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 at http://bit.ly/25ZTSh. It's just a click away!