The Husband’s Call to Love Is A Call to Rule

[Pacman]

I won’t further discuss it in this thread.
But I will say that if your assumption is correct, he still had the obligation to choose a righteous response to her actions which would have changed history. And, btw, further established his leadership/rule.

What I'm about to say is pure conjecture I'm not claiming to have chapter and verse support.

I think the fact that he chose to go ahead and hearken unto the voice of his wife is actually an indicator that he took his love for her too far and chose to knowingly disobey God so that she would not have to die alone. You are right that making the right decision would have established his authority more securely. And we are still dealing with the consequences of that today ...

 

[steve]

I think the fact that he chose to go ahead and hearken unto the voice of his wife is actually an indicator that he took his love for her too far and chose to knowingly disobey God so that she would not have to die alone.

Yeah, I really dislike that theory because of how it makes him all noble and it condemns her.

 

[Pacman]

Yeah, I really dislike that theory because of how it makes him all noble and it condemns her.

I see it more as weakness than nobility...

 

[Jim an Apostle]

Sorry for the long post, but this is a big subject, as this thread has already proved. I have followed and read this thread from the beginning. It seems to me that the answer is to be found here:

Matthew 6:33
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

The plan has always been to have a Kingdom. God is a King, Jesus is a King! A kingdom operates by delegated authority from the top down. God is a God of order! We are also kings and priests! The family was originally designed (even before the fall) to be governed by the man. Many do not recognize that the man and the woman are not just different physically, but they are also different spiritually, and emotionally. This was not a result of the fall... it was the original design. Adam was the responsible one! It would be completely unjust for a husband to bear the responsibility for the home if he does not also have the authority to go with it! My responsibility is only in effect as long as I have obedience!

True, we cannot make anyone do anything... even our children! Although God could make us into robots, He does not want our obedience to be by force. God, as a King, wants us to exercise authority as He would. There are times when God does use methods of persuasion that even at times may resort to force... such as ‘Jonah and the Whale,’ ‘Paul’s conversion,’ ... Israel’s many servitudes and famines...

In God’s Kingdom, you have three choices: submit (obey), leave, or be cast out! Any thing but submission will bring the consequences of losing the benefits of the Kingdom in one’s life. In our temporary state, we may not see the full impact of losing those benefits yet, but in eternity, the full measure of losing the blessing of the Kingdom of God will be manifest.

The benefits of our personal kingdom are for those who submit to your kingship. Hopefully, your Kingdom provides more pluses than minuses, and those in the kingdom will desire to stay as willing, obedient, members (subjects).

Does God rule with authority and power? Yes! Are we to do the same? Yes! Power in itself does not equal authority. A young soldier can probably win a contest of battle against an old King (not in God’s case, of course), but just having power does not of itself grant wisdom or authority. To be rightful authority, the authority must come from God!

Romans 13:1-3
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. [2] Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. [3] For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

A casual reading may imply that all power is ordained of God. This cannot possibly be true! There is a proper time to resist ‘powers’ such as the Hebrew midwives, and the three Hebrew children. Remember also the guy that wrote this scripture passage was himself put to death by a power that he resisted. Just because one has power or authority does not mean it is ordained of God. If that were true, how could we justify fighting Hitler? Hitler was not a right authority! We were not resisting God when we fought him in WWII. He was not ordained of God! No! We must understand that the ‘true powers’ are the ones truly ordained by God. Even those powers must stay within certain parameters in order to remain ‘true powers’ to which we must be submitted.

1 Tim. 2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Here we see plain evidence that authority can be usurped!

1 Cor. 7:15
But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

All authorities have limitations on their use of authority and power.

I know Nebucanezzar was allowed by God to afflict Israel. But when he went to far... Shadrack and friends did not bow

Our focus is Biblical families. Hopefully, in good faith, a husband and wife or wives are seeking to honor and serve God. Can the husband demand total obedience

Ephes. 5:24
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Yes, he can! (if he is in perfect obedience to the Father) Should he?

Ephes. 5:33
Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Matthew 7:2
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Husband, you are still under authority! Your rule must be in the fear of God who will also judge you! Love your wife, have mercy on her, honor her. We all need some grace at times. We must be willing to give grace and mercy to our wives and children at times.

