Women of the Bible: Eve

Adam called the first woman Eve because she was the mother of all living. Is there anything living with which we shall not properly say that Eve was its mother. Adam endowed with an uncorrupted mind came to this conclusion and him being wiser than we, shall we not also agree.

Eve was created after Adam because out of all the living creatures living who were created from dust there was found no suitable companion for poor Adam. God in his infinite wisdom abandoned the idea of making again a creature from the dust but rather thought it splendid and perfect that a suitable helper for man should come from Adam's own flesh. So God caused Adam to sleep and took a rib and formed it into a Woman. Adam woke and found in his presence a beauty which surpassed the angels, his dear wife Eve. At once with a sparkle that fades the Sun, Eve smiled, with Adam reaching out his arm to collect his bride as a gift better than all of Creation. And do we not see Christ as the priest leading this ceremony which was to ultimately be the perfect illustration of his unity with his Church. See how the angels cheered and danced at the introduction of this new feminine excellence of God's glorious image; with the angels drinking wine that makes one not loose their senses but to culminate the joy of their beholding. And how God the Father in unity with the Spirit and Son at last declared the whole creation very good.

But there was one who despised this happy matrimony, who from seeing the merriment of Adam with his wife Eve and their sweet communion with God, entertained with great jealousy, anger and wisdom the destruction of this blessed communion. The devil, understanding Adam's total love for Eve, saw Eve as his Achilles’ heel thus venture to tempt Adam through Eve for it was written “Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression".

Eve at first appearance must have sat next to Adam and learned in quietness - Adam would have taught her the ways of paradise and instructed her in the names he gave to all the animals, so that in turn, she may teach it to their children and instruct all the new born animals of the free rules of paradise. She was a helper and Adam must not lord it over her and in all true graces, yea, that sweet grace, fine and tuned distinct in that of womanhood, surpassing flowers and colourful birds in eminence, she was the crown of his glory, and the golden crown of creation.

Then an evening came, the woman in all her loveliness musing by the streams of eternal life, resting with the rabbits was suddenly intruded upon by a creature whose nature had been made deplorable. The serpent with its cunning ways tempted Eve to break God’s command. Eve at last succumbed to the devil’s lies for she was of a delicate kind, less well adapted to offering resistance to such a foreigner as Adam would have. But Adam is not to be excused, for he was by her but granted her the liberty to deal with such a beast when He should have known better and pried into their conversation. The woman being deceived then dragged Adam into her sin. She must have said to him, ‘Adam the desire of my soul, see, the fruit of the tree is good for food, it is delightful to the eyes like I am to you, and able to make us wise like God, and do not worry my dear about God’s prohibitions, we will not die but live and be like God, knowing good and evil’. Eve must have said such words with great sweetness yet innocent of its great consequences. Her transgression became essential in the sin with which she caused Adam to sin. If Christ had an Eve, would the devil not have employed the same tactics - he would not have tempted Christ directly but send his Eve -it would be her in that garden of Gethsemane; but Christ being greater than Adam would have done what Adam should have done at first, that is, follow the will of God regardless from whose lips betrayal is spoken forth from. 

Paradise was lost. Eve’s dwelling in this blissful earthly garden was short lived. She was banished to live the rest of her years in a world of thorns and thistles. Poor Eve was now to be mastered; she was to be all her life a slave to her passions for her husband. Society would suppress her kind, childbearing would become painful, this weaker vessel would be treated harshly by her master, she herself a paradise was now a paradise lost.

History may have wished to forget you Eve or treat you as vile and hold you as the queen of seduction bringing ruination to Mankind but God, your God as not despise you for it pleased him, yea it pleased Christ, to be found in you. At the end of God’s awful cursing towards you because of your treacherous sin, the God who created you and formed you from the Man’s ribs said “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

Inside the uterus of this cursed woman was release from her universal curse to be found. Her seed will one day reverse the paradise which she caused to be lost and her seed will free her from her own tainted depravity. Eve was fixated upon this promise that when Cain was born she supposed that he was the promised seed for she said when she conceived him, “I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD”. Miserable Eve! O how she must have lamented when she watched the growth of Cain, how depraved his ways were. Her sorrows only increased for she must have set her hope again on Abel, who was more a friend of nature and of God but died at an untimely hour at the hands of Cain. She must have rued that unpleasant hour when she yielded to the devils hands - for the result of her sin was now the loss of two sons from her womb. Eve must have died in sadness and only repeated in lamentable speech the glory of that heavenly paradise which she substituted for this barren desert where her husband must toil day and night.

