• About
  • Apologetics, Theology, and Political Posts
  • Home
  • Sermons
  • Son of God Human Supremacy: Future Humanity’s Destiny in Him

Against All Odds

~ Engage Life

Against All Odds

Tag Archives: genesis

Interpreting my wife’s pregnancy theologically: part II

15 Thursday Jan 2015

Posted by Prime Theologian in Genesis, Pregnancy and Theology, Trinity and Pregnancy

≈ Comments Off on Interpreting my wife’s pregnancy theologically: part II

Tags

genesis, Pregnancy, Trinity

I wish to return to a bit more down-to-earth reflection on Gloria’s pregnancy next time, but you’ll no doubt forgive me for allowing the theologian in me to think a bit this time. Christians believe that God is the Holy Trinity; we especially have our Greek and Russian Orthodox brothers and sisters to thank for their wonderful tradition of thinking hard on how God is Three in One, with an eye to the Three-ness. What does all this have to do with my daughter who is currently in my wife’s womb, you may wonder? The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that each Person (Father, Son, and Spirit) dwell in One Another perfectly–which is why we Christians can still rationally claim that They are One. Similarly, a baby dwells in her mother, my daughter in Gloria, during pregnancy. Now, we must be careful not to push the comparison too far as though a pregnant woman is a perfect or exact analogy for God the Trinity; she is not. Nevertheless, a pregnant woman, I argue, is perhaps the best analogy in all of creation for God the Trinity. Where else is there a consciousness dwelling within another consciousness? This is what the doctrine of the Trinity commends although never without its own proper mystery. Someone might object: but God the Trinity is three, not two. This is true, but we would be amiss is we didn’t recognize that the child, my daughter, carries me (the father) within her as well. There is no doubt that she does biologically, and given the regular fact that children share their parents personalities, we are not speculating to hold that she likewise carries my personality in her as well. Thus, there are three people represented in my daughter, herself, my wife, and me. I got this thought during my research for my dissertation, and there I discuss it in far greater detail than I want to here. The idea does not owe to me, to be sure, because I looked hard at Gen. 1:26-28 and 2:24. When God says He makes “man” in His image in 1:27, He clearly refers to both man and woman in this image.

It reads, from the English Standard Version: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

Thus, it would be better to translate the Hebrew word “adam,” at the beginning of verse 27 as humanity rather than man: “So God created humanity in His own image, in the image of God he created humanity; male and female he created them” (trans. mine from the Hebrew, italics and bold mine). Some might think this is reading into the text, but a common literary feature of Hebrew prose, and especially poetry, is that it uses parallelism, which is why, if you’ve ever read the OT at length, you always get the feeling that the authors are repeating themselves. They are! Thus, the final phrase, “male and female He recreated them,” is a parallel restatement of “in the image of God He created humanity.” This final line gives the most specific and detailed information about what the image of God is. For our word smiths and lovers of definitions, take heart because all Hebrew lexicons (dictionaries) relay that the Hebrew word, adam, has at least three meanings: one refers to the human being named Adam, the second to just man in the typical individual male sense, and finally, the one I am arguing for here, it can refer to all humans generally.

What do we find in Gen. 2:24? Verses 22-23 arguably give us a more specific account of how woman was created, by being taken from the rib of Adam. Then, God says, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (ESV). What we find is that God creates woman by taking a part of Adam that dwelt in him (part of him), his rib, and creating woman. Then, God says man and woman are to procreate (sex) by the phrase “shall become one flesh.” God chose humanity, both man and woman, to be His analogy (image; cf. Gen. 1:27). The sexual component to human generation is part and parcel to this image since in 2:24 it is the very first thing we find out about the male and female relationship (they shall become one flesh). It was therefore not happenstance that I saw a image of the Trinity in my wife’s pregnancy; the pointers were already there in the first Book of Scripture.

My wife’s pregnancy is fulfilling the purpose contained in Gen. 2:24, and, through it, modeling, in an imperfect way, God the Trinity. Woman was taken from within man; and a child is comes by man from woman. One person, my daughter, Lydia, dwells within my wife, Gloria, and that one person, Lydia, contains both me and my wife as well as beautiful uniqueness all her own. A child is, in a fascinating sense, three persons in one; God, on the Christian view is three Persons in One, the Holy Trinity.

Dr. Scalise

Reflections on Love

10 Sunday Nov 2013

Posted by Prime Theologian in Human Experience and Theology

≈ Comments Off on Reflections on Love

Tags

Adam and Eve, freewill, genesis, god, humans, love, sovereignty

To love is to allow choice.  Whether our understanding of God leans more towards sovereignty or freewill, most will agree that Adam and Eve had a measure of freedom that we today do not (likely) enjoy.  But what we no doubt have in common with Adam and Eve is the human situation: namely, we all have been in relationships where we are not given freedom by those overseeing us or relating to us.  To this we respond with frustration and usually the intuition that this “just isn’t right.”  Few would say that those who “control us” also love us. And even if we are convinced that this “controlling person” truly does love us, we will likely have to explain to others and carefully emphasize that that person does love us despite their inclination to try to control.  So what does this intuition and need to explain point to? That control is inherently unloving.  This is a strong statement but should this be doubted just remember, why that feeling that we need to explain how this person does love me although they (try to) control me.