1 Peter 3:7
Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

Romans 13:3
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

A “right” power or authority will be a KING ... not a DICTATOR. Our problem is we don’t understand the difference. Looking closely, we find the authority of the King and the dictator is the same! The power of the king and the dictator is the same. The difference is in the motivation! THE KING RULES FOR THE GOOD OF THE KINGDOM... THE DICTATOR RULES FOR SELF!

The kingdom operates by delegated authority. Our kingdom must have a delegation of authority from above; and we, as well, should (as feasible) delegate authority to those under us. All levels of authority should operate for the good of the whole. Each level of authority becomes ‘king,’ but still under authority, in that particular domain.

To rule well, one must honor the authority he is under. A righteous king will rule for the benefit of the kingdom, which ultimately, is also best for the subjects, and as is best for the Kingdom of God as a whole.

The King will sacrifice himself for the good of the Kingdom, where the dictator will sacrifice the kingdom for their own benefit. If we are a king and not a dictator, we will temper our rule and the use of our authority with love and mercy to build the kingdom for the benefit of our King... for it is ultimately HIS Kingdom. We are just stewards over our domain.

Gentlemen, we are accountable to God to first be a man and a King! Being a husband is optional. A man must not lay down his kingship in order to save his marriage, for he will first be judged as a man and a King. If he loses that trying to save his marriage, what he ends up with is not a real marriage. It is not even a subdivision of God’s Kingdom, but rather it becomes something else. Husband, God may ask you to sacrifice your time, your treasure, your labor, even your reputation to save your kingdom, but God will not ask you to lay down your Kingship in the process. If you yield to a request of hers, it must be by your choice, not by her usurping your authority! This is Not to require the husband to make every decision. A wise king will recognize the talents and abilities of those under their authority and delegate to them authority over such tasks!

At times, it is hard to know where the line is. One guy said, “I don’t know where the line is, but I know when it is crossed!” The mushy middle is always the hardest to navigate. When the line is crossed, at some point it becomes obvious! We are not perfect, God chooses to use imperfect parents to raise children. He uses imperfect Pastors to lead churches. And, He uses imperfect husbands to lead... yes, even to rule, wives and children!

2 Samuel 23:3
The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.

1 Tim. 3:12
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Last time I checked, the wife is part of the house.

Husbands love your wives! Love includes affection and discipline to those under the authority. Those who are under authority demonstrate love by honor (reverance) and duty (obedience).

Proverbs 13:24
He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

It is true that wives are not children, but a principle of Kingdom leadership is that all authority is demonstrated by the proper parent/child relationship! It is an act of role assumption as to the manner of handling and responding to authority. The first commandment with promise was “honor your father and mother.” The honor principle applies to all authority levels in the Kingdom, whether it is parent-child, employer-employee, teacher-student, pastor-church, or husband-wife. The role-assumption should be patterned after ‘parent-child.’ In that concept, the maturity of the child is a factor in how the authority is to rule. With maturity and freewill, the one under authority can always quit if they so choose. Hopefully, you did not marry a child. Hopefully, you are not a child trying to lead your wife.

When is it proper to resist higher authority?

Answer: When the ‘consequences of obeying’ cause greater damage to the kingdom than the ‘consequences of disobedience’ ... which itself also brings damage to the kingdom).

Example 1:
Wife is driving. Husband says, “Get in the other lane now!” Wife sees a semi-truck that the husband does not see... which would cause death or injury if she were to immediately obey his directive. Wife is right to disobey.

Example 2:
Wife is driving. Husband says turn at the next light. Wife knows it is a wrong turn. Wife should obey because the damage to the authority of the kingdom is greater by disobedience, than damage of being a few minutes late getting to the destination.

Hebrew midwives, the three Hebrew children, Daniel and even Paul fount occasions to resist authority. We “ought to obey God rather than men” is true; but fear and trembling must be the standard when resisting God’s ordained authority. If a husband has demonstrated love... and that he is looking out for her best interest, and the best interest of the Kingdom of God over all, with fear and trembling.... then the wife will have a hard time finding any justifiable cause to rebel, or resist his rule.