But God is faithful. After many millennia the Angels of God acknowledged the seed of Eve in the Child of Mary. Jesus was the blessed seed to reverse the curse and how Eve must have longed to see His day. She saw it by faith and was glad, and through the eyes of Mary she nurtured him and placed all her hopes in him. 

K.Oni

Are you alive or dead?

If biblically life and death is defined by our relationship to God, where do you stand my friend? Do you have life, that is do you have communion with the living God, the Father, Son and Spirit or are you dead - that is totally estranged from him, not knowing his voice, knowing nothing of the comfort of His Spirit nor the satisfaction of the death of his Son. Are you alive or dead?


Ah you might now say that you are dead. That as things stand you are completely alienated from him. You may have heard of him through speech and know something of his counsel and have a degree of knowledge as to his being, but you do not know him at all. By way of an example - I am sure that you have heard of the queen, you have seen her pictures, and perhaps you are accustomed to her behaviours and manners but knowing all this does not imply that you know her at all. Supposing you was walking down the aisle in Sainsbury’s and the queen is shopping for her beloved goats cheese, and you were to walk by her, will she say ‘hey Fred how are you’ - no. she would not pause. You might pause but she would look at you a stranger, that is because you have no relationship with her. Suppose it was William or Harry whom passed by her at the aisle, would she not have stopped and greeted her grandchildren. Of course she would have. Likewise if God should pass by you, and yea, when he came in His Son, the world did not recognize him and I suppose that you would not recognize him either because you have no relationship with him. God would say hello but you would look at him with a blank expression - it is because you are dead in your sins - or your reaction might be like that of the apostle Paul when blinded by the Lord, he could only say ‘who are you Lord’. 


Contrast Paul’s reaction to Peter’s when Peter sitting upon his own sorriness was once again called upon by the Lord. Peter upon hearing the voice of the beloved disciple saying to him that it is the Lord, immediately put on his outer garment and threw himself into the sea. Then the disciples all sat and ate with Jesus and none of them dared ask him, ‘who are you,’ for they knew it was Jesus.  You see, they all knew it was Jesus because they were alive but Paul did not know that it was Jesus because he was dead. 


Are you still dead, still stuck in the graveyard of life? Because if you are, you are in danger; there is a storm that is coming your way and unless you can rise from your casket and escape to the safety shores, you will perish in the storm forever. My friend, you are as to say it ever so gently, hopeless, for you are without God in this world. My friend you may say that I am very comfortable and need not to be alive; but if you had eyes to see you would know of your awful situation. This world as to say will be all of your heaven and what a poor heaven it is. It is a heaven laden with strife, envy and jealousy. I am sure that your own soul bears witness of a better place, of another season where this dreary earth is replaced with the everlasting presence of God’s unimpeded goodness. It is coming I tell you and there is a very solid reason to believe this, that is, that Jesus Christ once came in the flesh to suffer and rise again therefore He is coming again to make a renewal of this despondent earth; and do you not will to come into his rest? You may say my friend that you desire no such thing, that is because you are dead. If you had eyes to see, or if you were alive and had any communion with the living God, you would say and curse your own soul for swimming in a mud puddle laden with skin eating bacteria when you could swim in a clear blue warm ocean with all the beautiful creatures of the sea to your hearts content.


You see my friend, whilst you are dead you cannot see or rather you set at nought the excellencies and glory of Jesus Christ. You give him no honour to whom all honours are due, you are not sensible of his deserving of praise therefore you do not seek his glory and praise in anything that you do. All day you shut him out, while he knocks at your door. You show him a great contempt by refusing to accept him, you will not believe his words especially when he says that He has come to give life to the full. It is all because you are dead.


