Mindful Latter-day Saint Christian Living and Apologetics: LDS Doctrine

Showing posts with label LDS Doctrine. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 28, 2023

Unveiling the Depths: Exploring Interpretations of the Parable of the Sower

Understanding the Parable of the Sower and its various interpretations in shaping Christian beliefs, teachings, and personal faith.

selective focus photo of plant spouts

Understanding the Parable of the Sower

The Parable of the Sower, found in the Bible in Matthew 13, Mark 4, and Luke 8, has been a subject of extensive contemplation and interpretation within Christian teachings. This parable concerns a Sower who scatters seed on four different types of ground, representing different responses to the gospel. Jesus explains that the seed represents the word of the kingdom, and the different types of ground represent different responses to the gospel. The main point of the parable is the importance of the condition of the heart in receiving the Word. Salvation is more than just hearing the gospel; it is proven through a changed life and fruitfulness.

The parable serves as a powerful metaphor for the different response's individuals have to the gospel, highlighting the importance of personal receptivity and spiritual understanding. For instance, the hard ground signifies those who are closed off to the teachings of the gospel, while the stony and thorny ground represent individuals who may initially receive the Word but are either unable to develop deep roots in their faith or are hindered by worldly concerns. On the other hand, the good ground serves as a representation of those who not only hear and understand the Word but also allow it to take root and produce a bountiful harvest in their lives. This vivid imagery provides a compelling insight into the diverse human responses to spiritual teachings and underscores the profound impact of the condition of the heart on the reception of the Word of God.

This parable serves as a foundational teaching within Christian communities, illustrating the transformative power of the gospel message and the significance of personal spiritual growth. It challenges individuals to examine the condition of their hearts and encourages them to cultivate a receptive and fertile spiritual disposition, allowing the Word of God to deeply impact and shape their lives. The imagery of the seeds falling on different types of ground paints a vivid picture of the varying responses to the teachings of the gospel, offering valuable lessons on the transformative potential of the Word and the role of personal receptivity in spiritual growth and understanding.

The parable's emphasis on the transformative nature of salvation and the concept of bearing spiritual fruit provides a profound lesson for believers. It underscores the idea that genuine salvation is evidenced by a life that reflects the teachings of the gospel and manifests spiritual growth. It challenges individuals to examine the condition of their hearts and encourages them to cultivate a receptive and fertile spiritual disposition, allowing the Word of God to deeply impact and shape their lives. This concept emphasizes the importance of having a receptive heart to the teachings of God and the challenges of spreading the Word. The parable also teaches hope and promise for those who hear and understand the gospel, providing assurance that those who internalize and embrace the teachings of Jesus Christ will experience spiritual growth and bear fruit in their lives.

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash | Commercial use allowed

Different Interpretations of the Parable

The traditional interpretation of the Parable of the Sower, as found in the Bible, focuses on the symbolic representations of the different types of ground and their significance in understanding the response to the gospel. It stresses that salvation is more than just hearing the gospel; it is proven through a transformed life and the demonstration of fruitfulness. For example, the hard ground, stony ground, and thorny ground are depicted as representations of individuals who do not truly receive the Word, while the good ground symbolizes someone who not only hears and understands the Word but also allows it to bear fruit in their life. This interpretation underlines the transformative power of the Word and the condition of the heart as pivotal in determining the outcome of one's faith journey.

The Latter-day Saint (LDS) teachings place emphasis on personal agency, righteous living, and the role of temple ordinances in the context of salvation. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is considered central to all perspectives on salvation within the LDS faith, allowing for the forgiveness of sins and the potential for individuals to return to the presence of God. This emphasis influences the doctrinal teachings and practices within the LDS community, highlighting the importance of personal responsibility and the eternal significance of the Atonement. Moreover, Paul Gee's interpretation suggests that there might be a perspective within the Latter-day Saint community that hinders their ability to fully embrace the teachings of the Bible, thus affecting their understanding of salvation and other essential doctrines.

