Did Eve think she had given birth to God? 

Did Eve think she had given birth to God? 

 

In the book of Genesis, after she had given birth to her first son Cain, Eve made a proclamation regarding the bringing forth of this child.  This proclamation is found in Genesis 4:1.

Most versions of the Bible, which includes nearly all of the most popular versions, render Eve’s proclamation in a similar way. That she had brought forth the child from YHWH or with the help of YHWH. 

Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. KJV

Genesis 4:1 Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man.” NIV

Genesis 4:1 Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.” ESV

Genesis 4:1 Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, “I have obtained a male child with the help of the LORD.” NASB

 

However, there are those that assert that what Eve actually stated in this verse is that she thought she had literally given birth to the LORD himself and thus is evidence of a pre-knowledge regarding the true nature of the child. 

Arnold G fruchtenbuam argued that Eve had proclaimed that her child, Cain, was the fulfillment of the prophecy given in Genesis 3:15 and that she believed that not only was Cain that promised child, the Messiah, he was actually YHWH himself. 

 

“A Literal translation of the Hebrew text of Genesis 4:1 would read ” and the man knew Eve his wife, she conceived and bare Cain and said ” I have gotten a man, YHWH”
” Few Bible translators really understand what Eve is saying here, which is why our English translations do not read as given above. Eve has clearly understood from God’s words in Genesis 3:15 that the serpent will be defeated by a God-Man. She obviously thinks that Cain is Jehovah.”

Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Messianic Christology : A Study of Old Testament Prophecy Concerning the First Coming of the Messiah, 15 (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1998).

 

The assertion here is that, while Eve was off with her timing regarding the seed, and who the seed ultimately was, her expectation of the child being divine was correct. 

Trinitarian advocate Anthony Rogers, claimed in a video teaching on Genesis 4:1 that can be found on Youtube,  the literal Hebrew reads, I have acquired a man, the LORD, or even the LORD and asserts that the literal Hebrew would read that Eve thought that the child she had given birth to was the LORD. 

There are in fact some versions of the Bible that read this way, which Anthony appeals to in his video. 

It must be noted that this reading, although it does exist in English translations,  is found in a very small minority of translations. 

 

Genesis 4:1 Later, Adam had sexual relations with his wife Eve. She became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “I have given birth to a male child—the LORD.” ISV

Genesis 4:1 And the human knows Eve, his wife, and pregnant is she and is bearing Cain. And saying is she, “I acquire a man, Yahweh!” CLV

 

So what is the correct reading in Genesis 4:1? Is it “with the help of/from YHWH” or is it literally a direct statement that Eve believed the child was YHWH? 

 Let’s have a look at the Hebrew of the verse. 

 

וְהָ֣אָדָ֔ם יָדַ֖ע אֶת־חַוָּ֣ה אִשְׁתֹּ֑ו וַתַּ֙הַר֙ וַתֵּ֣לֶד אֶת־קַ֔יִן וַתֹּ֕אמֶר קָנִ֥יתִי אִ֖ישׁ אֶת־יְהוָֽה׃

 

The part in question is highlighted in Red/blue.

The literal Hebrew here reads Qaniti ish eth YHWH 

The argument regarding the correct translation of this verse actually revolves around the meaning of one single Hebrew word, אֶת־ Eth, which is highlighted in blue. 

 

Eth has 2 different meanings.

The word Eth actually has two functions in Hebrew. The first is as a direct object marker and simply points to the object that follows it. When acting as the direct object marker it doesn’t mean anything in and of itself, it only acts to point to the object that follows it, and thus is untranslated in the English translations.  

We can see this meaning used in the very first verse of the Bible.

Genesis 4:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

If we have a look at the Hebrew we will see that Eth appears twice in this verse acting as direct object markers. 

