FAM:First Adam... Then Eve... Then???

   The Word of God abounds with exhortations such as these..."add thou
not unto His words lest he reprove thee and thou be found a liar" (Prov
30:6), .... "I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the
prophecy of this Book, if any man shall add unto these things God shall
add unto him the plagues that are written in this Book and if any man
shall take away from the Words of the Book of this prophecy, God shall
take away his part out of the book of life" (Rev 22:18,19).

   In a world that seems to be overflowing with "authoritative" voices,
God has given us these passages as beacons to guide us safely to the
harbor of truth. The currents are swift, however, and the oceans of
religion are filled with beacons of another sort. Tides run swiftly to
the ports of tradition and religious myth, and many an honest and
well-meaning individual is caught in their deceptive flow. Perhaps most
beguiling of all is that every harbormaster holds a copy of God's Book
in his hand. These are men of renown, respect and position. They have
earned their reputations in a very competitive arena and have risen to
the top of their "callings" in grandiose and charismatic fashion.
Popularity, influence, and in most cases, wealth, asssure them
continued success. They have contributed a great deal to molding the
religious clime of our day. Without entirely realizing it, many of
their teachings have taken a position of equal authority alongside the
Word of God itself.

   As a result, modern evangelism has become a house built upon sand.
It's foundations are laid upon a bed of Christian cliches, phrasology,
and terminology, that are completely foreign to the Bible. To challenge
the validity of such extra-biblical expressions as "accepting Christ"
and "inviting Christ into your heart", is tantamount to heresy. But
alas, man's words HAVE replaced the words of God: Words which He had
chosen so precisely and preserved so faithfully through the centuries:
only to find the masses of our day following men who have twisted the
scripture to their own (and our) destruction.

   The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate how easily we accept as
"Biblical truth", that which is little more than religious tradition. I
offer for your consideration the issue of Cain's wife.

   One of the most widely accepted ideas concerning the early chapters
of the Word of God is the belief that Cain was the first child born to
Adam and Eve. When someone asks the question..."where did Cain get his
wife from?", very few Christians are able to give a Biblical answer.
Those of us who are able to answer at all, usually are unable to show
from the Bible WHY we believe the way we do. I believe that God has
indeed given ample evidences concerning this issue IF we will pay close
attention to his Word and lay aside our preconceived ideas.

   Please take a few moments to read Genesis chapter 1:1-2:3. Notice
that our attention is directed primarily on the "chronology" of events
recorded there. In fact, the days are actually numbered for us and they
unfold consecutively.

   From Gen 1:1 through 2:3, God has given us a very brief account of
His entire work of creation up to and including the seventh day: a day
in which He rested from all His work. Read it again, if necessary, and
follow each day as God gives us the account. Notice that it was on the
SIXTH day He created male and female and gave them the commission to be
fruitful and multiply (1:27-31). Keep this important point in mind as
we continue.

   Now lets read a little further. From verse 4 of chapter 2, through
verse 8, God is giving us a CLOSER LOOK at the SIXTH day... "every
plant of the field was in the earth...there WAS NOT MAN to till the
ground...the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living
soul". God then says that He planted a garden eastward in Eden and
there he put the man whom he had formed. From verse 9-14, God gives us
a closer look at what the garden was actually like. Beginning with
verse 15 we read..."And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the
Garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it". Next, God gives man the
command to avoid eating from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil and the consequences for disobedience are clearly spelled
out for him..."thou shalt surely die" (verse 16,17).

   After all this detailed information, God says... "it is not good
that man should be alone: I will make him (future tense) a helpmate his
like". This passage assures us that it is still the sixth day for BOTH
of them were made on that day.

