Fear God, Not the Church and Tell the Truth About Adam…

It’s not that I don’t like Fiction. I appreciate a good work of Fiction but I love Non-Fiction. I guess that’s why when it comes to God I can only eat truth and particularly truth (and not the lie of the male-tradition) about the garden.

The Church knows Adam was present in Genesis 3:1 through 3:6 yet for the sake of CREATING, PARADING, and PROMOTING a false PERFECT male we are supposed to pretend that he wasn’t. We are supposed to ignore word in Genesis 3:6 stating that she gave also to her husband with her. It’s as if the “unto her husband with her” part has no meaning in the English language…like we are perfectly incapable of interpreting the obvious – our Adam was there! He was elusive, he was silent, and he certainly failed to come to the aid of the woman, but he was there.

However, we can’t acknowledge that Adam was there because doing so of course would necessitate a conversation about what it MEANS that he was there and yet ELECTED to remain silent at such a crucial time in the life of Eve! Even more than that, this is the same man who would lodge accusation (even against God) against her…the nerve! He knew the fruit could be touched only not eaten AND he was present during the temptation of Eve, choosing to say nothing and to instead bide his time until the female ACTUALLY DID eat the fruit. Peradventure it was because, only after the female ate the fruit, should she survive it, that our Adam would know that God was indeed a liar!

Adam proved willing to gamble with the very life of Eve! We don’t discuss it, we don’t talk about it, most would never even DARE ask about it (but I do and have –have you ever seen a deer in headlights? That’s the look you get!) yet the truth is the only “voice”  Adam “hearkened” unto was the voice of his still living wife! Adam did not obey Eve in the sense of eating the fruit because SHE SAID SO. Adam obeyed the still living voice of a female who he well expected to drop dead before him if the word of God was true, but she didn’t, and because she didn’t Adam then “hearkened” unto what the sound of her still living voice meant–that he too could safely eat the fruit!

Second to the accusation cast against God, this is what makes Adam’s words in Genesis 3:12 so outrageous, “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” Adam, really? What happened to YOU interceding on her behalf and correcting the misinformation she makes it clear she believes in Genesis 3:3, that the fruit could be neither TOUCHED or EATEN. Well, I ask…who told Eve that the fruit could be neither touched or eaten and if this was indeed the first time Adam heard such a thing…how could he STAND remaining silent? God simply and plainly commanded Adam in Genesis 2:17 not to EAT the fruit saying, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

EAT. EAT. EAT. “Thou shalt not EAT of it” is all the word says from the Almighty God. So Adam not only failed to interfere in the downfall of Eve at the moment when she was sure to eat the fruit…he didn’t even speak the word of God as it was given when he KNEW she was operating with FALSE information! The only reason why Adam would fail to react to the misinformation she demonstrates in Genesis 3:3 is because Adam, being led by the serpent, was actually the ORIGIN of it and clearly in on the deception! I have had to stomach hearing that Eve was purposely speaking a lie to the serpent in Genesis 3:3. But what sense does this make? Adam was standing right by her side, how could she have thought to get away with such a lie as that before the very man who was the ONLY ONE God spoke the original command to? But no! Eve spoke the truth as she received it from Adam and this is why Adam DID NOT interfere in her thinking…or what she was even speaking.  Tell the truth about it someone, please.

But what does it all mean? That Adam was complicit in her down fall? That a selfish, power and position-seeking Adam was already FALLEN and entrapped by the lure of the serpent LONG BEFORE the deception and subsequent fall of the female? That Adam had motives deeper and darker than the Church has ever acknowledged? That Adam was ANYTHING but perfect…perhaps like Eve, just faulty and human?

Yes, it sure does.

Still Standing on this Garden Word

It has been a long while since I have written here at WordPress. Great site…but sometimes while doing good you just burn out. I have been writing under the name “realskinnyoneeve” (or some form of it) for at least two years now…fortunately my passion for this word remains the same but as an author and as a worker in Christ I have much growing to do.  But despite all I either know or don’t know what I don’t doubt is the work of God in my life to make me as crazy as I get about the subjugation of females in the Christian church.  Simply God-given in me.  He wakes me up with it, he puts me to bed with it.

I twitter now (often for hours) and get clarity of this word in two distinct ways. First, just how amazingly awesome is our God and secondly, just how wrong is the traditional male pulpit of the church. So I push on and I believe we will see CHANGE. I believe that God is moving and that saints are growing and at some point will understand…it is God we worship, not the pulpit. The pulpit…mighty men and women of God that they are, are still accountable to truth in the word. I can smell tradition a mile away in this garden word. It distorts truth, destroys marriages, and ruins many a saint.

All I ask, is that if we know something can’t be right…trust the voice speaking to you and put some work in learning this word for yourself. You don’t have to be fluent in the Hebrew, just look up key terms and apply the same amount of thought your sanctified mind would apply to any other worthy endeavor in your Christian life.  And then…be bold and start asking questions.  Be polite…stay holy…but understand no one has the right to by pass your mind.  Maybe you will never agree with me but at least get informed. Don’t let the pulpit be your bible. We can’t be working harder at chicken dinners than we do at knowing who we really are in Christ.

The other question is, why is it so HARD to get at the root of this garden word…why so much Christian double-talk, so much contradiction that we are told not to challenge but just believe. I find that my passion for God demands truth of his actual word, not an empty show of piety or pompous religion furthing the agenda only of man.  

 That’s all for now.

Did God Tell You Not to “Hearken” Unto Your Wife?

Yes, Adam got a righteous spank down by God, but what does it mean to “hearken” and under what circumstances would God have chastised this man for daring to hearken unto the voice of his wife?

In Genesis 3:17 God says to Adam, “Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.”

In short, according to the Hebrew the word “hearken” is a primary root word and means to hear intelligently often with implication of attention and obedience. Within the garden story, the teaching of the male tradition narrowly defines and then in error widely applies, in meaning and scope, the act of an Adam, and then any man, in “hearkening” unto his wife as a show of disobedience before God.

Yes, that Adam ate the fruit was an act of disobedience, but the mere fact that he “hearkened unto” the voice of his wife, whatever the occasion, is not the issue.  The real issue for an Adam was, why now? Why did he specifically choose to hearken unto the voice of his wife in eating the fruit yet this is the same Adam who saw fit to tellingly reject her otherwise righteous garden lead in name as “Eve” and in title as “mother of all living,” a name and title which he even chose to suppress, selfishly calling her “Woman” instead, but which nevertheless had been provided to her by the foreknowledge of God, so again I ask, why now?