 

בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃

Eth appears before the Hebrew haš-šā-ma-yim, the heaven and before hā-’ā-reṣ, the Earth. Acting as the direct object marker, in the Hebrew eth points to the heaven and to the earth being the direct objects,  but is not required and so is not translated in the English. 

 

The second function of Eth is as a preposition. A Preposition is a word governing, and usually preceding, a noun or pronoun and expressing a relation to another word or element in the clause,

Let’s just take a look at an example of one such time that “eth” is used and functions as a preposition. In Genesis 5:22 we read that Enoch walked “with” God. “With” is  translated from the Hebrew “eth”.  

 

Genesis 5:22 And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters: KJV 

 

Here is the Hebrew of the verse, eth is highlighted in red.

וַיִּתְהַלֵּ֨ךְ חֲנֹ֜וךְ אֶת־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֗ים אַֽחֲרֵי֙ הֹולִידֹ֣ו אֶת־מְתוּשֶׁ֔לַח שְׁלֹ֥שׁ מֵאֹ֖ות שָׁנָ֑ה וַיֹּ֥ולֶד בָּנִ֖ים וּבָנֹֽות׃

 

It would be incorrect to understand “eth” to be a direct object marker here, otherwise, we would end up with a totally ridiculous and obviously incorrect reading that rather than walking WITH God, Enoch walked God. This surely must be understood as an impossible usage of eth and thus it simply must function as a preposition. 

 

BOTH the ISV and CLV translate Eth as the preposition “with” here. 

 

Genesis 5:22 After he fathered Methuselah, Enoch communed with God for 300 years and fathered other sons and daughters. ISV

Genesis 5:22 And walking is Enoch with the Elohim, after his begetting Methuselah, two hundred years. And begetting is he sons and daughters. CLV

 

As Eth clearly functions in two different ways, it is therefore, actually misleading, and I would assert, quite disingenuous to say that the literal Hebrew reads as Anthony claims it does. The literal Hebrew would read as Anthony purports, ONLY if we are to take Eth here to be a direct object marker rather than it being a preposition. If Eth in Genesis 4:1 is in fact a preposition and not a direct object marker then the literal Hebrew would include a preposition and so “with the LORD” would be how the literal Hebrew reads.

If eth does act as a preposition here, it would not be possible to understand that Eve was proposing that the creation of the man was directly with the LORD as in the child was conceived with the LORD. We are clearly told that Adam “knew” Eve and it was through that act that Eve became pregnant. 

The preposition would rather, have to refer to the child having come from or with the help of the LORD, which is why we get different variations on the translation but all with the implication the child had come about because of God who is the ultimate giver of life. 

To assert the literal reading of the verse is as Anthony claims it reads, it would already have to be accepted that eth here is a direct object marker and so Anthony is using the conclusion to prove the assertion. This is circular reasoning. 

 

Anthony does, however, correctly point out that the primary function of the word Eth is as a direct object marker, it is used as such the vast majority of times that it appears in the Bible. This is not debatable. Eth is rendered as a direct object marker over 11,000 times while it functions as a preposition just over 800 times, a ratio of over 11-1.
However, that does not in any way necessitate that it MUST be used as such here in Genesis 4:1. If Eth can function as both a direct object marker and a preposition, which it can, then we cannot simply demand that its usage must be that of a direct object marker simply by its usage alone.

In his video Anthony also correctly points out that here in Genesis 4:1 it is the 50th use of the word eth and in every single incidence of its usage prior to this occurrence in Genesis 4:1 it is taken as the direct object marker. He uses this as part of his argument as to why eth should be rendered as a direct object marker here in Genesis 4:1. Anthony asks the question “why do translators suddenly depart from this consistent usage of the definite direct object marker?” 

Anthony continues his argument and claims that the only reason that translators and scholars reject the reading as he supposes the verse should be read, is not based on grammar but rather on theological prejudice: He states “They do not believe that Eve could possibly expect a divine messiah already”.

Notice Anthony’s words “They do not believe that Eve could possibly expect a divine messiah already”.