   God then brings the man all the beasts of the earth and all the
fowls of the air that he might name them (verse 19,20). In verses 21
and 22, we get a CLOSER LOOK at exactly how God made the female. In
verse 23, after she was formed, we find Adam making this
statement..."This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. She
shall be called WOMAN BECAUSE she was taken out of man". This is a very
pivotal text and is one which can very easily be by-passed without too
much consideration. Lets read that verse again and pay particular note
of every word recorded. "SHE SHALL BE CALLED WOMAN BECAUSE SHE WAS
TAKEN OUT OF MAN". Notice that Adam said she SHALL BE (future tense)
CALLED WOMAN. Adam was precisly correct for she WAS called woman for
the remainder of chapter three. Also of note is the fact that she was
being called woman for a specific reason...BECAUSE she WAS taken out of
man. More on this later.

   Beginning with verse 1 of chapter 3, God has SKIPPED AHEAD in time
to when the serpent comes on the scene, but before we examine these
events, a word of explaination may be in order. Although this portion
of Genisis is recorded for us in chronological order, we must realize
that NOT ALL events that actually took place are mentioned. From verse
4 of chapter two through to our present text, for instance, no mention
has been made concerning God's command to the man and woman to
replenish the earth. Also absent is any mention of the seventh day, the
day on which the Lord rested from His work. We are certain these events
did take place because they ARE recorded in chapter 1 verse 28 and
chapter 2 verses 2 and 3. The answer is simple if we remember HOW the
Lord is giving this record. Chapter one was a GENERAL STATEMENT of His
entire work of creation: including His day of rest found in 2:1-3.
Chapter 2, beginning with verse 4, however, MORE DETAIL is given
concerning those events which God chose to emphasize. God simply did
not see fit to RE-RECORD certain incidents and therefore He SKIPPED
AHEAD in time to the Temptation. Time had passed. We cannot know how
much, but some amount of time had definitely gone by. How do we know?
Because chapter two ends with the man and the woman being united by God
and chapter three begins with the temptation. No seventh day and no
command to multiply.

   The following is a sequential account (events unfolding in the order
of their occurrance) of the temptation and fall of mankind...

   CHAPTER 3

   verse 1..."He said to the WOMAN, yea hath God said ye shall not eat
of every tree of the garden ?"

   verse 2,3.."and the WOMAN said unto the serpent, we may eat of the
fruit of the trees of the garden but of the fruit of the tree which is
in the midst of the garden, God hath said, ye shall not eat of it lest
ye die."

   verse 4..."and the serpent said unto the WOMAN, ye shall not surely
die."

   verse 5..."for God doth know...your eyes shall be opened and ye
shall know...good and evil."

   verse 6..."and when the WOMAN saw that the tree was good for
food...she did eat and gave also unto her husband with her and he did
eat."

   verse 7..."and the eyes of them both were opened."

   verse 8.."and they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the
garden..."

   verse 9.."and the Lord God called unto Adam and said where art thou?"

   verse 10.."he said, I heard thy voice...and I was afraid...and I hid
myself."

   verse 11.."hast thou eaten of the tree?"

   verse 12.."and the man said, the WOMAN whom thou gavest me, she gave
me of the tree and I did eat."

   verse 13.."and the Lord God said unto the WOMAN, what is this thou
hast done? and the WOMAN said, the serpent beguiled me and I did eat."

   verse 14..God curses the serpent...

   verse 15.."I will put enmity between thee and the WOMAN..."

   verse 16.."unto the WOMAN he said, I will greatly multiply thy
sorrow and they conception: in sorrow thou shalt (future tense) bring
forth children."

   verse 17-19...God curses the ground and the man...

   verse 20.. "and Adam called his wife's name Eve because she was the
mother of all living."