Why now, when this is the same Adam, as will be later discussed, who had stomach not to hearken to her need, but to silently stand by and watch, and even as an accessory participate in, what he thought might be her death? Further, we must ask of Adam, why now, given that even on the brink of assured eternal damnation for us all, he refused to “hearken” even unto God first, but also unto the “voiced” example of a fallen but confessed and now made just Eve by likewise submitting to make a full confession of sin? So why now?

But the male tradition of the church won’t ask this question, concerning the true motivations of Adam as it will expose too much about the real mind of an “Adam.”  They will simply say, God punished a now fallen Adam because he, as a now weakened man, hearkened unto, that means even gave attention to and obeyed, the voice of his wife.  And yet, it is the same God in word, regarding his desires, who in Genesis 2:24 teaches us that, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”

Specifically, the word “cleave” in the Hebrew is also a primary root word and means to cling or adhere, to catch by pursuit, abide fast, cleave (fast together), follow close (hard after), be joined (together), keep (fast), overtake, pursue hard, stick, take.  All actions for this man, in relation to his wife and in obedience to the desires of God, which directly speaks to intelligently responding, even “hearkening” unto her whereabouts, that is her positioning (be it physical or spiritual), and watching, paying attention to actions taken, or even not taken, by this female within the garden. 

Further, we serve a God who as supplier of all our needs, desires good things for his children. As such God provided a future fallen but rightly confessed Eve as wife, and as an example for an Adam, who according to the foresight of God was also due to fall but who unlike a now proven just Eve, would prove disobedient in making a chosen stand for righteousness and getting back up by way of right confession.

In Genesis 3:13, immediately post-fall, after a stubborn Adam has already lodged accusation in the face of God, the female, responding, even “hearkening” to the questioning voice of God, speaks saying “The serpent beguiled me and I did eat.” In the prolonged presence of a soon to be punished Adam, the Lord upon hearing the confession of Eve, validates the full truth of her response by cursing the serpent in Genesis 3:14 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.” The Lord will soon turn to speak to the female again in Genesis 3:15, placing her righteously confessed “seed” in a future position of victory over the evil seed of the enemy. But whoa if the heart of God is not yet already lamenting for and because of a still stubborn and proud Adam. Too stubborn and too proud to even embrace the time-out and subsequent extension toward life he has just been given between Genesis 3:12 and 3:17. Too proud and too stubborn to even rightly “hearken” unto the voice of his wife in following, even “cleaving” to her, as an example of how to make a right confession.

It was precious time afforded by a God not wanting to punish, not wanting to evict, not wanting for his beloved human children to fall under the death curse of the enemy. It was time graciously, even generously provided for this man to think, as did the already proven righteous female, with a right mind, to prove himself just and rightly able to handle the sacred things in and around a most holy God.  It was time given for Adam to make a critical full garden confession, to lodge a sucker punch to a now hopeful enemy circumventing any need of God to righteously make the death pronouncement. It was time even to consider the victory, possible also for him, just handed by a righteous God to a before fallen but now fully confessed garden female, a female blessed with a name by God she as yet didn’t even know she had, but Adam did.

She wasn’t “Woman” as he rebelliously, even jealously called her in Genesis 2:23, but she, as even a now punished Adam was compelled by God to confess in Genesis 3:20, was “Eve,” life-giver, even “mother of all living,” and all he had to do was make a full confession of his sins to respectively also earn title as “father of all living,” and even for us to continue living eternal lives. But sadly even as we read, we know he won’t. We know this not merely because we already know the end of the garden story, but because in truth, his name, even as given in the beginning by God in Genesis 2:19, a name spoken by God post-fall just prior to his punishment in Genesis 3:9, is “Adam.’ A name speaking to being made ruddy as in ashamed, humiliated, a hypocrite, a mean man of low degree.

In fact, prior to what would soon result in the spiritual still-birth of mankind, and even during what was a very pregnant eternal moment, a moment itself still wrought with the full possibility of deliverance, educated reasoning tells us that an accusing Adam, despite witnessing example of a fallen but fully confessed and now rewarded female, won’t obediently “hearken” and make full garden confession. That he, being an “Adam,” and after first refusing to hearken unto the sovereign authority of God, would also refuse to take heed, to pay attention to, and even submit to the female’s rewarded just example in righteous behavior and repent. Because if this story was due to come out any differently than we already know it tragically will, that is, with a fallen Adam seeing fit to make right confession and therefore justly getting up, then our brother “Adam,” like our sister “Eve” as in life-giver, would have also earned a name, even from the beginning according to the foreknowledge of God, righteously speaking to life and not defeat by the enemy as in a hypocrite and a mean man of low degree.

So when we speak about an Adam admonished by God in Genesis 3:17 for “hearkening unto his wife,” with informed intelligence we can now discern, given all that this suddenly “hearkening” and then fruit eating Adam rebelliously failed to heed from the true righteous identity of an “Eve,” that to simply say, even narrowly teach, that  a holy God punished this man for “hearkening” unto the voice of  a wife (even a wife He gave) who fell down but got up seeing fit to make right garden confession when an Adam didn’t, is a dangerous affront to what was the will of God in providing for future known deficiencies of this man and a gross miscarriage of truth and accuracy in word, and especially pertaining to its illegal and unrighteous application within the lives of females now living subjugated and well out side of God‘s equal intent and purposes for her in creation. 

With that said, what still was the intent of God in Genesis 3:17, saying “Because thou hast hearkened unto thy wife?” The female, having already sought to make a stand before the serpent, having already been beguiled by his subtil ways and tricked into eating the fruit, turns to her husband and makes offer of the fruit to him as well and he without comment, did eat. That much we know, even from the confines of a traditional male pulpit, but what is it about this moment that many don’t know? For our answer, let’s hearken back (no pun intended) to the location of Adam in Genesis 3:6 and then upon further investigation also prove what must have been the actual mind-set of this man.

Genesis 3:6 states, “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” Scripture never records that the female changed locations in order to give fruit unto her husband to eat. Even a scripture which in details describes the newly found physical appeal of this fruit to her eyes, does not say, “and she departed to find her husband to give him of the fruit as well,” but that she simply “gave.” Neither does even an Adam arrogantly railing accusation in the face of God in Genesis 3:12 say that he ate the fruit but had no idea from where it came, he simply says, “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” Further, there were only two people in the garden, in this respect, they were always “with” each other, so to give “also unto her husband with her” has to mean that Adam was indeed present during the entire duration of her fall. Now if the word simply said, “and gave also unto her husband; and he did eat” we would have to honestly say that we have no indication of his actual location. But the word itself speaks and clearly says the he was with her and this also explains the utter lack of conversation between the two regarding the origin of the fruit, all she had to do was give. And finally, had Adam been tricked or even misled by Eve she would have been required to confess it in order to earn righteous name and title from the foreknowledge of God but she did not. She simply confessed that she indeed was tricked. 