But contrast your position to that of a person who his alive - you see they are very sensible to the excellencies and glory of Christ. They know that Jesus is of better worth than gold and silver, that in fact He is the holy one of God and they make everything of it. They sing of his praise, they open the door for him, they rejoice in him and give him the honour and glory due to his divine person. They have hope as sure as the sun rises in the morning, they have left their filthy puddle for his ocean, they know of joys and happiness in this world in as much as it comes from him, and they walk this hell with both eyes fixed on the heaven to come. A soul alive to God is much happy in God but a soul dead to God thinks nothing of him; they only think of him perhaps in what benefits he can do to them as in a business dealing but never actually love him for who he is. Their best enjoyments here have no room for him, no, he is looked upon as they looked upon him at first, a man of sorrows and of no joy. It is because they are blind and dead, unmoved to his wonderful sweetness and heartful promises made in his book. Those alive are contrary, they read of his steadfast promises and bind it upon their hearts, they feast upon it in the dry seasons. 


O I wish that you were alive, that you were like me sensible to the sweet things of the Lord. O I wish that you could see the folly of your desertion that like me you can come to his house to dine. But you are dead, dead in sins and transgressions and my hope for you are anchored in my heavy prayers for you, that God, who is the one that calls the dead to live may call your name with an effectual call that at last you may beat your chest and mourn the years you have spent away from him and rejoice in the many eternities you will spend with him. 


K.Oni

Will I See

A rap (Watch video)- 

Life screams from the morning break

Night lived in vanities range 

Strange aint morning injustice living for another day

Poor obsessed with stress blessed but living cursed....

K.Oni

Without a conscience

There are troubles by the sea which I’ve seen

Terrors by the grave which I’ve witnessed 

Death in the field which I’ve observed 

Misery in the houses which I’ve beheld. 

I’ve seen the rain devoured the poor man’s shed

The earthquake swallow the rich man’s manor

The fire burn the widows inheritance 

The wind raze the preacher’s chapel.

These poor calamities for one day never cease

They rave their songs without a conscience drum.

K.Oni

An attitude of hospitality

The London Olympics is allegedly becoming the biggest media and broadcasting event in history. This week, the city opened its doors to around 28,000 commentators, anchors, reporters, technicians, make-up artists, and camera and sound operators from 190 countries. This is almost three times more than the number of athletes.

Whereas at previous Games reporters who could not afford rooms have camped beneath their desks, London aims for this to be the first Olympic press centre that doesn't have journalists sleeping on the floor. With London accommodation prices soaring to an all-time high, members of St Brides Church on Fleet Street are offering free accommodation to journalists from the world's poorest countries such as Togo, Croatia and Romania. Hospitality as a neighbourly response.

St Brides stands in a long tradition of Christian hospitality. The Bible suggests that those who have much are obligated to share. In Acts we are told the community of believers shared with those in need (Acts 4:33-34). Rather than placing a full stop between the two verses, the Greek word ’gar‘ indicates a causal relationship: “Great grace was upon them all, for there was not a needy person among them.” Gaius, to whom John wrote his third letter, lived out his faith by welcoming and caring for travelling teachers.The nature of monastic hospitality is found in the Rule of St Benedict: “Let all guests who arrive be received like Christ, for he is going to say, 'I came as a guest, and you received me' (Matthew 25:35).”

In his book Walking With the Poor; Principles and Practices of Transformational Development, Bryant Myers addresses the issue of encountering people of different cultures, nationalities, and different faiths. "We need to do our work and live our lives in a way that calls attention to the new Spirit that lives within us. We need to relate to people . . . in ways that create a sense of wonder. We must seek a spirituality that makes our lives eloquent."

Henri Nouwen not merely lived such an eloquent life, he also formulated his thoughts on ‘hospitality’ brilliantly: “Hospitality is the virtue which allows us to break though the narrowness of our own fears and to open our houses to the stranger, with the intuition that salvation comes to us in the form of a tired traveller. Hospitality makes anxious disciples into powerful witnesses, makes suspicious owners into generous givers, and makes closed-minded sectarians into interested recipients of new ideas and insights.”

In his book The Wounded Healer, Nouwen describes that letting others enter into the space created for them, we allow for their presence to be inviting and liberating.

The character formation as Christ’s disciples involves the nurturing of an attitude of hospitality. It concerns our home and our heart. Hospitality is a virtue that shapes not merely our homes and communities but also our institutions, the way we do our work.