   Remember why Adam called the female "woman"? It was BECAUSE she had
been (was) taken out of man. This account of the temptation has
referred to the female NINE times. In every instance she has been
called "WOMAN". In the midst of all this, the context seems to change
abruptly and verse 20 informs us that Adam changes the way he addresses
his wife. All of a sudden he names her "Eve". (The events are
sequential remember). Why the sudden change? No need to be in the dark:
we have the reason recorded for us... "BECAUSE she WAS the mother of
all LIVING". Our only problem is, that no birth has been mentioned.
Some will say that the word "was" in this passage really means that Eve
"WAS TO BE" the mother of all living. This cannot be the case for a
number of reasons. First and foremost among them is because God did not
say it that way. He surely could have, had He meant it that way. He
chose rather to use a past tense verb, (and the translators agreed with
Him), to say EXACTLY what He wanted to say. Others argue that since no
birth was recorded, none could have taken place. If we follow that line
of reasoning then Cain could not have had a wife at all, for the birth
of his wife is NOT recorded anywhere in the Word of God. In fact, we do
not read of the birth of ANY woman BY NAME until Genisis 22:23! If her
birth had to be recorded in order for her to be born, then she wasn't
born at all. But the fact is she WAS born and her birth WAS NOT
recorded. This should not present a problem however. Remember, God
chose to leave out certain events before, didn't He? Well He chose to
leave this one out too! How can I make such a statement? Because it is
a biblical fact that God, for reasons known only to Himself, does not
record the birth of the first female!

   Let's pick up our account where we left off and we will see that the
entire context continues to unfold in sequence...

   verse 21...God made them coats of skins verse 22...God said "man has
become like one of us..."

   verse 23...The Lord sent him forth from the garden to till the
ground from whence he was taken...

   verse 24..."So He drove the man out..."

   Chapter three closes with that final passage; chapter four opens
with this one..."And Adam knew his wife Eve and she bare Cain".
Everyone agrees that this is the precise point in time when Cain was
born. And why shouldn't we? God is unfolding events chronologically for
us and thus far, the only birth recorded is that of Cain. But if we pay
close attention to the words of that text, we will discover that the
female was ALREADY called EVE when Adam "knew" her! It does not say,
Adam knew the "woman" and she bare Cain. Those who believe that Cain
was the firstborn child of Adam and his wife have a real dilemma here.
Nine times she was referred to as "woman" in the detailed account of
the temptation and fall, but NOT ONCE after Adam called her Eve.

   Incidentally, the word "Eve" in Hebrew is the word "Chavvah",
pronounced "khav-vaw", and means "life-giver". Those who are familiar
with the contents of scripture, probably are aware of how the names of
children are usually selected in the Bible. The births of the twelve
sons of Jacob are a perfect example. Each of those children were named
in memory of a specific situation that existed AT THE TIME OF THEIR
BIRTH (see Gen 29:32-30:24). This was a standard initiated with the
creation of the first female,"...she shall be called woman BECAUSE...",
"...Adam called his wife's name Eve BECAUSE...". According to the
inspired record God has given us, the female was ALREADY CALLED EVE
when Adam knew her and when she gave birth to her son Cain.

   One of the notions that lends itself to the idea that Cain was the
first child born, is our conception of time. It would seem to us that
the record of events are not only chronological but that they also
occurred in RAPID SUCCESSION. This simply is not the case. We have
already observed that certain events between the sixth day and the
episode in the garden were Divinely omitted: a fact that may not have
been previously noticed. Maybe certain events between the fall of man
and the birth of Cain were also left out. Granted, it SEEMS to us that
as soon as the man transgressed, God was on the scene to pronounce the
curse and cast them out. If all this happened on the same day, then the
woman would have had no time to give birth to a child.

   Could she have had a child BEFORE the fall into sin? No, because of
what the bible teaches elsewhere, "...ALL have sinned...", and "...in
Adam ALL DIE...". And besides, when the curses were being pronounced,
she was still being called "woman".

   No, if there was one, a child had to have been born somewhere
between verse 19 and verse 20 of chapter three. But what about the time
element? Most of us think along these lines concerning the fall of
man...the woman transgressed, she caused the man to do likewise, God
was immediately present to curse and cast them out of the
garden..."lest they eat of the tree of life and live forever". He then
hurriedly assigned a guardian to the entrance of the garden to keep the
man from entering again. After this, Adam knew his wife Eve and she
bore Cain - the first child.