The word “Already” presupposes that the messiah would be divine.

The only reason that eve would have believed that her son was divine would be if either A) she was incorrect in her understanding regarding the nature of the seed (the Messiah) or B) If she believed that she was told that the seed would be divine which then presupposes that Eve was in fact told that the son would be divine.

Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Deltzsch claimed that while “eth” might be rendered as in apposition to “ish” a man, the LORD, the sense would not allow it. They further argued that even if Eve had believed that Cain was the promised seed of Genesis 3:15 there was nothing in the promise given by God that would suggest that the seed would be God and thus she would have no reason to believe that Cain was YHWH. 

 

So far as the grammar is concerned, the expression אֶת־יְהֹוָה might be rendered, as in apposition to אִישׁ, “a man, the Lord” (Luther), but the sense would not allow it. For even if we could suppose the faith of Eve in the promised conqueror of the serpent to have been sufficiently alive for this, the promise of God had not given her the slightest reason to expect that the promised seed would be of divine nature, and might be Jehovah, so as to lead her to believe that she had given birth to Jehovah now.

Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament., Ge 4:1–8 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002).

The question then is not IF eth. as a direct object marker is grammatically acceptable in Genesis 4:1, it is, that is conceded, but by that some token it must also be acknowledged and conceded that eth being a preposition is also just as grammatically acceptable, the question then is whether eth, should be understood as a direct object marker or a preposition here.

Anthony, himself, is actually guilty of what he accuses others of. The reason he rejects eth being a preposition is not based on the grammar, because as we have established eth clearly can function as a preposition and it would formulate a perfectly logical meaning, despite Anthony’s claim to the contrary. 

Anthony’s rejection of eth being a preposition is, therefore ,itself based on theological reasons.  Anthony already believes that the seed is divine and so rendering eth as a direct object marker would support that belief, despite as Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Deltzsch make note, there being no implications within the text itself that would lead us to believe that Eve was told the child would be divine. 

 Anthony argues that “while we don’t necessarily know certain things, just by reading Genesis 1 through 4 it’s a mistake to assume that Eve had no more to go on than what we are told in Genesis 1 through 4. Do we seriously think that the first four chapters of Genesis encompass the entire experience or range of knowledge that Eve had?” 

Anthony states, How pray tell can somebody pretend to know everything that Eve knew? How do they know that Eve did not understand the promised coming saviour to be the LORD?

I rather think this an attempt at grasping at straws. Of course it would be illogical to understand that everything we know regarding Adam and Eve and their lives, which we know spanned 930 years (Adam anyway, as we are not told how old Eve was when she died), can be encompassed within the very limited information we are given in scripture. However, by that very same token, if we can’t possibly know whether Eve was told her seed would be divine we can’t possibly know that she was told, that seems rather a logical understanding to me. ALL we can do is go by what is stated in scripture. Our understanding of scripture should be based on scripture and what scripture declares. Scripture does NOT state that Eve was told her son would be divine. Therefore, any claim that she was is nothing more than eisegesis, reading that assumption back into scripture using circular reasoning. It is inconceivable that something of such importance as the nature of the seed, should the seed have been divine, would not have been specifically stated right there in scripture. We should never have to read our assumption back into scripture to support our assumption. 

Let’s say that the translators were in fact wrong to render eth as a preposition here in Genesis 4:1, the exact same question that Anthony asked, “Why do translators suddenly depart from this consistent usage of the definite direct object marker?” could then be asked the next time that they did so, which just happens to be in Genesis 5:22 which we have already looked at and established that a direct object marker rendering would be incorrect. This is now the 85th usage of eth. Should we really ask why it is translated as a preposition here in this verse? Using the same logic that Anthony has argued, eth, here, should be translated as a direct object marker because it would have been used as such the previous 84 times. Of course as I have already shown this would make this verse ridiculous and nonsensical. Eth is translated as a preposition in Genesis 5:22 because the context and the narrative demand that it be translated as a preposition, which is why even those versions that do not render it a preposition in Genesis 4:1, do render it a preposition in Genesis 5:22. The translation of eth as a direct object marker or as a preposition is dictated by the context and the meaning of the verse and not by its usage in previous occurrences. So it would seem the reason that translators depart from the consistent usage of the definite direct object marker is because they understand that the narrative would require them to do so. There is nothing directly in the text or the promise that would require eth to be understood as a direct object marker. 

