Adam and the beginnings of sin. Genesis 1-3.

 Let’s begin this study with what I consider “the beginning.”

Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” This statement opens our look into Genesis, but there are a couple of difficulties, and they are:

If you do a bit of a deep dive into verse one, you will find that the simple word "the" did not exist in the Hebrew. That means that this sentence merely reads, "in beginning." "In beginning" implies a process and an indeterminable amount of time. 

Could God create the entirety of creation with one breath? 

Certainly He could, but we do not see that happening here. 

The second consideration unleashes itself when we get to verse two. It reads like this:

“The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” 
Genesis 1:2 NKJV

If we operate on the basis that God does everything right, then this shouldn’t make sense. We can back up the premise by looking at what Isaiah tells us.

“For thus says the LORD, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the LORD, and there is no other.” 
Isaiah 45:18 NKJV

Since sin is associated with death and destruction, it is evident that sin existed in the world prior to God putting man on the earth and giving him dominion. 

If this train of thought bothers you, then answer this: 

Why was the big, talking lizard (scripture calls him a serpent here, but later on in Revelation, he is referred to as the dragon) hanging out in the tree, which they were forbidden to eat from? 

(Note: Up until Adam ate from the fruit, Satan did not have control of the earth. Through his destructive acts, he created the illusion of control. Adam, by his actions - disobedience of and disregard for God’s command, caused the dominion of the earth to change hands.)

Adam, having set aside God’s commands, created havoc that may have taken days to realize.

“Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’: “Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, And you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return.” 
Genesis 3:17-19 NKJV

So, the command, or “law,” was that you shall NOT eat of the tree, and one effect is that the ground is now cursed because of what Adam did.

But what did Adam do? 

He listened to the woman and disregarded God’s command.

The effect of Adam’s actions was a transaction in which the dominion of the earth was handed over to Satan. (There are always those who doubt this, and so I give you the interaction between Satan and Jesus.) 

“Again, the devil took Him up on a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory (the splendor, magnificence, preeminence, and excellence) of them. And he said to Him, These things, all taken together, I will give You, if You will prostrate Yourself before me and do homage and worship me.” 
Matthew 4:8-9 AMP

You cannot legally give away something that is not in your possession; that means that it was in Satan’s possession. Jesus did not argue about who controlled the kingdoms and the glory. (If Satan had stated they are mine to give, he would have been correct, and all because of Adam’s actions.) He merely dismissed Satan with a portion of scripture from Deuteronomy. 

“Then Jesus said to him, Begone, Satan! For it has been written, You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him alone shall you serve.” [Deuteronomy. 6:13.] 
Matthew 4:10 AMP

The Ultimate Cross-Reference Treasury tells us, "Here, the words are varied by addition, for the words' and him only shalt thou serve' are not quoted from Deuteronomy but added by our Lord.”

Having been raised in the church, I heard multiple times that Jesus quoted Deuteronomy in withstanding Satan. Now I see that what He said is pulled from several locations and, as God's son, took some creative license. 

What does that tell me? 

That I don't have to be so precise in my assertions toward Satan and in my prayers. This is a convenient revelation, seeing as my memory worsens as I grow older.

A side note for free.

Many will try to tell you that Genesis 1:26-29 is where God puts man on the earth; it is NOT. Pay attention to the terminology used as He creates man and woman in His image. 

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 
Genesis 1:26 NKJV

What is the image of God? 

Jesus explained that God is a spirit, and spirits, like the Holy Spirit, don’t have much of a physical image.

God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” 
John 4:24 NKJV

Spirit should be a familiar term to many of us. It is the Greek word pneuma. It is not only wind-air in motion but also the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit.

God also happens to be energy and light, among other things. Consider the burning bush that Moses encountered. It burned like fire, but it was not consumed. For all we know, God is nuclear energy, but it is under control. 

Perhaps the best way to explain this is to understand that God made the spiritual entities that would eventually become the male and female—the beginnings of humanity. So, our mental representation of humankind, at this point, is no different from God’s, and to think differently is pure conjecture.