   Time, and our apprehension of it, can be extremely misleading when
reading ancient Biblical history. Occasionally we find references that
inform us in a general way about these things. Chapter 4, verse 3 is a
good example..."and in the process of time it came to pass..."; In this
text there is no way of knowing exactly how much time has elapsed. In
other places we are given precise information concerning the passage of
time..."And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years and begat a son in
his likeness..."(5:3). We are not always so fortunate, however. Most
often, an accurate perception of time can only be obtained by carefully
analysing both the larger and the immediate contexts. I believe this to
be the circumstance dictated by Genisis 3:7 - 4:1 and following. I do
not believe that this portion of scripture was meant to convey the idea
that it all took place on the same day. We must not allow any false
notions of time to guide our understanding of God's Word, so let's lay
that "feeling" aside for a moment and look closely at the recorded
events...

   The text immediately following the Fall of mankind is the place to
begin: chapter 3, verse 7..."And the eyes of them both were opened, and
they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig-leaves together and
made themselves aprons." This act of gathering leaves, and of
fashioning instruments to sew them together had to have taken at least
some little time to accomplish. Time which could have been used far
more profitably by rushing to the tree of life to eat of it also and
live forever - if that had been their immediate craving. But their most
pressing desire was not to sin again. In fact the opposite was true.
They wanted to hide the evil they had already done! And the Lord
patiently waited for them to accomplish their feeble efforts. Notice
also the serene, almost casual nature of the next passage..."And they
heard the voice of the Lord walking in the garden in the cool of the
day." (whether we understand this verse to mean..."they heard the voice
of the Lord (as He was) walking in the garden..." or..."they heard the
voice of the Lord (as they were) walking in the garden..." has no
bearing on the issue in question.) This line seems to be oozing with
calm and tranquility. To this point in the narrative, there isn't the
slightest hint of urgency to cast out the sinful man. I should think
that if God was anxious to expel the man and to prevent him from
feasting upon the tree of life, He would have done so as soon as theie
eyes were opened! But no, neither God nor man were immediately
concerned with that tree. Furthermore, this unhurried atmosphere
continues, as God calls to the man and questions him concerning his act
of disobedience. The woman also was querried and each of them,
(including the serpent), were addressed personally during the horrible
anathema (v 9-19).

   I believe that the content of that ominous malediction was a
sufficient detterent to keep the man and the woman long from
displeasing the Almighty a second time. Long enough, I suggest, for
Adam to have "known" the woman and for her to have brought forth at
least one female child - the future Mrs. Cain? Who knows. His wife may
have been born much later; but we are certain of this much...it is at
this very place that Adam decides to change his wife's title from
"woman" to "Eve" and the Bible says it was because she was the mother
of all living .

   It is true that man, now full of sinful tendencies, eventually would
have "stretched forth his hand and taken also from the tree of life",
so the Lord clothed them with coats of skin and sent them forth from
the garden. There are, of course, objections to these conclusions and
it is necessary to examine them in the light of "what saith the Lord".

   1. Some will say that every verse of Scripture from Genesis 2:15-4:1
belong exactly where it is except verse 20 of chapter 3. Keep this in
mind as we consider this argument...If we agree that solid Biblical
evidences are needed before we cast aside long respected and widely
accepted views that men teach, what kind of proof should we require
before we are so bold to say that God means something other than
exactly what He is saying...or that He shouldn't have made that
statement when He did because it didn't happen in quite that order?
(While it is true that many places in God's Word are not
chronologically sequential, they always are self-evident and easily
discovered). If we are going to say that all of the account in question
is in it's proper place except where the woman is named Eve in 3:20, my
question is...where then does it belong? Surely, we can't eliminate the
verse entirely. All agree on that. The verse cannot belong in chapter 2
anywhere because in chapter 3 the female is continually addressed and
referred to as "woman". Also, we have to consider the fact that the
fall into sin didn't happen until Gen 3:6: If Adam named her "Eve"
before the fall, and she really was named for the reason God says, that
would mean that she gave birth to at least one daughter who was without
sin!