Anthony further argues that eth is also found in the immediate context of Genesis 4:1. Eth actually appears 3 times in the verse, but the other 2 times it functions as a direct object marker. Anthony claims that taking eth to be the direct object marker is taking it in the same term as the immediate context of how eth is used.  

If we have a look at Genesis 4:1 in the Hebrew we will see that eth is used 3 times in this verse. 

 

וְהָ֣אָדָ֔ם יָדַ֖ע 👈⁠אֶת־⁠👉⁠חַוָּ֣ה אִשְׁתֹּ֑ו וַתַּ֙הַר֙ וַתֵּ֣לֶד 👈⁠אֶת־⁠👉⁠קַ֔יִן וַתֹּ֕אמֶר קָנִ֥יתִי אִ֖ישׁ 👈⁠אֶת־⁠👉⁠יְהוָֽה׃

 

It appears before Eve, Cain (both highlighted in blue)  and YHWH (highlighted in red). Anthony also correctly points out that the word is taken as a direct object marker before Eve and Cain in the versions that translate it as a preposition before YHWH, such as the KJV, NIV, ESV, NASB ect. 

However, yet again this is an inconsistent argument that simply fails to hold up when fully analysed. 

We can demonstrate this by yet again appealing to Genesis 5:22.  We have already seen that Eth functions as a preposition, but there is actually a second eth in the verse that functions as a direct object marker. 

וַיִּתְהַלֵּ֨ךְ חֲנֹ֜וךְ אֶת־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֗ים אַֽחֲרֵי֙ הֹולִידֹ֣ו אֶת־מְתוּשֶׁ֔לַח שְׁלֹ֥שׁ מֵאֹ֖ות שָׁנָ֑ה וַיֹּ֥ולֶד בָּנִ֖ים וּבָנֹֽות׃ 

 

(Eth highlighted in red is where it functions as a preposition and in blue where it functions as the direct object marker.) 

The direct object marker points to Methuselah, Methuselah being the direct object that the marker, eth, points to. 

If eth in Genesis 4:1 was to be understood as a direct object marker as Anthony asserts, then the eth translated as a preposition in this verse, Genesis 5:22,  would actually be the first occurrence of the word as a preposition. It would also occur in the context where another eth appears and clearly acts as a direct object marker. 

If Anthony were to remain consistent with his arguments against the prepositional use in Genesis 4:1, he would have no choice but to translate the prepositional “eth” in Genesis 5:22 as a direct object marker based on 2 of his own points of argumentation as to why eth should be understood as a direct object marker in Genesis 4:1. 

 

If Anthony would not translate eth in Genesis 5:22 as a direct object marker then it would negate his arguments regarding Genesis 4:1.

Further Evidence for the correct reading of Genesis 4:1. 

Anthony points to Targum Jonathan as support for his reading. He asserts that the targum renders Eve’s statement that she thought that her child Cain, was the angel of the LORD. 

 

Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Hava his wife, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Kain; and she said, I have acquired a man, the Angel of the Lord.

 

The problem with Anthony’s argument is again it is an appeal to circular reasoning. He already assumes that the angel of the LORD is divine. The only way the reference to the angel of the LORD being a statement that she believed the child to be divine is if the angel of the LORD is divine. If the angel of the LORD is not divine then Eve’s statement would not be an appeal to a divine child. 