Romans 13:3-4
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: [4] For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

This does not just apply to civil rulers, but to all higher powers in the Kingdom of God! In my house, we try to follow two main rules:

Honor the kingdom
Walk in love

I write these things as one who has a plural marriage. My kingdom is strong. The same principles that apply to a single marriage, also apply to a plural marriage; they are just magnified. A plural marriage is actually multiple single marriages... simultaneously. To be successful, the boundaries of relationship must be observed by all. My wives are not married to each other! If you cannot be king in your own house with a single marriage, having more will not make it easier. My wives are loved, and I am respected and loved in return. I am a man of authority, but I never forget that I am also under authority. Love is not dictatorship. Kingship is not “kingship” without love AND rule!

 

[rockfox]

I see it more as weakness than nobility...

Yes this. And I see men do the same thing all the time; too afraid of her emotions, her disapproval, or her threats to leave to put his foot down and say no when he must. And it destroys families. Adam all over again.

Gentlemen, we are accountable to God to first be a man and a King! Being a husband is optional. A man must not lay down his kingship in order to save his marriage, for he will first be judged as a man and a King. If he loses that trying to save his marriage, what he ends up with is not a real marriage. It is not even a subdivision of God’s Kingdom, but rather it becomes something else. Husband, God may ask you to sacrifice your time, your treasure, your labor, even your reputation to save your kingdom, but God will not ask you to lay down your Kingship in the process. If you yield to a request of hers, it must be by your choice, not by her usurping your authority! This is Not to require the husband to make every decision. A wise king will recognize the talents and abilities of those under their authority and delegate to them authority over such tasks!

This was the test Adam failed.

If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.

 

[rockfox]

Gen 8:21. And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake;

Now that's really interesting. Because...

"Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life."

that toil has not ceased. But the next verse gives us a hint

As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night shall never cease.

From everything I have seen, toil and the other curses have not passed away. But maybe God messed with the seasons for a time there between Adam and Noah?

I always thought that meant no more global disaster (for instance a worldwide flood) and not a lifting of the "original" curse.

Now that might it; certainly fit's...

It shall come about, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow will be seen in the cloud, and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh.

But not entirely, given the whole seasons thing. I do find it funny those the God set the rainbow, not just as a sign to us as we all learned in Sunday school, but as a reminder to Himself to turn off the rain.

 

[rockfox]

And would we, as men, be supportive of similar standards being imposed on us men that we may wish hadn't been discontinued for women? How about stocks or stonings? Waterboarding? Being tarred and feathered?

Don't interpret those methods as men oppressing women. If you read the links you'll note that the punishments were levied against both men and women. None escaped. And not just for disobedient wives, also for abusive husbands (though they clearly defined that word differently). And the organizers often weren't men, but women. Don't get lost in the weeds of whether or not these were appropriate or should be introduced. I don't have the answers; my point was how radical the mindset of our society has changed. Whether or not we like how they did things in the past, their mindset was radically different and their methods resulted in successful societies and intact families. I wish we could say that of today.

Is it possible, too, that handling the other gender that is ruled by hormones and engaged in indulging their least-mature impulses by taking the brakes off our own hormonal urges and/or indulging our own least-mature impulses just might be a hypocritical even if more convenient option?

Rule can be loving and just or unloving and unjust. Just because it can be done wrong doesn't mean we shouldn't try. We are expected to rule with love and self-control. But on societal scale, women have well proven they are incapable of self-rule. Some can, sure, but not enough to avoid destroying marriage and everything with it.

I do, though, like your emphasis elsewhere on the true problem being the males (beta or otherwise) who knuckle under to female control (rule or otherwise). It is our responsibility to be the heads of our families, so no matter what the philosophy is that we use to justify abandoning our responsibility, we still, as men, remain responsible for the outcome.

We have to tread a fine line here. Women are still responsible, and will be judged for, their own behavior. Men do not bear that guilt before God. Where we get in trouble is when we abandon our responsibility to rule. Jim's recent comment really nailed it on the spiritual dimensions.