Genesis 1:26 tells us that, in time, they would have dominion. Synonyms for this word dominion include ascendancy and control, which would happen over everything on the earth. 

Did God merely ignore the fact that Satan would wrest control of the earth away from Adam and Eve? 

I don’t think so; therefore, I can see that WE, as descendants of Adam and Eve, still, in theory, hold that dominion. Having been deceived, I think it would be rare to find anyone exhibiting this dominion – but there are always exceptions.

We see a physical Adam created in Genesis 2:7, a time frame well beyond the seventh day. 

“And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.” 
Genesis 2:2 NKJV

Pay attention to the details.

“And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”
Genesis 2:7 NKJV

Watch what happens next. 

“The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” 
Genesis 2:8-9 NKJV

So far, there is only the man, Adam. Once again, God saw fit to restate that He had put the man in the garden. 

“Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it.” 
Genesis 2:15 NKJV

No one seems to think that Adam had anything to do but name the animals, but that was not the case. 

The word keep is the Hebrew word shâmar and is also seen as care for, dress, look after, and guard. Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Definitions give us options such as: have charge of; protect; to keep (within bounds); restrain; pay heed to. 

The terminology implies that the man was given control of the garden. 

The other word that jumps out at me is “tend.” This word is also translated as cultivate or dress. The Hebrew word ‘âbad’ means to labor and do work.

There is nothing about Adam being unable to touch the tree. You would almost think that touching the tree may have been part of his job description. God gave Adam a single, direct command, and its importance cannot be overstated. 

“But of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil you must not eat. For when you eat from it, you most assuredly will die!” 
Genesis 2:17 TLV

This command, delivered with such gravity, sets the stage for future events.

The King James Version of verse 17 reads like this. 

“for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

The Tree of Life Version does not imply a time frame, while the KJV conveys that death would come almost immediately. 

None of this was expressed to Eve by God directly. 

So, how did Eve understand that she was to NOT eat from “that tree”?

Adam had to tell her. 

This information was given to Adam first and then, over the course of an undefined time, to Eve. I can see why Satan’s ploy worked on Eve. Adam, it may have been a different story, but it still worked.

What would the result be if he ate the fruit? 

It is easy to see that a multifaceted death affected even the earth. 

Is it possible that Adam, who had never witnessed death, may not have understood what death meant? 

The effects of eating that fruit meant an instant death, or it meant a slow, lingering death, with the added feature of losing the ability to communicate with the one who brought you into the world. With over 32 translations, obtaining a clear picture of what death meant to them is difficult. 

I am being facetious when I say this, but at least Adam had a good woman to help him keep that one command.

“Then the LORD God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” 
Genesis 2:18 NAS95

You should look up these simple words: “a helper suitable for him.” Here, you will find that the phrase ‘êzer neged can mean one who stands in opposition.

So, again, we lack a direct reference to the time involved until Eve is brought into the picture, and we are introduced to the woman. 

“So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.” 
Genesis 2:21-22 NAS95

Genesis chapter two closes by saying they were naked and unashamed.

“Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?” 
Genesis 3:1 NAS95

Think back to this thesis, where God instructed the man about the fruit he was NOT to eat. The NAS95 is a weak translation. Compare it to a couple of others.

(AFV) "Now, the serpent was more cunning than any creature of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Is it true that God has said, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden?’ “

(AMP) NOW, THE serpent was more subtle and crafty than any living creature of the field that the Lord God had made. And he [Satan] said to the woman, Can it really be that God has said, You shall not eat from every tree of the garden? [Rev. 12:9-11.]

Was Eve given these instructions by God?

We have nothing to indicate that she was; therefore, it is understood that the instructions came from Adam's mouth.

Satan's ploy at deception was meant to provoke the idea that Adam fabricated this elaborate narrative to dominate Eve. Even if it wasn't true, that does not eliminate the possibility that God was lying. If you can't trust God, this narrative about the fruit may also be a fabrication.