Adam did not hearken unto the female for any reason other than to eat the fruit of the garden. He failed to hearken to her physically as a wife and hence no children, he failed to hearken to her spiritually as “Eve” in being a life-giver (and he just being an “Adam” as in made to be ashamed, humiliated, a hypocrite and mean man of low degree), he failed to hearken to her aid likewise as  “helpmeet” with him knowing that the fruit could be touched only not eaten and then also failing to justly interfere in what was about to be a clear violation and sinful action of the female, even bringing about her death. In fact, the silent presence of an Adam, a being who she only knew as “Man” given the lie of Adam in Genesis 2:23 (introducing himself to her as “Man” and not an “Adam”) and therefore a man deceiving her, a man that she nevertheless innocently, but wrongly considered to be “husband,” (the name “Adam” does not and cannot denote the good character of a person required to qualify as a garden “husband” in the Hebrew, but the meaning of the gender term “man,” the term which Adam sought to covet as his own, among other desirous things, does) is ultimately the reason why she was tricked. Consider, God gave famous command to the man in Genesis 2:17 prior to the arrival of the female saying, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Even the word from God that the female received about the garden first came to her through an Adam now seeking to impersonate the fictional garden person of “Man” and it was a word as given to her, particularly considering its human source,  incomplete at the root and designed to deceive in its purpose.

Well, how do we know this? We know this because a female honored in both name and title confessed to being “beguiled” by the serpent and eating the fruit only, never did she confess to the telling of a lie, yet in Genesis 3:3 even she spoke the words, “But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die,” and yet what did God actually say in Genesis 2:17 to a man even he called an “Adam” but “thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” And what also were the words of God upon his return to the garden post-fall, in speaking to a now hiding Adam but “Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?” God never says or indicates in any way that to merely “touch” the fruit was to violate his command. Yet, if even this is not enough we must also consider the word of God to Adam in Genesis 2:15, here word teaches that God gave additional purpose to this  man, not just to multiply, and even prior to commanding him not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, saying “And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.”  Well how did God expect this man to “dress and keep” trees, with ripened and then falling fruit, which according to the word from God the female received from an “Adam,” could not also be touched? Has God now lost his mind or do we have a lying Adam, a short-sighted and manipulative “Adam” calling himself “Man” before an unsuspecting female yet still under the watchful eye of an all-knowing God?  Is this man worthy of our trust? Have we, like the unsuspecting female of the garden, thinking he is “husband” also been tricked? Has the male tradition of the pulpit even been tricked, and perhaps even find that they prefer it?

There is a very good reason why, from the perspective of a man called an “Adam” by God, this man would seek to covet a better name for himself. Adam realized the lack of value in being an “Adam” in the garden, a garden designed by the mind of God to give birth to his righteousness even through humans in the earth.  And we don’t know specifically what Adam saw about her that made him reject her identity as an “Eve,” deceivingly calling her “Woman,” trumping himself up as “Man,” and not correctly, even obediently, introducing himself as an “Adam” instead. Perhaps there was something about the look of this female, a glow or an added outward differentiating appeal, more than even her specific gender had already afforded. Or perhaps too, it was the sore pain in his side, telling evidence of his own cut flesh, and he still living in the dark (as word never records that an “Adam” came out of the deep sleep, hence the dark, God put him in while creating the future fallen but proven to be righteous female) with blood dripping upon his hip. Or perhaps even Adam recognized the reigning life spirit of God that must have been operating in her, she being an “Eve,” as life-giver and he just an “Adam” from the dust as hypocrite. But there was enough of something that clearly made a difference, enough to overly intimidate this man and to shake him at the core of his very being, enough to expose the over abundance of pride that was really there. “She must be conquered, she must be controlled and I have the power because in the garden only I know who she really is” he likely thought to himself. So instead of seeking God for his own increase in garden stature, a defiant Adam elected to step out on his own and became “Man,” at least to himself and before an unknowing female he refused to call an “Eve” but only disobediently, insultingly, and even disturbingly “Woman” instead. 

And yet in the garden of Eden we have fruit, which even initially to the eyes of the female did not even look good for food. Scripture records in Genesis 3:6, “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and did eat.” Well, why would this fruit ever not look good to her eyes, should it not have always been most excellent? Yes the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was banned to the humans for food but what did God create in the garden upon a tree that would deteriorate and that was inferior? But God did not create fruit that did not look good, even succulently good upon a tree, however, what was the man purposed and then even charged by God to do in Genesis 2:15 but to “dress and keep” the garden? A lying Adam however now also created for himself yet another dilemma. 

Having lied to the female, saying the fruit could be neither touched or eaten, and this all in an effort to suppress the female and control fruit which he desired for himself given his suspicions that the fruit could even make him better, Adam also could not now pick up any ripened and then fallen fruit from this tree in the garden lest he be discovered in his lie by the female. He could not therefore, due to his lie, “dress and keep” all that was in the garden. As a result, we have fruit in Genesis 3:6, likely on the ground as even fallen fruit, which we learn didn’t even look good to the female, she didn’t even consider it to be a good source of food. And all the while we have a silent Adam, knowing the fruit could be touched but only not eaten. Even an Adam watching the female as she was tricked, beguiled perhaps into touching and then discovering no harm, and now for certain eating; a female trusting also in the judgment of an Adam who she felt certain would intervene on her behalf if in fact he felt she was in error, herself not knowing, not understanding that he was in this for himself. That he was content to view from the sidelines what was preventable but even deadly human drama that was about to become galactic in scope and measure before a holy God. But for an “Adam” the matter was simple. Would she eat the fruit and die, or would she eat the fruit and live? He would either be rid of this female who he in identity attacked and demonstrated no desire, or he at least would know he too could safely eat of the fruit and that God as he suspected was indeed a liar, a God who just wanted to keep the benefit of the fruit all to himself.

