Blog

by Steve Risner

[This blog post is part of a series. The previous post is here, and the next post is here.]

After concluding an exciting series on the Resurrection last week (well, I thought it was exciting), I’m a little struck by the lack of depth in this week’s question that godofevolution.com author Tyler Francke believes is unanswerable if we hold a Biblical position. In fact, his question is nothing more than, “Man, that seems strange” sort of thing rather than a theological consideration. This week’s question that we will be answering (although the claim is “no young-earth creationist can”) is this: Why was Eve named the “mother of all life”? Now, to be honest, I think it’s a good question but, again, since I know the motive behind it, it kinda has a wet blanket thrown on it.

So Tyler seems to think it’s very strange that “immediately” after the Fall, Eve’s husband, Adam, gives her the name “Eve.” This is some sort of problem for him because the verse in question, Genesis 3:20, follows God’s declaration of the curse on mankind after the Fall. Let’s just be clear here: Tyler does not believe there was a Fall or a curse. He denies fundamental Christian theology because if he accepts it, he cannot hang on to his humanist philosophy as well. He does not believe death is the result of sin and claims the Bible does not indicate that death is a penalty for sin. He fails to understand a great deal of Scripture that indicates otherwise. He also just doesn’t seem to understand things like the sacrificial system or Christ’s death on the cross. But his problem here is more of a childish attack on Scripture than anything else. He goes so far as to say that Adam was being insensitive when he named Eve because he apparently believes the words of the curse had just fallen on their ears when he decided to name her. If she is the cause of sin and therefore death, then calling her the “mother of all living” is just mean.

Actually, I don’t think this verse necessitates that it happened the very second God pronounced the curse on mankind. However, as a side note, within that curse we find that God pronounces death on man for his sin. “…From dust you are and to dust you will return” was mentioned as a part of the consequence of sin. But keep in mind, also, that God held Adam responsible for eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. God questioned Adam first because he was the spiritual head of the family. After Adam passed the blame on to Eve, God addressed her. If you look at the curse, the primary recipient of the consequence, by volume of explanation anyway, is Adam. The serpent is second while the woman’s share of the pronouncement was fairly short. However, I’m fairly certain that all of mankind—men, women and children—have suffered the consequences of sin. But man was held responsible.

But Tyler’s entire argument here is the verse in question that describes Eve’s name is too close to the Fall to be appropriate. In other words, he’s unhappy with it so it must be a theological problem for the Bible believer (which Tyler most clearly is not). He claims this is significant because “…young-earth creationism proponents cite [the Fall] as the genesis for all death and illness and disorder and pretty much any bad thing that’s ever happened.” Since the Bible indicates this is the case, I’ll take God’s Word over the opinion of someone who has been proven Biblically illiterate every time. God’s Word tells us that death is an enemy and it will be destroyed. This seems like it wasn’t part of the original creation, then. It also says that God will wipe aware our tears, ending sorrow and mourning.

In an amusing turn of events, Tyler cites Wikipedia for the meaning of Eve’s name. This is fine, but the same reference answers the question he claims can’t be answered according to a Biblical position. He must not have read the whole thing. Why is Eve called the mother of all living? Because she’s the mother of all humans who ever lived from that point on. The only person she was not responsible for was Adam—because he was alive before her. His Wikipedia reference tells us this. “While believers accept that all subsequent humans have Eve as an ancestor, she is believed to be unique in that although all people after her were physically created from women, Eve herself was created from a man.” Had he just read a little, maybe we could have avoided this odd question to begin with. But since we’re talking about the Wikipedia reference, I’d like to point out that he’s using a source that has no interest in the truthfulness of the Bible. In fact, it tries to explain away the meaning and origin of Eve’s name by saying it was taken from pagan religions or languages. Not really the sort of source I’d like to push if I believed the Bible was God’s Word. But if I think the Bible is a bunch of stories and information collected by ignorant sheep herders in the Ancient Near East that has no divine inspiration, I may be inclined to use them.

So, in short, why is Eve named the “mother of all living”? Because she’s the mother of all humanity. Just because this fact is brought out shortly after the Fall has no bearing on its truthfulness or validity. What a strange question indeed when we consider the motive behind it. Next week we’ll address a common question skeptics (generally atheists) ask—how did Adam and Eve know what death was?

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.