For those of us focuses on God’s sovereignty in our theology, note that this intuition is not nullified by supposing that God controls and rules all things.  First, professional theologians who lean calvinistic—but not all see it this way—have developed what is called compatibilistic freedom.  There are two versions of it (and maybe more in more technical theology): 1) that we truly make choices and we would not make choices otherwise than the ones we make and 2) that we truly make choices but we could not make choices other than the ones we make.  Both of these ways of seeing freedom are a far cry from what most intuitively think freedom is.  The point of this paragraph is that even sovereignistic theologians have felt the strength of this intuition—and know  (appearance of) the implied ability humans have to make choices demonstrable in Scripture—to such a degree that they have attempted to “make compatible” freedom with sovereignty.

Therefore, that attempting to control is unloving stands across a great span of theological opinions. What we have done here is begin our theologizing (thinking about God) with our human experience.  So now, let’s take our human experience and bring it into conversation with Scripture: we are not trying to make Scripture support the point above so much as trying to find if Scripture does support it.  If control is inherently unloving, the Genesis narrative surely makes it look as though God gave Adam and Eve choice, even set things up to guarantee it.  God comes and goes (walking with Adam in the cool) and so is not “overbearing” by making His presence known at all times—even though He could do this should He have wanted to. Then, the garden is set up with options: so many trees to pick to eat from with God saying, “You can eat of any tree of the garden . . . .” This, of course, implies true choice, what philosophers call significant freewill. But the options are not limited to merely choices that would not risk relationship with God—said differently, not limited to merely good choices.  This is where I’ll speculate a bit: God is the author, yes, very definition of the Good.  Thus all things good are in the domain and rule of God.  Should God have limited Adam and Eve’s choices to merely good ones, this would have been a control designed to guarantee their compliance with His worship, without them even knowing that they could not worship Him.  Thus God also offered and set up an option of evil, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  Yes, God even permitted a tempter to enter humanity’s world: the devil.  God offered choices among the trees, offered choices between good and evil, and allowed an evil being to make evil’s case, to sell rejecting God, to show that there was really a choice whether to remain with God or not. With this said, the Genesis narrative poses circumstances that show design concerned with freedom of choice; and it is this freedom of choice He gives that is part of the foundation for humans to love.

Among human relationships, we must always ask, “Who am I trying to control?” “Am I telling myself that I am controlling for their good?” “Couldn’t God say this by setting up the garden with only good choices?” “And if God allows humans to have sweeping freedom in the garden, how can I steal freedom from another person—after all, if anyone has the right to control, it would be God not me?” The more we try to control, the more difficult cultivating love in our relationships will be.

B. T. Scalise

Recent Posts

  • Another Grand Psyop of the Church (part 2)
  • Another Grand Psyop on the Church (part 1)
  • Competition and Hope
  • What makes Heaven heavenly and Hopeful?
  • Artificial Intelligence: A Crisis for Human Labor (Part 2)

Archives

  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • January 2016
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • June 2012

Categories

  • Abortion
  • Adam and Eve
  • afterlife
  • Anachronism
  • and Bitterness
  • Apologetics
  • apotheosis
  • artificial intelligence
  • Baggett and Walls
  • Beauty
  • bias
  • Biblical Application
  • Biblical Interpretation
  • Blaspheme
  • Christ
  • Christ and Culture
  • Christ and Economic
  • Christ and the Politico-Economic
  • Christian Ministry
  • Christmas
  • Christology
  • Church Leadership
  • Comparative Religion
  • contingent
  • Copycat
  • cosmic origins
  • Creating
  • Defending Resurrection of Jesus
  • despotism
  • devaluation of currency
  • Difficult Questions
  • Difficult Texts
  • Dimensions
  • Discipleship
  • discrimination
  • Economics
  • Elitism
  • Enlightenment
  • entropy
  • eternal life
  • Exegesis and Interpretation
  • Expecting Parents
  • fascism
  • Fear
  • Freedom
  • futility
  • Gay marriage
  • Gender Issues
  • Genesis
  • God
  • God Speaks
  • Good God
  • Gospels
  • Government
  • hades
  • Hallucinations
  • heaven
  • Hebrews
  • hell
  • Historical Issues with Resurrection
  • Holy Spirit
  • Homosexuality
  • Homosexuals
  • human error
  • Human Experience and Theology
  • Humlity
  • Hypostatic Union
  • Illumination
  • imagination
  • Incarnation
  • Inerrancy
  • Infallibility
  • inspiration
  • Jesus
  • Joy
  • justice
  • law of thermodynamics
  • Learning
  • Legends
  • Libertarianism
  • limitations
  • monetary policy
  • Moral Apologetics
  • Morality
  • mystery
  • Near Death Experiences/Consciousness
  • Origen
  • Philosophical Explanations for God
  • plato
  • Pregnancy and Theology
  • preservation
  • Problem of Evil
  • Resurrection
  • Satan
  • Science
  • Scripture
  • soul
  • Spiritual Formation
  • Spiritual Warfare
  • Textual Criticism
  • Theodicy
  • Theological Interpretation
  • theology
  • Traditional Problems in the Debate between Theism and Atheism
  • Transhumanism
  • Trinity
  • Trinity and Allah
  • Trinity and Pregnancy
  • Truth
  • Uncategorized
  • Virtues
  • WEF
  • World Economic Forum
  • Zombies

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Loading Comments...

You must be logged in to post a comment.