But the female we know as “Eve,” ate of the fruit and lived. She turned to her husband, a man she knew as “Man” but who we know as an “Adam,” and gave unto him also. With that, a now gleeful Adam “hearkened” unto the still living voice of his wife and he did eat. So again when we ask why now, why did Adam hearken unto the voice of his wife now, and why did God, a most holy God, a just, righteous God, find cause to chastise him for so doing, now?  The answer is in the voice, the still living voice that is, of a female Adam was not sure would live and selfishly seized opportunity to jeopardize the life of so that he might test effect of the fruit.  But she did live, and she spoke, confirming sufficient evidence of continued life that enabled and even “hearkened” a rebellious, manipulative, now cruel Adam to with delight eat as well.

In fact when God says, “Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree,” he is even telling us what the man Adam has really been up to if we bother, even take the time to really pay attention. God knew the man only sought to suppress the true righteous identity of the female in the garden, that he denied her in name as an “Eve,” and in title as “mother of all living,” that the man even denied his own name as an “Adam,” all things which God had given. God could not say, “Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of Eve, and hast eaten of the tree,” given that in reality, and from the divine perspective of God, the female even post-fall, was still without a name, even without spoken identity from a man called an Adam by God. But this was a man assigned (and not given “exclusive authority”) and even tested by God to obediently name all things, and even the first daughter of God (as an honor) in the garden.

The issue for God was, she as yet did not have her name, as he had given and as he had even made known to an Adam, it was to be “Eve” not this “Woman.” Adam denied his will. It is for this same reason that God calls out to an “Adam” alone immediately after the fall in Genesis 3:9. And given the meaning of this man’s name, it was the same as if God was calling out and saying, “Hey hypocrite, hey humiliated, hey ashamed, hey you mean man of low degree, hey – yes you, Adam!” God was in no way here confirming (feigned) exclusive male authority as taught by the traditional male pulpit. How much do they not know? And although, even in the face of the fall God still proved respect for the choice he made in charging an Adam to name all things in the garden, God specifically refused to show respect for the disobedient work of this man in naming the female and calling her “Woman.”

That he had not rightly named her prior to the fall meant that he, a future fallen man who would show no respect for confession, also elected to reject her (as he even first rejected God) in righteous name and identity, as a wife in the garden. And in rejecting her as a wife, this man was also stating that he considered what and how God had given to him to be of no value. So little did he think of it, a man who obediently proved able to name animals even in pairs, he elected not to righteously call her “Eve,” though she being his equal counterpart and co-garden heir, to the glory and honor of God. God knew that even an Adam would understand his righteous displeasure in only being able to refer to the female as “wife” and not “Eve.”  Even a still stubborn and soon punished Adam didn’t test God by calling the female “Woman” before the face of God, he says instead, “The woman thou gavest to be with me,” in Genesis 3:12 not “the female who I named Woman, whom thou gavest to be with me.” It now seems the gender term of “woman,” for this female as a name from the mind of Adam is suddenly no longer fit, or shall we say “convenient as a means,” for an Adam now standing before God and it is a small wonder why.  But it was a righteous God who arrived calling out the root of what first went wrong in the garden when he said, “Adam,” (and not also “Eve”) “where art thou?”

In hearkening back now to Genesis 3:17, God was present, although not detected, as Adam stood by allowing the (still name-less) female to be beguiled by the serpent with even the serpent knowing that a selfish Adam would not interfere. But did Adam confess any or all of this in Genesis 3:12? Did he even volunteer to make a better confession of truth during the pregnant pause between the clearly unacceptable confession he made in Genesis 3:12 and Genesis 3:17 when God finally turns back to him issuing punishment? And should we still have to ask why, even wonder why this man Adam earned the death pronouncement, why he was a man created even in the beginning from the dust?

Yes, in Genesis 3:9, God returns to the garden calling out the name of “Adam” and not “Man,” (and in so doing purposely even calling “Man” out before a woman who was to be his wife) so that the female would finally also now know that this “Man” to her is really an “Adam.” Imagine the female hearing the name of “Adam” for the first time and wondering who on earth that was, she was “Woman” and he was “Man.” Yet the female learns even further in Genesis 3:20 that while she proved fit as “woman” according to the Hebrew (meaning to be “mighty” and even a “champion” (but did the male pulpit ever tell you that?)), she was not in name “Woman,” but that her full garden identity and purpose, even as acknowledged and called by God (and she having earned it by way of alone making a righteous confession that Adam did not) was “Eve,” as “life-giver,” and that even as a virgin, child-less female in a fallen garden, she was yet still recognized by God as “mother of all living.”

It is fitting also that even a fallen, still stubborn but now punished and thus righteously compelled Adam, had to submit and finally confess that.

If you would like to learn more about the Hebrew of the garden word, get the full teaching as published in ”The Real Skinny on Eve, A Short but Comprehensive Guide on the Real Identity of Sisters in the Church of Jesus Christ” by visiting Amazon.com @http://bit.ly/25ZTSh.  It’s just a click away! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It’s Your Choice

As an average pew member of the Christian faith, it should be expected, whether desired or not, that the pulpit is perceived and will be realized as the greatest source of knowledge of that faith which many will allow themselves to either experience or accept.  As Christians we are taught to be narrow-minded in scope, judging a tree by its root and often throwing out the baby with the bath water and rightly so.  But what happens when the teachings of the Church, far from just being rightly narrow-minded, is counter actively exclusionary and even to the point of shunning the Hebrew of the garden word because it fails to prove the male tradition as the word of God?

What happens when, based upon the misinterpretation of the female (compliments of the male tradition) the Church is now made destructive in its application and influence upon countless lives, marriages, levels of faith, spiritual intimacy, and equal call to office within the context of the female’s own relationship with, and community in and around, God? And this all for the sake of ignoring the word of the Hebrew in the garden and establishing a preference to exalt the traditions of mere men.

Specifically concerning the Hebrew, we are freely and truthfully taught that “Adam” means “man” and “man” means “Adam” and that these two are inseparable in their meaning.  But how often are we taught what it really means to be defined as a “man” within the parameters of also being an “Adam,” according to its origins in the Hebrew, the original language of the Old Testament? And additionally, who told you that the “man,” called an “Adam” by God in 2:19, could truthfully, even accurately in the absence of personal change (to be that is, in the image of God), also be interpreted on the same level of a “man” as defined by the Hebrew in 2:23? Yet it is the “man” of 2:23 who this man, first called an “Adam” by God, nevertheless presents himself as to a newly arrived and unsuspecting female. But then again sisters, it’s not what they tell you, it’s what they don’t.