The fruit had the ability to damage and change the DNA (With the advent of the COVID-19 vaccines, we have seen evidence that demonstrates this very thing.) Its effects would be distributed throughout humanity and all generations until an all-encompassing redemption was found. Fortunately, God had a plan the entire time.

“but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'"
Genesis 3:3 NAS95

Satan added an untruth, for God never said not to touch it. Adam may have needed to touch it as part of his maintenance program, but God never said don't touch it. Look at the explicit instructions given to Adam in Genesis 2:17 (BSB).

      "16And the Lord God commanded him, 'You may eat freely from every tree of the garden, 17but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.”

Eventually, they ignored God's directive (command) and ate.

“When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.”
Genesis 3:6 NAS95

Saw is the Hebrew word râ'âh and means to inspect, perceive, or consider.

She weighed all the things Satan said and shoved that fruit in her mouth.

This next aspect is disturbing, as men I have known from church have said to me, Adam was not there, or he was a long way away. Look at what the Holy Spirit intended for us to see.

“she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.”

And then.

“Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.”
Genesis 3:7 NAS95

Eyes are the Hebrew word 'ayin and refer to the physical eye and mental qualities.

Knew is the Hebrew word yâda‛ and implies that they could perceive, discern, distinguish, and experience (what God had already informed them would happen), and not in the best ways.

In all of this, did we see the terminology sin at any point?

No, and while we consistently put human emotions and tendencies on God, we don't see God displaying those emotions either.

How do you define what happened next?

God merely shows up.

“They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, "Where are you?"
Genesis 3:8-9 NAS95

We do not see violent, angry reactions, nor does the scripture tell us that God went on a rant.

The God of the universe calmly and respectfully called out to the man He created, where are you. He knew precisely where they were, but they were naked, and they knew it. Even amid a treasonous act (which will affect every generation that is to come) God is still showing them respect and allowing for at least Adam to acknowledge his failure/sin.

So, God gave Adam a commandment to live by, just one, and he failed. And Adam didn't have a disposition to sin as we do. He was confronted by the foremost of deceivers.

Try to picture Adam standing there watching, the woman made from his side and brought to Adam as the finest and only woman on the face of the earth, and she just took a big bite out of the only thing on the earth that brings death to them. What goes through your mind?

• Where do I get another woman like this one? This is assuming that there is no replacement. (This opens a massive can of worms I won't go into now.)

• How do I live without her?

• What happens next, because, for all he knows, she may just die in front of me?

The questions could have been endless, and sadly, I can see the human frailty that Adam did not suffer from until after he bit into the fruit, integrated into my every thought. 

Was there a punishment for breaking that command? 

Yes, death, but even though we can see the effects, we do not see God having any conversations describing how the broken fellowship between Adam and God would be the most catastrophic aspect of this death. And all these years later, I still struggle communicating with the Father.

As we know, Adam lived 930 years beyond that moment when he ate the fruit ( and death came). We foolishly make the assumption that this was all that Adam lived. If that is your logic, you would be wrong. The why is entwined in the fact that time was not accounted for until the day that Adam partook of that fruit (there was no reason). What you do not consider is that Adam walked this earth for an untold number of days, during which time he named all the animals on earth.

And yes, many of you think the Earth is only a few thousand years old. You seem to be ignoring information such as: 

• God did not set the sun in the sky until the fourth day. This should have a horrendous effect on your understanding that God functioned within 24-hour periods.

• God did not wear a Timex watch, nor did He concern Himself with time as we know it. Time, as we see in the creation, was relative and defined by associated words. Most of what we see in the creation narrative is described in terms of eons (which happen to be open-ended segments of time).

So, why can we not see that God's moral law ruled over everything? 

Maybe the things I have talked about are some of those “mysteries” that scriptures speak of. I was aware that there was an admonition to not eat from “that” tree, but I never, until I wrote this paper, saw it as a commandment with as much clout as the ten that were to come.

And another thing. I can't ignore how lovingly God treated them even after they sinned, or should I say, broke the law.