   No one wants to make that assertion. Besides, the people who want to
move this verse somewhere else, need to put it somewhere after Cain was
born so their "idea" about Cain being the first child born would not
have to be altered. But the problem with trying to re-position the text
to someplace after Cain's birth is the fact that we would have to
change the language used in verse 1 of chapter 4,..."Adam knew Eve" to
"Adam knew the woman". If we dare go this far we would be guilty of not
one but two offences...moving the text and changing the language: all
this just to support something we have been "taught". Anyone who is
willing to engage in such Biblical "gymnastics" is just not being
honest and doesn't care about scriptural accuracy at all and this study
is not intended for that person. For those who don't want to tamper
with the language or the position of Gen 3:20, but still insist that
Cain was the first offspring, the answer must lie in another place...

   2. There are those who say that Gen 3:20 belongs exactly where it
is, but it doesn't mean that Eve was the mother of all living persons.
It means rather that she was the mother of all living "creatures" and
"beasts", therefore her title was changed to Eve.

   Well, we know for sure she wasn't the physical mother of these
creatures because they were made (and even named) before she was
created (see 2:19,20). The law of nature established by God concerning
the reproduction of living organisms would also eliminate such a
possibility...all things shall bring forth" after their kind" is the
Divine Decree of Genisis 1. The "living beast" advocates are left then,
with a mere hypothetical application of Gen 3:20. Let's examine that
theory in the light of Biblical reasoning.

   Picture their scenario...the Lord Almighty has just made the man in
His own Image and given him dominion over all the works of His hands.
He gathers all of the lesser creatures together and brings them to Adam
to see what he would call them. Next, He creates the female to be a
companion and helpmate for the man. Adam calls her "woman" because she
was taken from his own body. God blesses them and gives them the
commission to multiply and fill the earth and subdue it. The Lord rests
on the seventh day. Eventually, the serpent slithers his evil path
toward the unsuspecting woman and beguiles her. She, in turn, causes
her husband to follow. One cool day, God is heard walking in the garden
and the man and his wife hide from the Lord's presence. After calling
them out and giving each of them an opportunity to confess their
mutinous act, He proceeds to pronounce the terrible curses upon the
serpent, the woman, and upon Adam and all his descendents. At this most
solemn and portentious of moments, Adam decides to call his wife's name
Eve because she was the mother of all living... beasts? If Adam thought
of his wife as the mother of all living creatures and beasts - even
hypothetically - why not call her that from the beginning ? Why wait
until such a place and time to make so "frivolous" a statement ? Surely
we cannot believe that "all of a sudden" it was revealed to Adam that
his wife was - hypothetically - the mother of all living creatures. I
think some honest consideration of these arguments will quickly
eliminate the "living beast" opinion.

   3. "Eve was the mother of the spiritually living " is the claim from
another school of thought. "The seed of the woman (Christ) would
someday bruise the head of the serpent (Gen 3:15), and all who would
believe and follow that Great Redeemer of mankind would become
spiritually re-born - "living", if you will. It is in such a sense that
Eve was called "the mother of all living". A good point, to be sure,
but not entirely true! The fact that Eve was the original female
progenator of the Christ child is beyond dispute but this was hardly
the reason her name was changed when it was. We must keep in mind that
she was also the original female progenator of the entire human race -
both of the spiritually alive and the spiritually dead.

   It could be deduced that Eve was the mother of the future Messiah,
by virtue of the fact that all mankind ultimately sprang from her, but
we cannot conclude that she was named "Eve" for that rather obscure
reason. The birth of the Lord Jesus Christ was yet some 4000 years in
the future and we again have the problem of the language of Gen
3:20..."because she was...". Everyone agrees that there is a difinative
difference between the word "was" and the term "was to be". They simply
do not mean the same thing.

   Either Adam named her for something that already happened to her or
because of something that he knew would eventually happen to her. We
know he called her "woman" because of something that had already
occurred; i.e. "she was taken from man". If he called her Eve because
of something that eventually would happen to her, why not call her Eve
back on the sixth day when they were given the commission to be
fruitful and multiply ? Adam knew at that time she would bring forth
children. Why continue to refer to her as "woman" ? Why does the Lord
God Himself, who uses words so precisely, continue to call her "woman"?
It would be far more Biblically consistant to change her name then.