“And Adam said, This is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Genesis 2:23

If you first fully understand in right alignment with the Hebrew, what it means to be an “Adam,” it’s a no brainer. You would also immediately conclude that any “man” called an “Adam” by God according to the Ancient Hebrew could not also at the same time qualify as the “man” of 2:23, which a now exposed as crafty man named Adam is bent upon presenting, even introducing himself as before one created by God to be his wife. A wife, who by the way, for those who know the end of the garden story, is suspiciously here called “Woman” and not “Eve” by a man first called an “Adam” by God but now electing to call himself “Man” instead.  And just in case you haven’t yet realized it, this man, before us presented as perfect by the arrogance of the all male pulpit, is clearly, even obviously, experiencing very severe character issues.  But the trespass in this particular grievance, again caused by our man called an “Adam” by God and not “Man,” is yet another story.

The “man” of 2:19 who is called an “Adam” by God is defined in the Hebrew as: being of mankind, another, a hypocrite, a common sort, low, man (mean, low degree) person. However, according to the Hebrew, the “man” of 2:23, which this man called an “Adam” by God (now acting as hypocrite, surprise) elects to present himself as before the newly arrived, unsuspecting female means to be: a champion, to be of high degree, good, great, mighty and even a husband among many other positively stated attributes.

So what is happening? How can I know this and yet the Church of the all male pulpit, despite and throughout all of it’s years of existence, it’s elders, scholars, renowned preaching men of old, institutions of higher learning, full exercise of exclusive male authority and possession of office, how exactly that is, has this been missed by them?

After all, already having a commonly used King James bible, I just went out and picked up my own copy of a good concordance, “The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible” to be specific, and began looking up key garden terms, and presto, just like that there was “Adam” defined as a “man” in being a hypocrite, common sort, mean and of low degree.  Not perfect. Not all Christ-like. Not a husband. Not God exalted, but himself seeking to exalt. Not even as fallen and confessed. But as a perpetrator. Now, did anyone ever tell you that?

Certainly, as a female living under the subjugation of men for years no one ever told me, but surely it is news, even from the garden text of the Hebrew, I desperately could have used.  Yet I got, “Adam” means “man” and “man” means “Adam,” the end. Now, given that we are speaking of creation, not only does it sound like God exclusively intended for the gender of man to own the world, but on a lighter note, it also sounds catchy, there is a bit of a ring. I will give them that. But too bad it’s not also as accurate in fact as it is convenient as a means to accomplish its devious end.

Well, upon conducting my own studies and in writing what would eventually become a book entitled: “The Real Skinny on Eve, A Short but Comprehensive Guide on the Real Identity of Sisters in the Church of Jesus Christ” (Amazon.com/BookSurge.com), I discovered the truth regarding the real Adam, but then even also the real Eve, and I came to understand why we are just taught the basic formula that “Adam” means “man” and “man” means “Adam.”

Lurking in the shadows of the Hebrew, there is an Adam not just of commonly known accusation, but an Adam as hypocrite, a common sort, and a mean man of low degree. A dark, hidden Adam, like the uncle kept in the basement because he’s not quite right, an Adam unlikely to be found by women of the pew, and even if found by those of more deliberate cause, those of us willing to creep often alone down dusty staircases with little for light, he is less likely to be debunked due to the tireless, and at this point timeless efforts of a male pulpit to teach him as perfect, coercing female subjugation based upon and propagated by the lie of his perfection and the lie of his sole creation to be in the image of God. Teaching it right for the female to bow, even in the face of a call by God before this trumped up male head, believing she is beneath due to the lie also of Eve’s creation and by saying that the female fell but despite her righteous and honored confession she was yet still unable to fully and rightly get up given her discount in credence supposedly and even by a holy God. And having said all that, concerning the sham of exclusive male authority, who could blame them really, for stripping, raping the female in identity, equal authority, and call, what with all that male power in the pulpit at stake.

Further, in the absence of understanding the Hebrew and therefore not knowing that the use of “man” for one not already being called an Adam by God can also simply mean “mankind,” you might feel just a little left out by God, (discarded, thought to be nothing, even less than an after thought), sitting there among men, learning such things from men, under all  male authority, teaching that as female you were designed even “beneath” male fallen flesh in your creation, and with you just sitting there always, always, always carefully, but oh so religiously, seeking to lift the weight of your own submission, a submission regardless of how otherwise properly dressed, is straight from hell. And yet, perhaps even dressed in your Sunday best, you do it all, even while largely in communicative isolation, wearing a sanctified smile and saying, “Praise the Lord, I’m fine today, blessed and highly favored, and how are you?”

Of course only one way is right before God and as always, it’s your choice to make. However, in the face of the full Hebrew garden revelation, it is a choice for subjugation which God did not design and nor is he, especially for the sake of exalting or maintaining a male tradition, compelling you, an otherwise fit and celebrated daughter of the Most High God, to make.

You simply don’t have to do it.

Christian and Married to a Fool?

While visiting a preaching social website I used to frequent, I came across a posting by a young sister who had just simply had enough of her girlfriends married to men who she regarded to be fools. Now she didn’t give enough information to accurately access whether or not they actually were fools, but the premise of the issue itself has its beginnings in what is right now my greatest calling, even passion in God, the accurate interpretation of his garden word.

Yet what do you say to the female married to the foolish man with her head wrapped up in the conviction that to divorce would be a sin? Unless justified in the word, she can’t get out, has God abandoned her? How does she rise above, and is the word of God insufficient? Is there evidence that His foreknowledge lacked in placing the female in the subservient role of subjection to the man by his design? As if man himself before her is God?  To dangerously position the man, and the fool, within the lofty realm of idolatry in relation to the female and even in the face of His glory, sovereigntry, jealousy, and hatred of pride? Is this in fact the word of God?

I would encourage anyone to study the Hebrew of the garden word. Discern 2:23, that Adam was seeking to be what a “man” called “Adam” could not, “mighty” and a “champion.” Take your mind captive to the obedience of Christ Jesus and consider the confession of 3:13, a confession even honored by God in 3:14 and that it was the female alone who emerged from the ashes of a fallen garden with name and title speaking to life and not unrighteousness as did Adam. In fact every term used in the garden relating to the female, spoke well of her: Eve, woman, female and wife. God spoke well of her. There is no double-speak attached to her name, as is true for the garden term of “man,” and that thanks to the disobedient, rebellious mind of an idolatrous, proud, position seeking Adam.