There is only one way to naturally birth a baby. Women face drastic consequences for themselves and their babies when they try to avoid pain in childbirth.

As one with experience delivering babies of many species (including humans), I can say the curse of the pain of childbirth continues. Though we men tend to exaggerate the level of pain they endure, and women are generally happy to let them. But a woman can that pain if she deals with some of her base temptations. And also modern practices tend to make birthing pain unnecessarily worse.

As husbands, we do not have a police force, an IRS, the CIA or the FBI to enforce our supposed 'rulings.'

But the women do. Such is the nature of our topsy turvy society. But that doesn't change God's design. Good evil and evil good and all that. We are in an unenviable situation.

 

[PeteR]

@Jim an Apostle excellent post. A question...

Was Adam's test different than Eve's in that her obedience and submission was being tested while his kingship authority was being tested?

I'm not sure how to formulate exactly what is teasing the back of my mind, but God's actions are often multifaceted. What He was doing with Adam may have been slightly different than what He was doing with Eve. Does that make sense?

 

[Cap]

What I'm about to say is pure conjecture I'm not claiming to have chapter and verse support.

I think the fact that he chose to go ahead and hearken unto the voice of his wife is actually an indicator that he took his love for her too far and chose to knowingly disobey God so that she would not have to die alone. You are right that making the right decision would have established his authority more securely. And we are still dealing with the consequences of that today ...

Another pure conjecture...but with a twist.

It could be, the reason Adam took the apple was because he loved her more than himself, and took the greatest authority to save her. She was a part of him you know. It's just a thought, and one that comes from how to correlate the idea of the first Adam and the second Adam, and their purpose in the salvation plan.

So, again. What difference does pre-fall or post-fall rulership make?

I know this is for @andrew, and I am not at all claiming I know what he thinks, however, IMO pre-fall there was no rulership between man and woman, they were equal in the eyes of God with different responsibilities and an established order to those responsibilities. A son and daughter are equal to the father in love but each has a different responsibility in a home. A foot is equal to the hand but has different responsibilities.

GENESIS 1:27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule (together) over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Post-fall came the direction of headship. Now because of the fall, women are to be lead by men, who in turn are lead by God, but when all things are restored, family order will prevail.

GENESIS3:16 To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

The idea of the Good News is that we are one day going to live in the pre-fall condition, being able to freely walk with God in the Garden of Eden, both male and female. The point of the flaming sword to keep us from that state is so that we can learn love, but that is were we are going. We still live in a fallen world and as we keep praying, Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven., one day the 'worry' of child birth, the 'worry' of work and all the other struggles we face, will be done a way with, one day.

As far as nobility, is a hand more noble than a foot because it can apply a bandage to ones big toe when it hits a coffee table at night?

 

[Jim an Apostle]

@Jim an Apostle excellent post. A question...

Was Adam's test different than Eve's in that her obedience and submission was being tested while his kingship authority was being tested?

I'm not sure how to formulate exactly what is teasing the back of my mind, but God's actions are often multifaceted. What He was doing with Adam may have been slightly different than what He was doing with Eve. Does that make sense?

absolutely!!

 

[Pacman]

Now that might it; certainly fit's...

But not entirely, given the whole seasons thing. I do find it funny those the God set the rainbow, not just as a sign to us as we all learned in Sunday school, but as a reminder to Himself to turn off the rain.

My thoughts are that the seasons (if they existed at all) were completely different before the flood. And that was when they were established...

 

[Jim an Apostle]

I think the idea that God told Adam and that Adam told Eve is the right perspective. It seems to me that Adam not only told Eve not to Eat but added the command not to touch maybe even not to look! When the serpent questioned her she tried to navigate the temptation by herself. When she looked and touched without consequence she may have wondered if Adam was telling the rest of the story correctly as well. Eve should have asked Adam for clarification (if he was present and it seems he was). If Adam was not present Eve should have told the serpent when Adam gets back we will ask him. Adam should have grabbed that snake and twisted his head off and tanned its hide for a belt or sash as a warning to any others who would insult him, his kingdom, or the word of his Father! why was the punishment of Adam and the human race so great? Adam not being deceived willingly chose to rebel against the word of God and chose to side with Satan! Eve possibly not hearing the command of God directly for herself would have died for her own sin but Adam brought death to all of his offspring. Because sin i.e. the curse of death is passed to the children by the father NOT by the mother. God could still have a child (Jesus) born without sin!