Jesus is speaking to the Mormon people in Matthew, chapter 13. Their eyes are open to what their false church leaders and prophets have to tell them, but are closed off to what God could teach them through the Bible. They refuse to learn from Christians. Instead, they share their message, and if we are not interested, they usually end the conversation. This is because their eyes are closed off to the things of God we would share with them. For this reason, they are unable to learn what the Bible actually teaches when it comes to salvation, the atonement, marriage, the afterlife, the trinity, and more. If only they would allow themselves to listen to what we have to say, then they could unlearn what is false and draw near to God. Unfortunately, there (sic) eyes are closed, lest they open them and see what we are saying is true. Not only this but their hearts are waxed gross. This means that worldly matters mean more to them than God. Most of these people act one way at church and live another way outside those walls. Therefore, there (sic) desires to learn the things of God are often nonexistent if a Christian comes to talk with them.

He continues, and cites Matthew 10:34-37, in favor of his interpretation and assertion:

As Jesus said, Mormon people ignore what Christians want to share with them “lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.” (Matthew 13:15) However, this is often too hard for Mormons to do. Denying what they have learned could lead to losing a friend, spouse, family member, and even their marriage in a divorce. They would lose their comfort in the Mormon system. Temple trips, Callings at church, church activities and more, would be no more. However, this is exactly what Jesus wants. For people to come into the true faith of Jesus no matter the cost if what He wants. Even if it causes division in the family, it is necessary for us to be saved. We should never deem what we have in life is more important than what God can do for us. Our comfort in different things does not help us in terms of being saved and going to heaven. Jesus taught that division within families is necessary for one to be converted and establish a relationship with Him.

This diverse range of interpretations demonstrates the impact of the parable on the teachings, doctrines, and faith of believers across different Christian communities, shaping their understanding of salvation, the kingdom of heaven, personal agency, and righteous living. The various interpretations of the Parable of the Sower significantly impact the understanding of salvation and its associated principles across different Christian denominations.

Influence on Christian Denominations

The influence of the Parable of the Sower extends to the beliefs and practices of different Christian denominations. For example, the traditional interpretation emphasizes the importance of the condition of the heart in receiving the Word and the subsequent demonstration of a changed life and fruitfulness as evidence of true salvation. This understanding shapes the teachings and practices of denominations that adhere to this interpretation, emphasizing the transformative power of the gospel and the Atonement of Jesus Christ in the lives of believers. The interpretation within the Latter-day Saint (LDS) teachings underscores the central role of personal agency, righteous living, and the significance of temple ordinances for salvation. The LDS perspective focuses on the Atonement of Jesus Christ as the pivotal factor that enables forgiveness of sins and provides the opportunity for individuals to return to God's presence. This emphasis influences the doctrinal teachings and practices within the LDS community, highlighting the importance of personal responsibility and the eternal significance of the Atonement. Moreover, alternative interpretations, such as that of Paul Gee, provide a different lens through which the Parable of the Sower is understood. Gee's interpretation suggests a unique viewpoint that contrasts with traditional and LDS teachings, contributing to a diverse landscape of beliefs and practices within Christian denominations. These various interpretations demonstrate the impact of the parable on the teachings, doctrines, and faith of believers across different Christian communities, shaping their understanding of salvation, the kingdom of heaven, personal agency, and righteous living.

Exploring the impact of interpretations of the parable on the teachings and practices of different Christian denominations provides valuable insights into the diverse theological perspectives within Christianity. It highlights the role of the parable in shaping the beliefs and practices of various Christian communities and underscores the profound influence of interpretations on the understanding of core doctrinal concepts such as salvation, the Atonement, and personal agency. This exploration sheds light on the diverse theological landscape within Christianity and the impact of interpretation on the beliefs and practices of believers across different denominations, contributing to a rich tapestry of faith and doctrinal understanding within the Christian tradition.

Examining the role of the Parable of the Sower in shaping the doctrine and faith of believers within various Christian communities offers valuable insights into the diverse theological perspectives within Christianity. It provides a deeper understanding of the impact of interpretation on the beliefs and practices of believers across different denominations, highlighting the profound influence of the parable on the understanding of core doctrinal concepts such as salvation, the Atonement, and personal agency. This exploration sheds light on the diverse theological landscape within Christianity and the impact of interpretation on the beliefs and practices of believers across different denominations, contributing to a rich tapestry of faith and doctrinal understanding within the Christian tradition. The various interpretations of the Parable of the Sower significantly impact the understanding of salvation and its associated principles across different Christian denominations.