Anyone whose goal is to serve. 1 Timothy 3:1-7

 We closed out chapter two with Paul saying, "I have been chosen as a preacher and apostle to teach the Gentiles this message about faith and truth. I'm not exaggerating—just telling the truth." 

While learning about faith and truth is vital, something else is just as essential, and that is the need to pray. 

Paul puts it like this, "in every place of worship, I want men to pray with holy hands lifted up to God, free from anger and controversy." You can find this in 1 Timothy 2:7-8 NLT.

Controversy is an interesting word. The dictionary defines it as dispute; debate; agitation of contrary opinions.

The NASB uses the term dissension instead of controversy. If you look up the Strong's concordance for dissension, you get the word dialogismos, which means discussion, debate, and reasoning. 

The logical assumption on my part would be to say that this is where we get our word dialogue. Dialogue, of course, implies that the parties involved are having a meaningful conversation. Welcome to my world, where, in a household of those who claim to be "Christians," there is non-stop dissension and agitation due to contrary opinions concerning the mandates put on us by our California Governor, and faith. It is painful to watch, as faith means nothing.

By the way, my home has become a model of the church today, as with minor exceptions, the church lives in fear, and pastors, preach nothing to stimulate faith and boldness.

Paul opens chapter three, talking about those that aspire to be church leaders. The assumption here would-be pastors, but it can cover a variety of ministerial titles.

I wonder what Paul would think of us today. 

1 Timothy 3:1-7 NLT "This is a trustworthy saying: "If someone aspires to be a church leader, he desires an honorable position." (2) So a church leader must be a man whose life is above reproach. He must be faithful to his wife. He must exercise self-control, live wisely, and have a good reputation. He must enjoy having guests in his home, and he must be able to teach. (3) He must not be a heavy drinker or be violent. He must be gentle, not quarrelsome, and not love money. (4) He must manage his own family well, having children who respect and obey him. (5) For if a man cannot manage his own household, how can he take care of God's church? (6) A church leader must not be a new believer, because he might become proud, and the devil would cause him to fall. (7) Also, people outside the church must speak well of him so that he will not be disgraced and fall into the devil's trap."

• "If someone aspires to be a church leader, he desires an honorable position."

If it is your goal, or you are shooting for the role of being a church leader, you do well. That is if your motives are correct. 

What do I mean by that? 

I have seen many come to the mega-churches because that is where the money is. Maybe their motives were pure, and they truly wanted to shepherd people, but you find out quickly that shepherding is often complicated and uncomfortable. You also find out that the bigger the church, the more exhaustively elaborate the organizational system. Timothy found out about people and their eccentricities, because he was asked by Paul to put several of these unruly sheep in their place, and, if necessary, kick them out of the congregation.

If my mother had raised Timothy, he would have found that difficult to do.

The context of 1 Timothy chapter three has everything to do with someone seeking to be the shepherd of a church body.

Verses 2-7 cover the qualifications.

Paul tells us that if any man aims to be the overseer or pastor, it is a fine work he desires to do. 

An overseer, then, must be:

• A man whose life is above reproach.

Here we are in a Presidential election year, and it doesn't matter what side you are supporting, as your candidate will have their skeletons exposed. Of course, they will counter with dirt against the opposition and do their best to cloud the issue against them. 

What's the point here? 

Everyone has skeletons in their closet. Are you willing to take the heat for those skeletons? Maybe the best approach is to air out the laundry at the beginning, and then there will be no secrets that you have to dodge later on.

The Greek word translated as a reproach is anepílēptos and implies one who has nothing which an adversary could seize upon with which to base a charge. (WSD)

Why does this make me think of a church like Victory Outreach, where some of the Pastors will, in their testimonies, tell you that they murdered someone. It seems then, as if this reproach would be more of an active lifestyle thing, but not necessarily. 

• He must be faithful to his wife.

Sadly, most of us know of some pastor who has had an affair with their secretary or someone else. 

• He must exercise self-control.

Without some parameters, this could apply to anything, some being nowhere near as destructive as the others. The Word Study Dictionary states: "to be sober. Sober, temperate, self-controlled, especially in respect to wine." This does not give you any more crazed freedom with whiskey or other libations.