As in the early Church, a community of Christ followers who live according to new values proves to be a powerful display of the Spirit’s liberating and restorative presence. The inclusion and sharing itself become the message. Eloquent lives for sure.

Marijke Hoek, coordinator Forum for Change - Evangelical Alliance

Defending Jesus podcast - The Atonement

Ken and Adam discuss the atonement.                                                                                                      

















K.Oni

The Age of the Universe and Genesis 1 — A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture

      In this series, we have been discussing Dr. R.C. Sproul’s answer to a question about the age of the universe during the Q&A at Ligonier’s 2012 National Conference. We have discussed a number of foundational theological issues that reflect Dr. Sproul’s distinctively Reformed approach to this issue, an approach based on the thinking of Reformed theologians from John Calvin to B. B. Warfield. In this final post, we turn to Dr. Sproul’s answer to the specific question that elicited his lengthy response:


When people ask me how old the earth is I tell them “I don’t know,” because I don’t. And I’ll tell you why I don’t. In the first place, the Bible does not give us a date of creation. Now it gives us hints and inclinations that would indicate in many cases a young earth. And at the same time you get all this expanding universe and all this astronomical dating, and triangulation and all that stuff coming from outside the church that makes me wonder.


And then at the end of his response, he explained again:


Now having said that, that’s a long way to say I don’t know how old the earth is…


I suspect that some conference attendees were disappointed when they heard this answer. Some probably expected Dr. Sproul to proclaim dogmatically one way or the other. A large number, however, applauded. I believe they recognized the wise humility evidenced in this answer. Dr. Sproul recognizes the kind of harm Christians can do and have done to the church by hastily jumping to wrong conclusions about general revelation and science. When Christians declared to the world that geocentrism was something that is clearly and definitely taught in Scripture, all they did was convince those who had carefully studied the evidence that Scripture must therefore be in error. They created a false dilemma. This problem is not new. Augustine, the greatest theologian in the first millennium of church history, also encountered this problem and addressed it in words that have been quoted often:


Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.i


Augustine’s comments emphasize the importance of Christians exercising caution and humility – particularly regarding subjects about which we have little or no firsthand knowledge or expertise. As he explains, if we misinterpret Scripture on such subjects and then proclaim to others who know something about those subjects that our misinterpretation is the sure Word of God, we bring disgrace on Christ and His church and place unnecessary stumbling blocks before unbelievers to whom we are presenting the good news. It is far wiser to say, with Dr. Sproul, “I don’t know,” than it is to assert falsehoods to be the teaching of Holy Scripture.


It is also wiser to say, “I don’t know,” than it is to make ultimatums that may be based on a misinterpretation of Scripture and/or God’s created works. I have encountered Christians who have said that they would renounce Christianity if they were convinced that the earth moves around the sun because it would mean that the Bible is not true. I have also encountered Christians who have argued that any believer who is convinced that the universe has been proven to be billions of years old should abandon Christianity because it would mean that the Bible is not true. No. As Dr. Sproul implied, something like this would merely mean that a particular interpretation of Scripture was mistaken. It says absolutely nothing about the truth of God’s Word itself. If the universe turns out to be 6,000 years old, that fact will not ultimately conflict with what Scripture actually teaches. If the universe turns out to be billions of years old, that fact will not ultimately conflict with what Scripture actually teaches.ii We do not need to renounce Christianity in either case. Only if Christ is not risen from the dead is our faith in vain (1 Cor. 15:14).


What about the age of the universe then? If students of general revelation (i.e. scientists) contribute to our understanding of special revelation as Dr. Sproul has explained, then those of us who do not have the training to expertly evaluate the evidence ourselves are dependent to one degree or another on those who are trained in order to help us understand the evidence for and against the different claims. A problem arises, however, when different Christians look to different specialists and those different specialists themselves present us with conflicting conclusions. We end up with Christians who have an equal commitment to the authority of Scripture coming to different conclusions about the evidence. This then affects our reading of special revelation.


The different conclusions to which Christians have come regarding the evidence for the age of the universe has led to an ongoing debate in the church about the interpretation of the nature and length of the days of Genesis 1. Just as those who were convinced that the evidence supported heliocentrism were forced to take a second look at Joshua 10 and other passages, so too were those convinced that the evidence supported an older universe forced to take another look at Genesis 1. This has led to much discussion and debate – some of it quite rancorous.