Lessons and Messages

The Parable of the Sower holds significant teachings and messages that resonate with Christian believers across various denominations. One of the primary lessons conveyed in this parable is the importance of having a receptive heart to the teachings of God. The parable illustrates that individuals who possess hearts that are open and willing to receive the Word of God will bear fruit and lead fruitful lives, demonstrating the transformative power of a receptive heart. This concept emphasizes the idea that genuine spiritual growth and understanding stem from an open and willing heart to receive and apply divine teachings. Furthermore, the parable conveys hope and promise for those who hear and understand the gospel, providing assurance that those who internalize and embrace the teachings of Jesus Christ will experience spiritual growth and bear fruit in their lives. This message of hope is particularly impactful, as it instills a sense of purpose and optimism among believers, encouraging them to remain steadfast in their faith and dedication to understanding and living out the Word of God. The parable's emphasis on the transformative potential of the teachings of the gospel resonates deeply with the core of Christian faith and underscores the belief in the power of divine guidance and spiritual growth.

Relevance to Salvation

The Parable of the Sower holds significant relevance to the concept of salvation within Christian teachings. It emphasizes that salvation is not merely about hearing the gospel but is demonstrated through a transformed life and the fruition of spiritual fruit. This message is echoed in interpretations across various denominations, emphasizing the profound impact of the parable on the understanding of salvation. For example, in traditional Christian interpretations, the parable underscores the vital connection between the condition of the heart and salvation. The different types of soil symbolize the various responses to the Word of God, reflecting the readiness of individuals to receive salvation and allow it to take root in their lives. This interpretation aligns with the biblical teaching that genuine salvation results in spiritual transformation and a life characterized by the production of spiritual fruit. Moreover, in the Latter-day Saint (LDS) teachings, the concept of salvation is intricately tied to the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The LDS interpretation emphasizes personal agency, righteous living, and the significant role of temple ordinances in the process of salvation. It underscores the transformative power of the Atonement, which enables individuals to seek forgiveness for their sins and work towards returning to the presence of God. This perspective highlights the central role of the Atonement in enabling salvation and emphasizes the importance of aligning one's life with the teachings of Jesus Christ for spiritual growth and eventual exaltation. Thus, the various interpretations of the Parable of the Sower significantly impact the understanding of salvation and its associated principles across different Christian denominations.

Impact on Personal Beliefs

The Parable of the Sower holds a significant influence on personal beliefs within Christian communities. For instance, the parable's portrayal of the different types of soil symbolically represents the condition of the human heart when receiving the Word of God. This imagery prompts individuals to reflect on the receptiveness of their own hearts towards spiritual teachings and the impact it has on their belief system. It leads to a deep consideration of personal faith and understanding of salvation, as the parable highlights the importance of having a receptive heart to the teachings of God. This introspection often results in a diverse range of personal interpretations, which in turn, shapes the individual's approach to living a righteous life. Furthermore, the influence of the Parable of the Sower on personal beliefs is evident in the contemplation of one's spiritual growth and fruitfulness in their faith journey. The parable's emphasis on the condition of the ground and the subsequent fruit produced from the seeds sown encourages believers to assess their own spiritual development and the impact of their beliefs on their actions and character. This contemplation often leads to a reevaluation of personal practices and behaviors, as individuals seek to align their lives with the teachings of the parable, ultimately shaping their approach to living a righteous and fruitful life in accordance with their faith. In summary, the Parable of the Sower not only influences personal beliefs within Christian communities but also prompts individuals to reflect on their faith, spirituality, and moral conduct, resulting in a diverse range of personal interpretations that impact their approach to living a righteous life.

Challenges and Perseverance

The Parable of the Sower underscores the challenges that individuals face in receiving and spreading the teachings of God. The depiction of the different types of soil and their responses to the seed symbolizes the obstacles and adversity encountered when sharing the gospel. The parable illustrates the resilience required to continue sowing the seeds of faith, despite the varied responses from different hearts. This perseverance is a fundamental aspect of the Christian faith, as believers are called to persist in their efforts to share the Word of God, even when faced with resistance and indifference. For instance, the parable's portrayal of the seeds falling on thorny ground, where the cares of the world choke the growth of the seed, serves as a powerful reminder of the challenges and distractions that individuals encounter in their spiritual journey. It encourages believers to remain steadfast in their faith and commitment to God's teachings, even in the face of adversity. In this way, the parable imparts a message of hope and determination, urging individuals to persevere in their efforts to spread the Word of God, despite the obstacles they may encounter. Moreover, the parable's focus on perseverance also emphasizes the responsibility of believers to continue sowing the seeds of faith, regardless of the initial reception. It underscores the importance of unwavering dedication and the endurance required to nurture spiritual growth. By highlighting the challenges inherent in spreading the gospel, the parable inspires believers to remain resolute in their faith and evangelistic endeavors, demonstrating the enduring nature of the Christian message and the unwavering commitment required to share it effectively.

