includes the creation of man. Gen 2:9-14 ...Details concerning the Garden God has prepared. Gen 2:15-22 ...God puts man in that Garden to till it. He warns of the forbidden fruit. The animals brought to Adam and he names them - the female is created. Gen 2:23 ...Adam calls the female "woman" because she was taken from man. Gen 2:24,25 ...The two said to be husband and wife and they were not ashamed of their nakedness. Gen 3:1-6 ...Choosing not to record a second time, both the commission to the man and woman to multiply and the day on which He rested, God moves us ahead in His narrative to when the serpent tempts the woman. She yields to that temptation and her husband follows. Gen 3:7 ...The eyes of them both were opened. Gen 3:8-19 ...God confronts them in the Garden concerning their rebellion and the curses are formally and emphatically announced. Gen 3:20 ...The woman has become the mother of all living and Adam changes her name to Eve for that specific reason. Gen 3:21 ...God prepares for them coats of skin and readies them for expulsion from their haven in Eden. Gen 3:22-24 ...The man is finally driven from the Garden to till the ground from which he was taken. Gen 4:1 ...Adam knew his wife, Eve; and she conceived and bore Cain. She exclaims, I have gotten "a man" from the Lord. Gen 4:2 ...She further bore Abel. Gen 4:3-7 ...The offerings of Cain and Abel to God. .pa Gen 4:8-10 ...Cain slays his brother, Abel, and is questioned by Jehovah. Gen 4:11-16 ...A curse is pronounced upon Cain and he is banished from the presence of the Lord. Gen 4:17 ...Settling in the land of Nod, Cain "knows his wife" and she bare him Enoch. Whether you decide that Cain married his younger or his older sister is of little practical value in your service as Christians. What is imperative, however, is the principle I hope to have established...God's Word is entirely trustworthy and our beliefs can be and must be the result of dilligent, personal, and prayerful meditation upon that Book! If we are not faithful in this discipline, and continue rather, to allow men to tell us what to believe, we shall surely share in their end; about whom it is written..."Woe unto the shepherds that destroy and scatter the sheep of My pasture...I am against them that cause My people to err by their lies and their boasting; I have not sent them and they profit not My people at all" (Jer 23:1,32). "If they speak not according to My Word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isa 8:20). Have those men who promote the so-called "Cain first" theory spoken according to God's inerrant and infallible Word? I submit that they have not. It is fitting, I think, that in this study at least, the Lord Jesus should have the final word..."Take heed what ye hear" (Mk 4:24). rlw comments and inquires welcome: RLW PO Box 531 Port Jefferson Station, N.Y. 11776