Not being an alcoholic, I don't understand the dynamics of alcoholism. You see, I put myself in recovery because I was getting far too comfortable, allowing rage to make my decisions for me. You might think I would understand the alcoholic better, simply because I attended recovery and led the anger group. But rage, for me, was a choice. With an alcoholic, I am not so sure there is a choice as it is an addiction.

If you did not check the background on this, new, potential pastor, then their propensity for excess might get past you and explode in all your faces.

• Live wisely, and have a good reputation.

The NLT has no direct reference to word origins in the Greek, and so I have to try to make an accurate comparison with something that does, like the NASB, or KJV. The words the NLT gives are, live wisely, and have a good reputation.  These are useful words for the moment, but several of these words overlap in their definitions and repeat a theme. The KJV uses terminology such as be vigilant, sober, and of good behavior. The Greek words used to make this sentence are nēphálios, sṓphrōn, and kósmios. 

If we look at kósmios in The Word Study Dictionary, we get this, "Plato presents someone who is kósmios, much like the citizen who quietly fulfills the duties which are incumbent on him and is not disorderly."

Plato associates such a person, as Paul does, with sṓphrōn, where he conveys the idea of a sensible, self-controlled person who voluntarily places limitations on their freedom.

Immediately I can tell you that some will lose their minds simply because Plato, the philosopher, is being referenced. There is no denying that usage, but if good, Godly sense shines through, then the goal is accomplished, and Paul calls for this very thing.

The end of this sentence above is quite telling and might severely impact those who choose to lead man-cave groups that have little to no restraints.

• He must enjoy having guests in his home.

Well, at least not in its present condition. The wife and I have talked about this very thing many times. 

• He must be able to teach.

Keep in mind that Paul already went through a long oration about how women are NOT to be Pastors. Honestly, I am not sure about the whys, but many hold to this standard. There is no doubt in my mind that there are women who can teach, and Beth Moore comes to mind as she did a teaching on Daniel that opened my eyes. However, such a harsh rejection is one reason I struggle with Pastor John MacArthur, as he rudely told her to go back home.

If you have sat under a Pastor who clearly could not hold an audience, you can understand what Paul is talking about. 

• He must not be, as the NASB states, addicted to wine, or be violent. He must be gentle, not quarrelsome, and not love money. 

Yes, I know, this is a lot to cover in one breath, but, in many ways, we had already touched on this, when we covered self-control, because of the word pároinos. "The word-picture is that of an individual who always has a bottle (or wineskin) on the table and so signifies addiction."

Moving beyond the alcohol addiction, what about this idea of being gentle. The Greek translates to equitable, fair, gentle.

Equitable, according to Webster's means: Equal in regard to the rights of persons; distributing equal justice; giving each his due.

• "He must manage his own family well, having children who respect and obey him."

I guess I just got lucky. When I had a family, I married into it, and then added two of my own. The step kids were well mannered and respectful. I never asked or demanded that they call me dad, but they did, and they complied when I called them. I suppose a lot of the respect I experienced came from their mother, who would back me up. The step kids parted from my fellowship as the price of divorce, but my girls also grew up without me, apparently having their choices forced on them. 

As for discipline, I did not count to whatever stupid number some people ascribe to before I asserted my will on them, as their count was included in the words, "I need you over here." I managed and coached the ball teams for both the step-son and the step-daughter, and as far as I was concerned, they were my kids. My daughters, without me in their lives, have shown me no respect. I am not sure the circumstances reflect a fair assessment of my ability to run a household.

I have only known one pastor who held the respect of his daughter, and it fair to say, he only had one child. All the others had children that were out of control. One pastor had to put his boy in a military academy in the hopes of straightening him out. I am not sure how that worked out; most I know that did that same thing, got back a child that was now rigidly antagonistic toward their father. 

Even worse, the passage ends like this, "For if a man cannot manage his own household, how can he take care of God's church?" It seems like a logical assumption, doesn't it?