Historical Context

The historical context of the Parable of the Sower provides valuable insights into the agricultural practices and societal norms of biblical times. In this context, the audience would have been familiar with the process of sowing seeds and the significance of different types of soil. This familiarity would have allowed them to immediately understand the symbolism of the four types of ground mentioned in the parable. The historical context of agriculture in biblical times profoundly influenced the interpretation of the parable, highlighting the importance of the condition of the heart in receiving and responding to the Word of God.
Moreover, the parable's teachings have had a lasting impact on the historical development of Christian doctrines and teachings. The emphasis on the condition of the heart and the significance of producing fruit as a result of receiving the Word of God has been integral to the formation of Christian beliefs. This historical context has contributed to the understanding of salvation as more than just hearing the gospel, but as a transformational process that leads to a changed life and fruitfulness, as explained in the parable. The teachings of the Parable of the Sower have thus been foundational in shaping the theological framework of Christian faith and practice, resonating throughout history and continuing to influence Christian thought and interpretation.
Additionally, the historical context of the Parable of the Sower in biblical times is further exemplified by the agricultural practices of the ancient Near East. For instance, the method of sowing seeds by broadcasting them widely onto the soil was a common practice. This historical context can deepen our understanding of the parable's message, as it illustrates the indiscriminate spreading of the Word of God to people from all walks of life, irrespective of their readiness to receive it. This highlights the universal applicability of the parable's teachings and its relevance across diverse cultural and historical contexts, emphasizing the timeless nature of its message.

Comparing Interpretations

A detailed comparison of traditional, LDS, and other interpretations of the Parable of the Sower provides valuable insights into the diverse perspectives on this biblical passage. Traditional interpretations, as found in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, underscore the fundamental teaching that salvation is evidenced through a transformed life and fruitfulness, emphasizing the individual's responsibility in responding to the message of the kingdom of God. These interpretations highlight the significance of the condition of the heart in receiving God's Word and bearing fruit, shaping the beliefs and practices of Christian denominations that adhere to these traditional views.
In contrast, the Latter-day Saints (LDS) interpretation of the Parable of the Sower offers distinctive insights into the relationship between the parable and salvation. The emphasis on personal agency and the role it plays in spiritual growth and salvation distinguishes the LDS interpretation from traditional views. This unique perspective places greater emphasis on the individual's choices and actions in response to the gospel message, thereby influencing the understanding of personal agency and the process of salvation within the LDS faith.
Furthermore, alternative interpretations of the parable may focus on the challenges encountered in spreading the Word of God and the perseverance required in this endeavor. These interpretations may shed light on the significance of determination and steadfastness in the face of obstacles, offering valuable insights into the practical aspects of living out the teachings of Jesus Christ in the modern world. For example, some interpretations may draw attention to the role of missionary work and evangelism, emphasizing the need for resilience and unwavering commitment to sharing the gospel message despite various obstacles and rejections. Ultimately, the various interpretations of the Parable of the Sower significantly shape the beliefs and practices of their respective followers, impacting their understanding of the kingdom of heaven, personal agency, and righteous living in profound ways.
Moreover, the Parable of the Sower has also been subject to interpretations within scholarly and theological circles, leading to diverse perspectives on its meaning and implications. For instance, theologians and biblical scholars have explored the cultural and historical context of the parable to elucidate its relevance and application in contemporary Christian theology. This scholarly engagement with the parable has resulted in a rich tapestry of interpretations, offering nuanced insights into the multifaceted nature of its teachings and their implications for Christian faith and practice. These diverse scholarly interpretations contribute to the ongoing discourse surrounding the parable, enriching the understanding of its significance across different theological traditions and denominations.