Targum Onkelos renders the verse “from before the LORD” 

 

Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Hava his wife, and she conceived, and gave birth to Kain; and she said, I have acquired the man from before the Lord. Targum Onkelos 

 

What is important to point out is that while the correct rending of the Hebrew “eth”, be it a direct object marker or preposition, may not be immediately clear without further investigation, the reading found in the LXX, the Greek translation of the Hebrew, is perfectly clear. There simply is no ambiguity. The Greek reads, dia tou theo,  Through God. There is simply no doubt in the Greek. The Greek of the LXX renders the Hebrew “eth” as a preposition and not as a direct object marker. 

Brentons Septuagint renders dia tou as through and thus reads through God. 

 

Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and brought forth Cain and said, I have gained a man through God.  Brentons septuagint 

 

So if we are to believe that there was an “official” translation of the Hebrew into Greek, done by the 70 Jewish scribes, then it must be concluded that those Jewish scribes understood the 3rd clause of eth in the verse to be prepositional and not as a direct object marker. 

 

Furthermore the Syriac and Latin also support the preposition rendering. 

We also have attestation from numerous ante- Nicene fathers that would support the prepositional reading of eth in Genesis 4:1.

 

Augustine attributed the words of Genesis 4:1 to Adam rather than Eve. He clearly understood these words to be a reference to having received Cain from God. 

That which is undeniable is that Cain was the first who was born of man and woman. For had he not been the first who was added by birth to the two unborn persons, Adam could not have said what he is recorded to have said, “I have gotten a man by the Lord.”

Augustine: The City of God, Christian Doctrine

City of God

Chapter 15

 

“But when the man knew his wife by natural appetite, the divine Scripture says, Eve conceived, and bare a son, and called his name Cain. But what,” he adds, “does Adam say? Let us hear: I have obtained a man from God. So that it is evident that he was God’s work, and the divine Scripture testifies to his having been received from God.” Well, who can entertain a doubt on this point? Who can deny this statement, especially if he be a catholic Christian?

Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings

On Marriage and Concupiscence.

Book II chapter 17 

 

Chrysostom: 

But when the expulsion from Paradise came, consider how much better and wiser she grew. For when she bare a son, she says “I have gotten a man through the Lord.

Chrysostom: On the Priesthood, Ascetic Treatises, Select Homilies and Letters, Homilies on the Statutes

Three Homilies Concerning the Power of Demons.

Homily I. Against Those Who Say that Demons Govern Human Affairs.

And if He saith “by whom, δ ο.marvel not. For not as though another were bringing in it by him, doth He say this, but viewing him as himself causing the whole. For the Scripture is wont to say, “by whom,” for “of whom;” [δι ο and ὑφ ο, i.e.,“through whom” for “by whom,” the latter phrase referring to the personal agent.—R.]as when it saith, “I have gotten a man by God,”, LXX. [δι το θεο.]putting not the second cause, but the first; and again, “Is not the interpretation of them by God,”.and, “God is faithful, by whom ye are called unto the fellowship of His Son.

Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew

The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom.

Matthew XVIII. 7.

 

Athanasius:

He uses then ‘make’ for ‘beget,’ and he calls them who were to spring from him, ‘made,’ and no one questions whether the term has reference to a natural offspring. Again, Eve on bearing Cain said, ‘I have gotten a man from the Lord;’ thus she too used ‘gotten’ for ‘brought forth.

Athanasius: Select Writings and Letters

Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.)

Discourse II

 

While the reading that is found in the minority of versions of the Bible and championed by Anthony Rogers, is undeniably grammatically possible, the fact is, it is not supported by the weight of evidence which includes ancient translations and the writings of the ante-nicene church fathers, nor is it supported by the information that we are given through scripture which makes the reading very unlikely. 

 

If you liked this study please subscribe here

You can buy my books on Amazon there is a link here 

Join our Patreon membership here or you can buy me a coffee through paypal