Another Try at a Sequential Reading of Genesis

I can’t speak for the others, but I don’t evade it, I just look at it through the lens of Christ. Taking this as a statement about the origin of the human race is not a Christ-centered way to look at the verse. In context, it must be connected to what Yahweh-Elohim told them a few verses previously about the Seed of the woman crushing the serpent’s head…(excerpt from book follows)

20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

At a superficial glance, this is a problematic verse. For one thing, her willingness to be deceived by the serpent had just helped get them both killed. It is strange to say at such a time that she was the “mother of all living.” The second difficulty would be that it could be interpreted to mean that Eve was the mother of all succeeding members of the human race. If that is what is meant, the view of Genesis 1:27 expounded in this work would be incorrect.

The paradox is resolved when it is understood that the LORD God revealed to them His plan to one day redeem mankind by making Himself born of a woman. He would then, under much more demanding circumstances, live the sinless life which Adam was supposed to live, and thus redeem from the curse of eternal separation from God (death) all who had faith.

This is why Adam said that Eve was the “mother of all the living”. It was not because she was the ancestor of every human on earth, but because she was the ancestor of The Seed. The Seed is He who would crush the serpent’s head and restore whosoever will come to eternal life with God. The Seed is also the collective body of Christ- if our life “is hid with Christ in God” (Col. 3:3) then He is also “all the living.”

The man had blown it badly. It would not be his direct seed which restored mankind, but that of his wife. The Father of The Man in Heaven is God the Father. But through His mother He is the seed of a woman.

This is another possible meaning, though again it’s paradoxical that Adam would have had such an advanced understanding shortly before the two them were permanently exiled from the garden --literally two sentences later. This is hardly a ringing endorsement from God that Adam has things right. In fact, this points out a feature of revelation that is not often mentioned – that it seems in many cases to be delivered in such a way as to provoke discussion about what it truly means.

1 Like

I believe the explanatory comment that Eve is the mother of all the living is made by the author/narrator and not by Adam. If I’m correct, then the statement is saying that Eve is the mother of all humans alive at the time the book of Genesis was written, which I take to be sometime between the 15th and 13th century BC. The fact the author just told the story of the Fall is irrelevant.

Yes.

I’m not following your point.

I don’t see that it matters who made the statement since it is giving the statement as the reason that Adam named his wife Eve. That is, it was because of something that Adam knew at the time he called her Eve.

Again, the statement indicates Adam gave that statement as a reason for calling her that at the time- before they even had any children so far as we can tell from the text.

I don’t know where you are getting your dates, but, how does it matter Ronald?

I don’t see how the close verses just prior to this statement is less relevant than a date that seems pulled from the ether. To figure out why Adam thought her “the mother of all the living” shouldn’t we look in the immediate prior verses for clues? Why not just accept the glory that the mystery of the word has been revealed and Christ is mentioned in the text from the start? its a good thing. Opening the door to a two-population model is a small price to pay for that.

“Christ” is, in fact, not mentioned, but her “Seed” is. “Christ,” as a distinct salvific figure, and as “Son of God,” is only hinted at in the barest outline here.
It is eisegetic to claim more than that, but prudent to recognize that it is concordant with the theme of Christ’s identity and work as it will develop in ensuing revelation.
Given the Malek YHWH’s Presence of God in Eve’s life, such an advanced understanding of the prophecy given is not impossible or even unthinkable, but we are limited to what the text actually says in order to explore that notion.
When she does finally give birth explicitly, the text says that she gives glory to God, that “I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD.”
I’ve often wondered whether this could mean that Jesus’ “Christophanic Presence” was there to help serve as her first “midwife” (sic.) during this first post-fall, most difficult, “greatly increased in pain” childbirth.
Thoughts, @deuteroKJ , or anyone else?