 

[Jim an Apostle]

My thoughts are that the seasons (if they existed at all) were completely different before the flood. And that was when they were established...

It is thought that during the Flood of Noah that is when the earth was tilted on its axis. If the earth were not tilted, all would receive 12 hrs of sunlight per day with very uniform temps maybe slightly cooler at the poles or at elevations.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Genesis 3:17-19
[17] And unto Adam he said, 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; [18] Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; [19] In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art , and unto dust shalt thou return.

Notice the ground is cursed not Adam. His punishment was that he would have to work with cursed ground. Many men have found ways to avoid working with the ground and still survive. Thereby reducing the direct implications of the curse in their life. But the ground is still cursed. As is the serpent.

Actually the word curse isn't even used when the punishment is given to the woman (later named Eve.)

I find it interesting that a curse that is directly pointed at Adam is assumed to be for everyone else forever. People will obviously point to the fact that men still toil for their sustenance, but Adam did that pre fall in taking care of a garden, just without sweating for it.

We know that his sons produced veggies and tended flocks without any mention of thorns and thistles or a curse.

As I pointed out earlier, God said that he would not curse the ground any longer, neither would he again smite every living thing. These are two separate promises. One that removes the curse on the ground and one that promises that there wont be another global event extermination by water.

It is also interesting that the curse on the ground is lifted within a relatively short span after Adam’s death. The clause about the sweat of his brow and the pain in childbirth is not rescinded, just the cursed ground. Thus the ability to observe both sweat in labor and pain in labor currently.

I think it would be nigh impossible to equate a land flowing with milk and honey (like Canaan) with cursed ground. Likewise a land that produces enough food in one year to provide for 2 years sustenance every 6th year (for the shemitah) or that produces enough food in one year to provide for 3 years every 48th year (for the 7th shemitah and the following jubilee)

 

[Verifyveritas76]

@Jim an Apostle had the answer to all of this buried in his looooong post!

The kingdom operates by delegated authority. Our kingdom must have a delegation of authority from above; and we, as well, should (as feasible) delegate authority to those under us. All levels of authority should operate for the good of the whole. Each level of authority becomes ‘king,’ but still under authority, in that particular domain.

To rule well, one must honor the authority he is under.

Authority originates from another and is conditional upon remaining under the originating authority!

Even Christ claimed authority based upon the fact that he was under the Fathers authority or instruction. Likewise the Ethiopian eunuch and the centurion. All of these understood that their authority came from being under another’s authority who did have the right to rule.

Whether it is semantically correct or not to use the word “rule” in regards to how one leads his wife(s) and children, the lingering taste of bile in my mouth comes from men who claim the “right to rule” and only give lip service to being in submission themselves to Christ.

Christ claimed authority based upon him performing the will of the Father. In his life this was obvious even to the point of death. For many “husbands” however, their authority is assumed by position or fiat, without ever truly being submitted to their own authority. Those who attempt this approach are often oblivious to both the cause and effect yet wonder why they have no real influence within their homes and are dismissed or ridiculed outside their home.

In an earlier post, I asked how does Christ example His rule over those that are His. IMO its very simple. He said my sheep hear my voice and they follow me. Those that do not follow do not have the benefit of His covering or His blessing in their lives. He rules those that are submitted to him, and those that aren’t submitted aren’t His and have no claim on authority from Him.

 

[Keith Martin]

But on societal scale, women have well proven they are incapable of self-rule. Some can, sure, but not enough to avoid destroying marriage and everything with it.

The corollary question also begs asking, though: on a societal scale, haven't men "well proven they are incapable of self-rule" as well?

We have to tread a fine line here. Women are still responsible, and will be judged for, their own behavior. Men do not bear that guilt before God.