In detailing the Hebrew of this scripture, and particularly the word in 2:23, the unclear is made clear.  That the dubious pulpit word of the traditional man and all that before seemed to make God the respecter of persons, a liar, and a hypocrite himself (and yet his word saying that no weapon shall prosper, that he is no respecter of persons, that we are all one in Christ Jesus, that we were created to be above and not beneath yet as charged to his will he subjugates the female) equates to nothing less than garden variety (no pun intended) flat-out rebellion. 

Narrowly speaking to the male and the female and not mankind, the word “man” in the garden was designed by God to speak to gender only but yet was hijacked by a proud Adam who bemoaned his identity as charged by God.  You see, to be an “Adam” as called by God also dictated that this too, in accordance with the Hebrew meant that he was a hypocrite and that he would also prove to be a mean man of low degree, humiliated in his garden end before God. That specifically, due to a lack of regard to make confession, the fallen but still proud, arrogant mind of this man would prove to be a hypocrite and a fool.  So this man “Adam,” according to his own independent mind and not the mind of God, became the man of the Hebrew meaning to be “mighty” and a “champion” instead, not the hypocrite and humiliated – not the fool!  But if only this “Adam” now “Man” had sought God about his garden dilemma. Did God not desire for this man to overcome?

As for the female, tradition will tell you that 3:16 was a curse, but a righteous mind would first discern that a God who demonstrated respect for her confession in 3:13 by immediately turning to curse the serpent saying “because thou hast done this …” (or is God now the fool?), a God who exalted and positioned Eve alone for victory in 3:15 over the serpent, a God who compelled a now punished Adam to call her Eve, meaning “life-giver” and not “Woman” (and him now obediently answering to “Adam” and not “Man” 2:23/3:9) and to recognize her (in a fallen garden and even world) in title and purpose as “mother of all living” in 3:20, that this same God as even a just God would not and did not curse the righteous.

I beseech you sisters, and also brethern, to learn the Hebrew and be free!  Why submit to the foolish in the garden word? He will yet still return one day separating the sheep from the goats! Study to show thyself approved, a workman who needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth! 

” The Real Skinny on Eve” is available on Amazon.com and BookSurge. com today!

What Was Eve’s Garden Experience Has Become Our Church!

“But God knew what Eve did not, that the man was actually called “Adam” and not “Man” (thus now revealing the true identity of Adam to her) and that she would soon also know that her name was “Eve” and not “Woman.”  “Woman” is a gender term of good report for the female, yes, but as a name, it was intended as a clever demotion in her authority and by today’s standards culturally translates as an insult.

That God rejected use of this term as her name serves to definitively underscore the evil at hand.  From even the God perspective, suppressing the call and purpose of one positioned to give life is to promote the work of death as ultimately desired by the enemy only.  Adam sought to serve himself in withholding the actual name of “Eve.”  Yet a blind Adam was used by the enemy to launch an even greater attack against the more righteous female and the life source of the garden which she solely represented.  It is an attack which in large part continues even today.  For Eve, the attack against the truth of her righteousness (and therefore authority) occurred in the garden.  Respectively, for generations of women today, what was Eve’s garden experience has become our church.”

Excerpt Printed from “The Real Skinny on Eve, A Short but Comprehensive Guide on the Real Identity of Sisters In the Church of Jesus Christ.”  Copyright © 2009

For those who have been led to believe that the issues of Eve stemmed solely from eating a simple piece of fruit, think again, there was “couple drama” in the garden that the church dare not tell you! 

 It is important to experience the garden as it happened in real life.  In short, how would you feel if you discovered that your man not only lied to you about who he was, but that he in fact also lied to you about who you were as well?  And now God is himself commanding answers from you?!!!

 

Please consider, upon God’s return to the garden after the fall, the female had no idea who God was even calling out to:

 

“And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?”  Genesis 3:9 

 

Well, “Where art who?” must have been the actual thought of Eve. After all she was told by a now outed Adam in Genesis 2:23 that his name was “Man,” strange choice for a name right?  But, you see, in the Hebrew the actual use of the term “man” in this instance equates to being a “mighty champion.”  Small wonder why Adam elected to change up given that the name of “Adam,” (according to the Hebrew) means one who has been made to be embarrassed, a hypocrite and a man of low degree.  Wow.  Who wouldn’t want to be known as better?  Especially in front of a girl! Adam certainly did and he went for the gusto by even rejecting a name indisputably conferred upon him by God – that’s called “stepping up!” Perhaps not wise, considering that it was God who he elected to kick to the curb, but a pretty bold move by Adam all the same.  Right?

 

What’s more, the female, purposed in name by God to be an “Eve” is called “Woman” instead.  He called her “Woman?”  Really?  Now how is that not an insult?  I will tell you.  Likewise to the use of the gender term “man” above, in the Hebrew the gender term of “woman” means to be a “mighty champion.”  Did your church ever tell you that?  Mine didn’t.

 

Yet we still have a problem here.  God desired for the name of this female to be “Eve” and not “Woman.”  But Adam, in rejecting the use of the name “Eve,” did in fact demote the female by defining her in gender only as “Woman” (although unavoidly speaking well of her all the same) as the man also, and even primarily, desired a cover-up first for himself. That is, a garden Adam recognized what was his own lack compared to a garden “Eve” and as such sought to define himself in gender as a “mighty champion” which was for a man otherwise known as a garden “Adam,” a much needed “step up.”  Well, what does “Eve” mean in the Hebrew?  The name of “Eve” translates as a “life-giver.” 

 

Now, that is not much different than you would expect, after all she was the first mother in the earth, right?  Yet, there is more to it than that.  You see in Genesis 3:20, when the female finally did rightly receive her name, that is, after the fall, God also compelled a now punished Adam to call her the “mother of all living” as well.  Once again, makes sense.  But consider every child belonging to Eve would also belong to an Adam who was not also designated by God as the “father of all living.”  That’s a BIG DEAL.  The female just earned a name and title speaking to life in a garden just giving birth to death and it was a name and title which a garden Adam likewise did not also earn. But why not?  Before we get to the answer, I must ask, have your pastors and teachers EVER brought this up?  But no.

 

Remember back in Genesis 3:9 when God re-enters the garden, calling out to the man and in Genesis 3:11 inquiring whether or not he has in fact eaten of the tree he was commanded not to eat of?  Yeah, well the “confession” of Adam, more like the “accusation” lodged by Adam, received zero honor from a holy God as Adam accepted absolutely no real responsibility and pointed to the female alone for the reason of his downfall. 