• "A church leader must not be a new believer, because he might become proud, and the devil would cause him to fall."

Here's the logic. New believers may have enthusiasm, but do they have an understanding of the Holy Spirit? Probably not; it is not impossible, but not probable. The wisdom of the Lord and how to use it, come over time, with practice. 

A new believer, thinking they know everything, can and will become proud and irritating. I speak from experience as this is what happened to me when I was in the faith movement.

• "Also, people outside the church must speak well of him so that he will not be disgraced and fall into the devil's trap."

This is not a command; however, this is a method of judging whether the man is what he says he is. You go to the references, those who know him, and ask some probing questions, as you try to find out what kind of character this person has. If the community feels like he is tense and irritable, then this is a trait that you are likely to experience.

The pastor of the church that I was recently attending, in his introductory message, informed us that he was a recovering pharisee. Most in the church that morning had no clue what that meant. To me, it said that he still had the potential to be another Saul, hopefully stopping short of having people stoned. He also told us that his dream for the church was to have it filled with forty-year-old couples. Considering that the church body's average age was around 60, that should have made those of us that are older speculate about what our potential we would continue to have there.

Note how this sentence “people outside the church must speak well of him,” in effect, it says that if the people don't speak well of him, he will be disgraced and fall into the devil's trap. 

To fall is the Greek word empiptō, which means to be entrapped by the community.

In other words, these people, having the dirt on this guy, may be able to destroy any good work he could do.

What's my take away? 

Don't hide any skeletons in your closet.

Perhaps, the knowledge of information that could destroy your ministry should cause you to step away from potentially being the pastor.

Maybe an alternate method of dealing with this is to keep your closet clean.

Remember, our secrets become our prison cells.

And be joined to his wife? Genesis 2:24

This is another subject that came up among my friends one recent morning.

In the world of sin, I have done more than my fair share. What do I mean? Considering that “sinning” is merely missing the mark, then yes, I do that daily; and if you were honest, then you would admit that so do you.

So then, we need to establish something here, who is setting the mark for these goals we try to meet and how many goals are there, because it can be exhausting some days? Well, since we, as followers of Christ have submitted ourselves to God as the moral authority in our lives, then He is the primary one setting the goals.

(This moral standard, of course, is all on a theoretical basis, as many of those who call themselves “Christians” use the law they created in their head as the moral standard. Having watched that so-called moral standard in progress, I can tell you that you have little to no consistency in your standards, and you are not showing me anything I want to copy. I happen to think most of these inconsistent standards are picked from the bits and pieces the world offers us – just as long as it suited our lusts [desires] and needs.)

Why bring any of this up?

Because I too have felt the sting of judgment, as I lived with a woman before I was able to marry her. (Let me point out that the friend/brother in Christ that wanted to “turn in me” to church management, later on, had a fling with a woman he was not married to and had to turn himself into that same church management. That church put him on the shame list and limited his interactions there, for six months, along with a total separation from that woman - just as he was going to do to me. Now, before you get all religious and high minded thinking you have the right to judge me, hear me out.

The State of California does not recognize a common law marriage and has not since 1895. The law in California:

“requires both parties to consent to be married, but mere consent does not a marriage make. Generally, there must be a marriage license issued, a solemnization and authentication following the issuing of the license and a recordation in the county where the solemnization/authentication took place.”

https://statelaws.findlaw.com/california-law/california-marriage-law.html

So then, if consent without love, is the sole approving factor, then why are we getting married?

Because your marriage, under state laws, makes you a corporate, tax identity, and a statistic. 

Is a legal marriage mandatory for love? I'm being somewhat sarcastic here, and you know that is not true. It sure seems like a good way of tracking you, as a marriage license is just another method of tracking and controlling you. 

If blacks in the South could deem themselves married by jumping over a broom, in front of witnesses, then what are we doing? 