I wholeheartedly agree that men will not bear the guilt of women before God. However, I come from a point of view that wives are 50% responsible for their marriages while husbands are 100% responsible for those marriages. It doesn't have to be mathematically pure. It's just a paradox about what works, because it maximizes effectiveness, within the context of husbands being responsible for headship, that they are responsible for everything while their wives are only half responsible.

 

[Keith Martin]

I think the idea that God told Adam [about refraining from eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil] and that Adam told Eve is the right perspective.

Or, perhaps, it's even more accurate to understand that Adam didn't have to tell Eve, because Eve was Adam when Adam was given the instruction -- as Eve was still part of Adam at that point in the narrative:

Gen. 2:16-18 (CVOT): "And Yahweh Elohim instructed the human, saying: From every tree of the garden you may eat, yea eat. But from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you must not eat from it, for on the day you eat from it, to die you shall be dying. And Yahweh Elohim said: It is not good for the human to be alone by himself. I shall make for him a helper as his complement . . .

Gen. 2:21-23: Then Yahweh Elohim caused a stupor to fall on the human. While he was sleeping, He took one of his angular organs and closed up the flesh over its place. Yahweh Elohim built the angular organ that He had taken from the human into a woman and brought her to the human. The human said: This time, it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This shall be called woman [womb-man], for this was taken from her man."

Gen. 3:2: Eve indicates she already knows that she's not supposed to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Nothing in Scripture indicates that Eve was prevented from having memories from the time before Father removed her from Adam.

 

[Jim an Apostle]

Or, perhaps, it's even more accurate to understand that Adam didn't have to tell Eve, because Eve was Adam when Adam was given the instruction -- as Eve was still part of Adam at that point in the narrative:

Gen. 2:16-18 (CVOT): "And Yahweh Elohim instructed the human, saying: From every tree of the garden you may eat, yea eat. But from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you must not eat from it, for on the day you eat from it, to die you shall be dying. And Yahweh Elohim said: It is not good for the human to be alone by himself. I shall make for him a helper as his complement . . .

Gen. 2:21-23: Then Yahweh Elohim caused a stupor to fall on the human. While he was sleeping, He took one of his angular organs and closed up the flesh over its place. Yahweh Elohim built the angular organ that He had taken from the human into a woman and brought her to the human. The human said: This time, it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This shall be called woman [womb-man], for this was taken from her man."

Gen. 3:2: Eve indicates she already knows that she's supposed to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Nothing in Scripture indicates that Eve couldn't have any memories from the time before Father removed her from Adam.

then who told her not to touch it!

 

[Keith Martin]

Or, perhaps, it's even more accurate to understand that Adam didn't have to tell Eve, because Eve was Adam when Adam was given the instruction -- as Eve was still part of Adam at that point in the narrative:

Gen. 2:16-18 (CVOT): "And Yahweh Elohim instructed the human, saying: From every tree of the garden you may eat, yea eat. But from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you must not eat from it, for on the day you eat from it, to die you shall be dying. And Yahweh Elohim said: It is not good for the human to be alone by himself. I shall make for him a helper as his complement . . .

Gen. 2:21-23: Then Yahweh Elohim caused a stupor to fall on the human. While he was sleeping, He took one of his angular organs and closed up the flesh over its place. Yahweh Elohim built the angular organ that He had taken from the human into a woman and brought her to the human. The human said: This time, it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This shall be called woman [womb-man], for this was taken from her man."

Gen. 3:2: Eve indicates she already knows that she's supposed to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Nothing in Scripture indicates that Eve was prevented from having memories from the time before Father removed her from Adam.

then who told her not to touch it!

Yahweh Elohim told Eve not to EAT it back when Eve was still part of the bi-gendered human being.

[I must admit I was confusing touching with eating when I first read Jim the Apostle's post immediately prior to this one, and then I tried to be humorous about it in my next post, so I'm going to amend that one as well. I'm hoping this won't be too confusing.]

 

[FollowingHim2]

Yahweh Elohim told Eve not to touch it back when Eve was still part of the bi-gendered human being.

YHWH never said not to touch it, He said not to EAT it.