 

But wait, in the very least, hadn’t Adam already been playing games in the garden, running amuck with the name of “Adam” and “Eve” and then “Man” and “Woman,” in seeking to change the entire nomenclature of the garden, thereby usurping all authority and position from the female in his total favor? Yes, I think I remember that. In fact as a daughter of Eve, it kinda of sounds like the church to me, even for many of us. Do you think they know this stuff?  They certainly don’t teach it.

 

But now let’s examine what happened when God likewise questioned the female, and psst . . . please note God could not yet call her by name as she had not yet obediently received one from a garden Adam.  In Genesis 3:13, the Lord makes inquiry of the female, saying, “What is this thou hast done?”  The simple response of the female was, “The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.”

 

Now, quite a remarkable thing happens after this. God immediately turns to the serpent in Genesis 3:14 and curses him.  Just like that and all because Eve told.  So what does this mean?  Safe to conclude I think that God gave honor to the confession of Eve which of course also confirms that she was indeed tricked.  She was beguiled. 

 

But wait, there is yet plenty more drama to explore in the garden as a silent Adam, who did know the truth about the fruit, said absolutely nothing during the temptation and fall of the female!  Imagine. She was expected to have his baby, yet she didn’t even know his name (is that the God way of doing things? I mean, I know how we can be in the world, but God?) and after first lying, the man refused to even speak up for her!  All else aside, chivalry was a dead deal in the garden I guess. Yet Adam instead felt fit to abandon her even as they both stood there — together, with she alone seeking to rebut the enemy, ill-equipped with an adulterated word (received even from the mouth of Adam) and now likely to taste of death right before his very eyes.  But there he is, contently standing by, watching her eat forbidden fruit and no doubt eagerly wondering if she will in fact die.  Egads, what a guy!

 

Small wonder why God, in Genesis 3:17 chastises an Adam who “hearkened unto the voice” of his wife.” God knew Adam was playing treacherous games with the life of his own wife! She was supposed to die upon eating the fruit, but physically before the eyes of Adam, she yet lived instead — and she spoke!  And it was that she spoke and when she spoke that a God-doubting and manipulative Adam also knew that not only was God a liar, but the fruit could be safely eaten.  And as we know, he did then eat. 

 

And yet, a deceptive Adam said before the face of God in Genesis 3:12, it was all the fault of Eve — right Church?  You know like how women are denied positions of authority over men and the right to fully exercise gifts according to call all based upon that most deceitful garden Eve? Certainly, and most remarkably, your high-brow, triple-degree pulpits seem to agree with that. Right? Yet, even this set-up sounds too familiar . . . where did I read about this before?  Oh, yes it was in the garden, all according to the mind of a rebellious, dark Adam.  Way to go Church, way to go.  The life of the female doesn’t matter much, we will just keep licking our wounds and getting over it.  Nice weather we’re having . . .

 

And it is for all of these reasons and more (yes, believe it or not, there is more) that the garden man Adam was not also called the “father of all living” by God.  Because you see, that would have been a spiritual title, and as a spiritual title speaking to life, one would have had to even represent life in the garden in order to earn it. 

 

Don’t shoot the messenger, but that God did not likewise speak well in both  name and title about the fallen, yet un-confessed, garden man Adam, as He did pertaining to a fallen but righteously confessed garden Eve, even as “mother of all living,” speaks to the obvious don’t ya think?  We are after all instructed to know a tree by its fruit.

 

Sisters, and even brothers (please!), check out the “The Real Skinny on Eve, A Short but Comprehensive Guide on the Real Identity of Sisters in the Church of Jesus Christ” and get full answers to the questions you need to know the most! 

 

According to the Foreknowledge of God, the flesh of Adam was cut to the bone for his ill-gotten, un-confessed garden actions, dare we wait for His return again to settle the matter?  What a hot time it’s going to be in that pulpit!  We do all understand that the Church will be His first stop, right?  But learn what you need to know and be saved!

Grow Up and Eat the Meat or He Will Spew You Out . . .

Pride is a five-letter word and when as a spirit it is exalted, the manifested fruit even in mankind is capable of rending utter and total destruction. That pride even goes before destruction, is a message familiar and central to us all from the very mouth of God. As the Bible states, in Proverbs 16:5 and 18-19: “Everyone that is proud in heart is an abomination unto the LORD; he shall not be unpunished. Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall. Better it is to be of a humble spirit with the lowly than to divide the spoil with the proud.”

 

It was pride that was the true sin of Adam, for it was pride alone that prevented him from achieving a humbled state even before God. We must first objectively observe, and then rightly consider that there was a level of pride in a now fallen Adam that even a murderous future Cain proved better able to subdue. A humbled Cain at least obtained protection from God averting what would surely otherwise have been his own pending death. Yet, tragically, it was the stubborn pride of a still defiant Adam that forced the death pronouncement upon us all. And yet it is before the works of the same pride of Adam, a force proven to be more destructive than what was even borne from an infamous, murderous Cain, that the Church as in institution still finds cause to bow.

 

That we accept definition of our own positions in creation, righteousness, and therefore authority as given by God, based upon the misinterpreted model of a carnally exalted yet most certainly punished Adam, is heretical at best and at it’s worst, is an unquestionable abomination in the face of God.

 

That we would, collectively as the Body of Christ, exalt one gender over that of another finds no right place in Scripture. The garden represents the heart of word itself as it reveals to us the sheer Goodness that is in the very Heart and Mind of God to create, authorize and freely give to us. My challenge to you on this day is to set aside all that you think you know and approach the garden scriptures open first and only to the Heart of God and not the mind of man. In so doing, you will be better able to identify and then overcome the issues of pride which so triumphantly otherwise beseech so many of us.

 

But for pride you would otherwise never preach that a weapon formed against a child of God shall prosper. You would otherwise never preach that God is indeed a respecter of persons. You would otherwise never preach that God is both a liar and a fool. But for pride you would otherwise never preach that God would turn a blind eye to truth and righteousness and instead reward any man or gender despite a demonstrated show of disdain for right confession and electing to lodge accusation in the face of God himself.

 

Well, when did you preach these things? Each and every time you deny the confession of the female in 3:13 as even rewarded by God in both title and name in 3:20. Each and every time you fail to heed and rightly discern that as the “mother of all living” even God was calling her righteous and if she, as you say was not then righteous, then even God is now made to be both the fool and the liar. You caused a record of yourself each and every time you instead even fathomed to fantasize that an un-confessed and punished Adam, who was himself but only a created thing, could ever be regarded as perfect. Why think such a thing despite the demonstrated Judgment and Foreknowledge of an Almighty Perfect God evidenced in this man’s dusty creation as well as the telling name even God called him?

