following on from the post Her Words – Adam’s Exposé
We need to understand what Eve was missing of YeHoWaH Elohim’s command, and what was added, as to why she was so vulnerable to being deceived. Please access the pdf comparison chart here from the last post. My comments will work their way down the chart.
- Firstly the command was given to Adam. This may be a possible explanation as to why nothing happened when she ate of the fruit, the consequences only occurring after he himself ate. Scripture does say that she ‘fell into transgression’ but her ‘sinning was not like the transgression of Adam’ –her hand was forced so to speak – being tricked/deceived into breaking the command whereas his was a deliberate action.
- ‘Fruit’ has replaced ‘any’ in her description of the trees of the garden of what could be eaten. Non-fruiting trees are therefore off her radar as being allowable. Fruit does not appear in God’s words to Adam nor in the serpent’s to the woman. (However in Gen 1:29 God says: “…every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you” may negate any significance in its addition to the command)
- She does not appear to know that the command to Adam was he could ‘eat eat’ –translated as ‘freely eat’ – to satisfaction, no limit given – from the trees allowed. This does not appear to have been conveyed to her.
- She understands the command as being to them both –‘we’ may eat.
- Eve does not name or describe the tree to avoid. She does not call it the ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ she refers to it only as, ‘the tree, which is in the middle of the garden’ – however, YeHoWaH Elohim specifically named the tree to avoid. Adam knew this, but Eve gives no hint of this in her dialog. If she had known this, she would have avoided it like the plague- as eating it meant certain death. The ‘middle of the garden’ refers back to Gen 2:9 that speaks not only of there being one tree but two. Adam may not have known the identity of the Tree of Life (I think this unlikely however because of Genesis 3:22-24), but YeHoWaH Elohim would have clearly identified the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to Adam when giving the command. There would have been no confusion in him concerning this. Eve’s reply to the serpent contained information (outside of the command given) as to the location of the tree to avoid, – however did she know of the tree of life there also? (Was the tree of life ‘fruiting’? could its leaves also be consumed? (Rev 22:2) Was the tree of life obscured from the woman by focusing her on fruit?)
- She specifically tells the serpent “God has said – do not eat of it, neither shall you touch it lest you die.” But God said nothing of her touching the fruit or tree –it was specifically only ‘eating’ that was banned. Many people are quick to label her as adding to the word of God at this point, confirming in their minds, her obvious guilt in the fall of man, however scripture itself reveals it as out of character to them being her words. Remember –Adam is right there with her as she talks with the serpent Gen 3:6 (‘im-māh עמה –accompanying/with/beside) –and he is silent. He does not correct her. 1 Timothy 2:14 says he was not deceived as he knew exactly what YeHoWaH Elohim said, the command having been given to him before the woman even existed. It is via Adam that the woman knows anything of God’s specific command to him. There is no hint of her inquiring of God concerning the command (this is to her shame) otherwise she –like Adam – would not have been deceived.
Proverbs 30:5,6 says – ‘Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.’
Let’s go back to Gen 2:18 –to remind us of what man’s weakness was – that of being alone in the sense of walking independently of YeHoWaH Elohim –desiring self rule/government. God then places, by design, an ‘ezer kenegedo’ to walk alongside him – her strength being to expose, reveal and exhort… by means of her voice and presence –almost being, in a sense, a living mirror for Adam, that he might be made more aware of his own actions and heart motivations –and in so doing, more opportunity for him to choose rightly. Man’s weakness of being ‘alone’ is not a weakness shared by the original ‘ezer kenegedo’. Her heart in this sense was right with God –deception was required to cause her to break God’s command. All verses pertaining to the woman and ‘the fall’ say the same thing –she was deceived (Gen 3:13; 2 Cor 11:3; 1 Tim 2:14)- there being no hint of disobedience in her heart. This is not so of Adam (11 verses as listed in the previous post).
‘Neither shall you touch it’ –is worth a little more comment.
Col 2:20-23 makes it clear:
If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters, which have, to be sure the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.
The command was ‘do not eat…’ –the ‘do not touch’ addition was for her benefit only and as such, given by one with a self perceived entitlement of authority over her. Whether for protection or control over the other (perceived as lesser/weaker)-whatever the motive- the words were given as being from God Himself. ‘Do not touch,’ is the first use of a (man-made) secondary law prescribed so as not to break the original one given (if it is not touched, it therefore cannot be eaten). The Mishnah (Oral Law) of the Jews is filled with these law-additions to keep one well away from even the chance of breaking God’s Laws. However neither the Mishnah laws nor Adam’s addition to the command are of any avail concerning the heart. They are as Colossians 2 describes and are simply man’s efforts at work based religion. ‘Do not touch’ cannot have been the woman’s addition as there was no one else to whom it applied – apart from her. Her words therefore expose Adam’s sin of seeking rule over her by the withholding of God’s word to her and adding his own words as God’s –elevating his word to that of God’s. As quoted in a previous post –‘knowledge is power’.
- She does not appear to know it is ‘in the day that you eat of it’ you shall ‘surely die’ –dying you shall die. Her words speak of death but they aren’t as definite or absolute as the original command.
- As can be seen on the chart when comparing what the woman knew of God’s command (via Adam) and that of the serpent’s version of the command –she is in a real predicament. The serpent has changed the word order but uses more of the God’s actual words, with less omissions and word changes than Adam’s version given her. Of the 18 Hebrew words comprising God’s command, Adam changes (subtly or completely- including 8 omissions) all but 4 of the original, whereas the serpent retains 10 of the original words in his version. I do not believe the serpent is questioning God’s character with his initial question –but rather, he is casting doubt as to whether Adam indeed relayed the command correctly. And this as the chart shows, proves to be a valid question.
Adam did not prove a good mediator.
Heavenly Father, YeHoWaH Elohim, thank you for sending Yeshua who is our faultless and selfless mediator. Our hope rests in Him! Amen.