Although I had to pay the fees and get a marriage license, my wife and I were married in our attorney's office by a man I hired through the internet. I did this because we were trying to take out a mortgage on the home that had once been paid off so that we could buy out my wife's brother (my wife's mom had died, and the brother wanted his half of the estate.) Some might look at our actions as merely fulfilling an immediate need; but the fact is that we were two weeks away from being married about 15 years earlier. That marriage would have happened if it were not for religious legalism deciding to get involved. What that overzealous legalistic pastor did was to ask if we had had relations with each other. Now I could either hit him in the face, answer him with the sarcasm he deserved, or tell him the truth; I answered his question without lying. Instead of marrying us, (and mind you, all the announcements were printed,) we were restricted from marrying in that church and told to stay apart for six months. Needless to say, I did not comply and we did not get married.

Do you have to be in love to consent to a marriage?

Clearly, this idea of love, as an aspect of your consent, is counterfeit because here again, my first marriage had little to do with love.

Again, let me explain. A young man does not fall in love; he falls in lust. Love is something profound that grows over time and is based in commitment; which is in part: choice, desire, and the longing to be with someone – theoretically, forever. So though my first marriage might have had those components as part of the plan, my wife, at the time, had no intention of carrying through with the words she pronounced before everyone that day. Within six months she had sex with a friends boyfriend and then did it again seven years later with someone she met at a bar in Las Vegas. After she committed adultery twice, we separated, and two years later we divorced. My ex-wife had no longing to stay married, and her counselor helped me to understand that by telling me so. What made this more difficult was the religious legalism imposed on me by the church in which I was raised. You see, there was a tremendous amount of guilt interlaced in those marriage vows; not to mention the fact that the pastoral counseling you had to sit through helped to emphasize that point.

I suspect that much of this legalism comes from the Old Testament, but inevitably a little bit comes from some pastoral training, where they are apparently taught to control the flock God has given them, and this is how you do it. Some of those potential verses come from Genesis 31; Genesis 22, and Genesis 24. Jesus, in response to the Pharisees who were looking for ridiculous ways out of their marriages, spoke of divorce and the hardness of their hearts in Matthew 19. Paul, almost as if he is assuming that a woman would never cheat, spoke in 1 Corinthians 7 about a wife's reactions to a cheating husband, and how you are to stay single, but who does that?

Ah, but you say, we are not under the law but grace.

If you believed that you would be reading this with an open mind and heart, and you are not. You are judging the heck out of me – so shame on you. So, when it comes to God's law, I am sorry to disappoint, but God's word stands forever, and those same laws are now written in our hearts by God's Holy Spirit. Yes, those laws are there to keep us out of trouble, and when you hear them spoken to your heart it would be wise to obey them.

If there was a woman that caused a man trouble, it would be Eve; and yet, Did you see Adam divorcing his wife? I did not think so.

One of the most excellent answers Jesus gave when asked, “What is the greatest commandment?” Was this:

Matthew 22:36-40 NET. "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" 37) Jesus said to him, " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38) This is the first and greatest commandment. 39) The second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40) All the law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."

Instead of advocating laws perhaps we should be promoting God's love (Just saying.)

Several years back there was a movie called The Three Amigos. The main characters were fictional movie heroes that somehow got caught up in a Mexican town's power struggle with some bad guys. At one point a bad guy says to the gang leader, “there are a plethora of men coming.” The leader pauses and responds to the man, “do you know what plethora means?” The man admitted that he did not, but liked the sound of the word. The leader comes back with, “do not use words to which you do not know their meaning.”

So, I say to you, I do not think that word wife means what you think it means.

The first occurrence of the term wife shows up in Genesis 2:24, but the story does not start there. So let's look at the beginnings of this man and woman relationship.

Genesis 2:18 MKJV And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.

Now you might think, this is where God makes Eve, but it isn't.

What does this idea of “help meet," mean?

God made animals and birds. Did he expect for the man to find a helpmate out of this collection? When I started looking at this intently, I was in a place without any high tech tools and had to rely on the commentary and limited concordance of my Dake Bible. 

Dake's tells me that this idea of a helpmate was,

“someone suitable intellectually, morally, and physically – as the man's counterpart.”