This debate has played out in several Reformed denominations. In 2000, for example, the PCA issued a lengthy report on the subject. This was followed by a similar report from the OPC in 2004. Both reports concluded that several views of the nature and length of the days of creation are within the bounds of biblical and confessional orthodoxy. Both reports were commended to the various presbyteries and churches within the respective denominations for their study and consideration. Both of these reports are well worth reading for their overview of the issues and arguments involved.


The debate over the age of the universe and the days of Genesis has also played out as numerous books have been written in the last century and a half by Reformed theologians presenting evidence for one view or another.iii The Calendar Day view was held by Reformed theologians such as Robert L. Dabney and Louis Berkhof.iv It has recently been defended by Douglas F. Kelly, James B. Jordan, Joseph Pipa, and David Hall.v The Day Age view was held by Reformed theologians such as Charles Hodge, B. B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, and E. J. Young.vi More recently, this view has been defended by Francis Schaeffer and James Montgomery Boice.vii The Framework view has been defended by Reformed theologians such as Meredith Kline, Mark Futato, and Henri Blocher.viii A version of the Analogical Day view was held by William G. T. Shedd.ix More recently, this view has been defended by Reformed theologians such as C. John Collins and W. Robert Godfrey.x In short, Reformed Christians are still sorting through the issues.


During a period of time when Reformed believers are attempting to work through and evaluate all the evidence, a measure of grace, humility, and patience would seem to be advisable. The Ligonier teaching fellows are an outstanding example of this attitude. More than one view of the age of the universe and the days of Genesis 1 is held among them without strife and enmity and without charges of compromise on the one hand or obscurantism on the other. This is due to the fact that these men understand the implications of what Dr. Sproul said in the response we have been examining for the last several weeks. Would that more Christians would take Dr. Sproul’s wise words to heart.

 Keith Mathison Jun 22, 2012 - Ligonier ministries - http://www.ligonier.org/blog/age-universe-and-genesis-1-reformed-approach-science-and-scripture/

i Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram: 1.19.39 translated by J.H. Taylor, Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.
ii And if the universe turns out to be both because of aspects of God’s creation having to do with relativity and time, that will not ultimately conflict with what Scripture turns out to actually teach either.
iii Three of the views of the days of Genesis were defended in David G. Hagopian, ed. The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo, CA: Crux Press, 2001).
iv Robert L. Dabney, Systematic Theology, 2nd ed. (St. Louis: Presbyterian Publishing Company of St. Louis, 1878), 254–6; Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 4th rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941), 154–5.
v Douglas F. Kelly, Creation and Change, Genesis 1.1-2.4 in the Light of Changing Scientific Paradigms (Ross-shire: Christian Focus Publications, 1997); James B. Jordan, Creation in Six Days: A Defense of the Traditional Reading of Genesis One (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 1999); and Joseph A. Pipa and David W. Hall, eds., Did God Create in Six Days? (Greenville, SC: Southern Presbyterian Press and Kuyper Institute, 1999).
vi Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1982) 1:570–71; B. B. Warfield, Evolution, Science, and Scripture: Selected Writings, edited by Mark A. Noll and David N. Livingstone (Grand Rapids: Baker: 2000), 145; J. Gresham Machen, The Christian View of Man (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1965), 115; E. J. Young, Thy Word is Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 169–70.
vii Francis Schaeffer, Genesis in Space and Time (Downers Grove: IVP, 1972) and James Montgomery Boice, Genesis, Volume 1: Creation and Fall (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982, 1998).
viii Meredith Kline, “Because It Had Not Rained,” ,Westminster Theological Journal 20 (1958) 146-57; Mark Futato, “Because It Had Rained: A Study of Gen 2:5-7 With Implications for Gen 2:4-25 and Gen 1:1-2:3,” Westminster Theological Journal 60 (1998) 1–21; Henri Blocher, In the Beginning, The Opening Chapters of Genesis, Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1984.
ix William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 3rd ed. Edited by Alan W. Gomes. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2003), 374.
x C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2006) and W. Robert Godfrey, God’s Pattern for Creation: A Covenantal Reading of Genesis 1 (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2003).