 

Yet you preach it every time you fail to note that Eve alone made a stand against the enemy even in the presence of a deceptive Adam. You preach it every time you fail to acknowledge that in 3:17 God was calling out a manipulative, silent and callous Adam, who himself desiring the fruit, only “hearkened” unto the still living “voice” of a wife who he suspected even before his eyes might surely die. You preach it every time you fail to attach even the slightest bit of significance to an Adam, who in 2:23, according to his own mind and before an unsuspecting female, is now “Man” (as in “a mighty champion”) yet even unto to God in 3:9 he is but only still an Adam (as in to be made ashamed, a “hypocrite” and a man of “low-degree”).

 

You do this each and every time the identity of the female is yet mangled again, first according to the mind of a rebellious Adam and now from a blinded pulpit not able to still call her just “Woman” (as did Adam) but subjugating her in purpose and call all the same. But where is your fear of a God who in Mind called this female “Eve” (“life-giver”) even from the very beginning and never “Woman”? Think it for naught that a Righteous God addressed this issue in 3:9 and 3:20? Are we to think nothing of His work?

 

Did He too call an un-confessed Adam as a future father in the physical, a “life-giver?” But no, as it speaks to the spiritual reality and not the physical state of this righteously confessed female as a future mother. It has nothing to do with the fact that she would become a mother (that is finally) and it was a spiritual reality she achieved which an un-confessed garden Adam did not likewise earn. Yet also, was Adam even recognized with a respective title such as an Eve, as “the mother of all living?” But no, yet again, it is spiritual recognition of the female alone attesting to her proven garden righteousness even as acknowledged by God.

 

God wasn’t even addressing Adam in 3:15. He was addressing the serpent and the female only. But where was Adam? Why did his so-called “elevated creation” and “righteous” garden standing not afford him to be positioned as was Eve by God as a righteous instrument of victory over the enemy? But do you really think God would use an un-confessed Adam for such a matter as this? And yet you dare deny her the pulpit?

 

Stop electing to play Adam’s name game of confusion, giving glory first and only to the enemy and the break-through will come, that I can promise you. And the Lord will even confirm you, despite the dusty creation of Adam, as He has indeed already confirmed those of us marginalized and left for dung because even as a well-churched “Woman,” we dare not knowingly bow down to an unholy thing.

 

Yes I boldly take my place even as a confessed and approved garden Eve. Yet I, unlike a garden Eve, am not operating with an adulterated word as given to her by a rebellious, manipulative Adam, but with only the truth of God. A truth rooted in the very word that the male tradition has instead elected to use as a whipping board in misogynistic pursuits birthed not in righteousness, but in the haughty, arrogant spirit of the proud only. Instead of doing such a thing, why not examine your need to be in the realm of God? Apply reason, what did not go well for Adam will not go well for you either.

 

But it would be better for you to stand against God completely than to allow Him to find you lukewarm, in a cuddled position, wrapped in, and suckling at the breast of a word first purposed in rebellion only. Grow up and eat the meat or He will spew you out.

 

That God had Purpose for the Righteous “seed” of a Female who Adam only saw fit to call “Woman” Meant Something!

 

That Adam was created from the same dust used to punish and portray death meant something. That Adam arrived early to “practice” how to obediently name according to the will of God and still ultimately got it wrong, meant something. That a future, righteously confessed female had no need to arrive early into the garden, meant something. Even that God judged it right to reject the “flesh” of a future rebellious Adam using “bone” only instead, meant something. That a now awake Adam in 2:23 misunderstood both the creation and purpose of the female meant something.

That an arrogant Adam suppressed the righteous identity, authority, and purpose of the female, while simultaneously gifting himself with exclusive hijacked authority in the garden meant something. That the God-given name of “Adam” was rejected by “man” for ”Man” instead meant something. That a female purposed by God as an “Eve,” is disobediently known as ”Woman” instead meant something. That Adam heard “Woman” speak wrongly regarding the fruit, that it could be neither “touched” or “eaten”, and yet said nothing despite what would be her impending death as he knew it, meant something. That the state of this same “Woman” who was later deemed as righteous even before God, speaks to us about the source of her misinformation in the first place. Does it not Adam? 

That a doubtful yet deceitful Adam “hearkened” unto the voice of a wife who he thought might surely die after eating the fruit meant something. That God gave no respect to the term “Woman” as a name for the female and thus solely called “Adam,” to one who before changed his name to “Man,” meant something. And that “Woman,” who was told by “man” that he was “Man,” but had no idea who was also “Adam,” even as called by the very “voice” of God meant something. 

That Adam lodged accusation only in 3:12 and withheld making the garden confession of sin meant something. That the confession of “Woman” in 3:13, was honored even by God in 3:20 meant something. 

That this “Woman”, who we now commonly call “Eve”, was not properly named according to the will of God until 3:20 also meant something. That she was also honored by God through a now punished and compelled Adam in 3:20 as “mother of all living” and yet Adam respectively was not, meant something. That she was judged righteous in both name and title in a fallen world by the Foreknowledge of a holy God, and yet Adam again was not, meant something. As defined in the Hebrew, that a “man” who was also an “Adam” could not also qualify as a ”mighty champion” meant something. And that Adam was a “man” but not also a garden “male,” meant something too. 

Likewise, that a confessed Eve as “woman,” in accordance with the Hebrew, was not only a “life-giver” but a “mighty champion” too, meant something. That God had purpose for the righteous “seed” of a female who Adam only saw fit to call “Woman” and yet not also for the seed of an arrogant Adam meant something. And that her fallen, confessed “head” and not the head of a fallen, un-confessed Adam was positioned by God for future triumph over the enemy, meant something.  That God even said she had a “head” meant something. 

Further, that a righteously confessed Eve came before even one known as a righteous Abraham, and that therefore, even the great promises made to Abraham by God first rested within the spiritual bosom of Eve, this too meant something. 

That a rebellious Adam of the garden bled, lost a rib, position, authority, and supply; was punished, evicted, condemned to sweat and toil and received the death pronouncement by God, means something even in the earth today.   

Replicating the mind of a rebellious, arrogant and un-confessed Adam, even beneath cover of the mantle, also dictates doubting that a most  holy God will again return to the garden, now of the world, to judge the evil.  Should He, for a second time, even for the sake of His daughters, find detrimental, ill-gotten gain, freely snuffing-out righteous identities, forbidding the Spirit, and aborting full function according to the call?  Think ye that much of your male-bellies filled with ego?  But repent and be made free!