Aside from the animals how many choices did Adam have that would fit this description given by Finis Jennings Dake? Zero, and yet the next move God makes is to form, out of the ground, every beast of the field and every fowl of the air.

God sees a need for the man to have a helpmate, but watch what God does.

Genesis 2:19-20 NET. The LORD God formed out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20) So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field, but for Adam, no companion who corresponded to him was found.

As you can see in verse 20, that “for Adam, no companion who corresponded to him was found.” Does this surprise anyone? 

When I was a child, watching television in the early 1960's, I saw many black and white television westerns in which there was that one guy who lived back in the hills, and was content not interacting with anyone but his dog. I think that type is a rarity.

God's solution was to make an exacting duplicate of the man, with a few body style modifications of course.

Genesis 2:21-25 24) (Therefore a man will leave his father and his mother and cling to his wife, and they will become one flesh.) 25) Even though both the man and his wife were naked, they were not ashamed about it.

• God caused a deep sleep to overshadow the man.
  If you will, the first instance of anesthesia.
• He removed one of the man's ribs and closed up the flesh where it had been.
  The first case of surgery.
• The LORD God formed the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman and brought her to the man.
  Why did God bring her to the man in this manner? Was it out of respect, or was He allowing for the man to name her, or both?
• And then, there is this odd exclamation we see in Genesis 2:24 CJB This is why a man is to leave his father and mother and stick with his wife, and they are to be one flesh.
  Why say its odd? Adam may well understand that God is ab or Father, but where would he get the concept of mother ’ēm? The KJ concordance shows that this word is used 220 times in the Old Testament. All but six of those examples indicate some form of mother.
  The Hebrew words El Shaddai – implies a complete sufficiency to nurture, but can also mean the Breasted One. In the Jewish culture, this is understood as the God who sustains us and loves us like a mother loves her newborn child.

Do I then perceive Adam as pulling away from the all-sufficiency of God, to pursue what, life on the prairie? Or, is Adam speaking of a future time, when others will and should learn to live life outside of the parent's immediate intervention? 

Perhaps a Jewish viewpoint might help to bring forth an answer.

When I look at a website, http://learn-biblical-hebrew.com/hebrew-scripture/garden-of-eden-story/genesis-224/ (The short address is: http://tinyurl.com/lmtopj2) I get this:

What we understand as the word, Therefore “is the Hebrew phrase, עַל־כֵּן (`al-ken) and is not part of the story. Rather, its use introduces an editorial comment on the part of the author.”

Because we understand the author to be Moses, then we can perceive that this is conveying that the man understands his need to “stick with his wife through thick and thin.” “The text seems to say that the quality of loyalty and fidelity is constitutive of “one flesh.” After all, one need not be loyal (or even loving) to have sex and live together. The idea in view here is a commitment, especially of the man for his wife.”

Verse 24 is kind of where this journey begins and our first instance of the word wife.

Genesis 2:24 MKJV Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife and they shall be one flesh.

The second occurrence of wife presents itself here.

Genesis 3:8 NASB They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.

The Hebrew word for wife is 'ishshâh and means a woman, a female, or a wife.

Since the concept of a wife, as defined by modern law, could not possibly have existed in the early days of man, what did? 

While the answer comes off like a cave dweller, it would most likely be “my woman.” I seriously doubt that term would have conveyed disrespect as we expect some people to express in this “modern” age. Today, the usage of the term woman is more closely associated with someone sitting in the corner of the couch, wearing a dirty tee-shirt, demanding this female living with him, to bring him a beer.

Question; throughout the Old Testament, were there any public recording offices available to verify your marriage documents back then, thereby making you legal according to the laws of that particular county?

No, I didn't think so, and yet God seemed to recognize their relationships and often bless the relationship by having them produce some offspring like Samson, or better yet, Jephthah. You can find the story surrounding his life in Judges chapter 11.

Why then, do pastors impose such legalistic ideals on people, as though they are the gatekeepers, capable of allowing you entrance, or preventing you from entering the kingdom and away from God's love and grace?