   The fact is, that she was called "woman" because she was taken from
man and she was called "Eve" because she was the mother of all living.
Thats the account we are given in His Word.

   A note of interest is found in the statement Eve makes at the time
of Cain's birth. She seems to be surprised because she had gotten " a
man from the Lord: the implication being, this birth was unusual
because of the gender of the infant. Could her astonishment be because
she had previously brought forth only female offspring ? This brings us
to the final and, by far, the most widespread reason for rejecting the
exact words of God...

   4. Because the "traditional" interpretation espoused by all the
"famous" Bible teachers is...Cain was born first. How could so many
"great men" be in error about the same subject ? Texts such as
these..."let God be true and every man a liar" (Rom 3:4), ..."Great men
are not always wise" (Job 32:9), should be powerful influences when
(and IF) we ponder such questions.

   A contextual outline of our subject material as it is found in the
Sacred Word of God is offered in closing...

   Gen 1:1-2:3 ...An overview of God's entire creative work

   Gen 2:4-8 ... An in depth review of the sixth day, which includes
the creation of man.

   Gen 2:9-14 ... Details concerning the Garden God has prepared.

   Gen 2:15-22 ...God puts man in that Garden to till it. He warns of
the forbidden fruit. The animals brought to Adam and he names them -
the female is created.

   Gen 2:23 ... Adam calls the female "woman" because she was taken
from man.

   Gen 2:24,25 ...The two said to be husband and wife and they were not
ashamed of their nakedness.

   Gen 3:1-6 ... Choosing not to record a second time, both the
commission to the man and woman to multiply and the day on which He
rested, God moves us ahead in His narrative to when the serpent tempts
the woman. She yields to that temptation and her husband follows.

   Gen 3:7 ... The eyes of them both were opened.

   Gen 3:8-19 ... God confronts them in the Garden concerning their
rebellion and the curses are formally and emphatically announced.

   Gen 3:20 ... The woman has become the mother of all living and Adam
changes her name to Eve for that specific reason.

   Gen 3:21 ... God prepares for them coats of skin and readies them
for expulsion from their haven in Eden.

   Gen 3:22-24 ...The man is finally driven from the Garden to till the
ground from which he was taken.

   Gen 4:1 ... Adam knew his wife, Eve; and she conceived and bore
Cain. She exclaims, I have gotten "a man" from the Lord.

   Gen 4:2 ... She further bore Abel.

   Gen 4:3-7 ... The offerings of Cain and Abel to God.

   Gen 4:8-10 ... Cain slays his brother, Abel, and is questioned by
Jehovah.

   Gen 4:11-16 ...A curse is pronounced upon Cain and he is banished
from the presence of the Lord.

   Gen 4:17 ... Settling in the land of Nod, Cain "knows his wife" and
she bares him Enoch.

   Whether you decide that Cain married his younger or his older sister
is of little practical value in your service as Christians. What is
imperative, however, is the principle I hope to have
established...God's Word is entirely trustworthy and our beliefs can be
and must be the result of dilligent, personal, and prayerful meditation
upon that Book! If we are not faithful in this discipline, and continue
rather, to allow men to tell us what to believe, we shall surely share
in their end; about whom it is written... "Woe unto the shepherds that
destroy and scatter the sheep of My pasture...I am against them that
cause My people to err by their lies and their boasting; I have not
sent them and they profit not My people at all" (Jer 23:1,32).

   "If they speak not according to My Word, it is because there is no
light in them" (Isa 8:20). Have those men who promote the so-called
"Cain first" theory spoken according to God's inerrant and infallible
Word? I submit that they have not. It is fitting, I think, that in this
study at least, the Lord Jesus should have the final word..."Take heed
what ye hear" (Mk 4:24).

   RLW PO Box 531 Port Jefferson Station, N.Y. 11776