Modern Application

The teachings of the Parable of the Sower continue to be applied in contemporary Christian communities and individual lives in various ways. For instance, in many Christian denominations, the parable's emphasis on the condition of the heart and its relevance in determining the reception of God's Word is still widely taught and applied. This is evident in sermons, Bible studies, and theological discussions that focus on the significance of having a receptive heart to the teachings of God. Congregations often use the parable to encourage spiritual growth and fruitfulness among their members, emphasizing the need for a genuine and deep-rooted understanding of the gospel to produce abundant spiritual fruit in their lives.
Furthermore, the parable's message is also relevant in addressing current challenges and spreading the gospel. For example, in today's fast-paced and secular world, Christians often encounter various distractions, temptations, and competing ideologies that can hinder their spiritual growth. The Parable of the Sower provides a timeless lesson about perseverance and determination in spreading the Word of God, reminding believers of the importance of staying rooted in their faith despite the challenges they face. This modern application is especially crucial in empowering individuals to navigate the complexities of contemporary society while remaining steadfast in their commitment to the teachings of Jesus Christ.
In addition to its application in individual and communal spiritual contexts, the Parable of the Sower also finds resonance in the realm of Christian missions and evangelism. The parable's teachings on sowing seeds and the different responses of the soil serve as a powerful metaphor for the challenges and opportunities encountered in missionary endeavors. Missionaries and evangelists often draw inspiration from the parable to underscore the significance of persevering in sharing the gospel, even in the face of resistance and apathy. The parable's message of hope and the transformative power of the Word of God continues to motivate and guide missionary efforts around the world, shaping the strategies and approaches employed in spreading the message of Jesus Christ to diverse cultures and communities.

Exploring Different Interpretations and Their Impact

The historical context and diverse interpretations of the Parable of the Sower have had a profound impact on Christian teachings and doctrines over the centuries. For instance, the traditional interpretation emphasizes the significance of having a receptive heart to the teachings of God and the importance of personal responsibility in responding to His Word. This has led to the development of Christian teachings that stress the transformative power of the Word of God and the role of the individual in fostering spiritual growth.
In contrast, the interpretation of the Parable of the Sower in the Latter-day Saint (LDS) tradition introduces unique perspectives on salvation and the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The LDS interpretation places emphasis on the transformative nature of the Atonement and the role of personal agency in the process of spiritual development. This has shaped the beliefs and practices of the LDS community, highlighting the significance of individual choices and actions in their journey towards salvation.
Furthermore, alternative interpretations of the parable, such as those that challenge traditional views, have sparked discussions and prompted re-evaluations of long-held beliefs within Christian denominations. These alternative perspectives often shed light on different aspects of the parable, encouraging believers to consider new angles and deeper meanings of the teachings. This has led to a more comprehensive understanding of the parable's message and its implications for personal faith and righteous living. For example, some alternative interpretations may focus on the socio-political dimensions of the parable, drawing parallels between the different types of soil and the societal conditions that either facilitate or hinder the reception of the gospel message. This broader exploration of the parable's implications has contributed to a more holistic understanding of its relevance in addressing contemporary social and ethical challenges.
Moreover, the impact of different interpretations of the Parable of the Sower extends beyond doctrinal considerations and theological discourse. The diverse perspectives on the parable have influenced the approach to pastoral care and spiritual counseling within Christian communities. For instance, the emphasis on the condition of the heart in traditional interpretations has informed the pastoral strategies employed to nurture and guide individuals in their spiritual journey. This includes providing support and guidance to cultivate receptive hearts and encourage spiritual fruitfulness among believers. Similarly, the emphasis on personal agency in alternative interpretations has influenced pastoral approaches that empower individuals to take an active role in their spiritual growth and decision-making, fostering a sense of ownership and responsibility in their faith journey.
In addition to its impact on theological discourse and pastoral care, the Parable of the Sower has also inspired artistic and creative expressions within the Christian tradition. This biblical passage has been the subject of numerous artistic interpretations, including paintings, sculptures, music, and literature. These artistic expressions often seek to capture the essence of the parable's message and its profound teachings through visual and auditory mediums. For example, renowned artists throughout history have depicted scenes from the Parable of the Sower, each offering a unique portrayal that reflects their interpretation of the parable's themes and symbolism. These artistic renditions serve to enrich the understanding of the parable's significance and its enduring impact on the creative imagination of artists across different cultures and time periods.
In conclusion, the historical context and diverse interpretations of the Parable of the Sower have contributed to its enduring relevance and profound impact on Christian teachings, beliefs, and practices. The parable's timeless message continues to inspire and guide individuals and communities in their spiritual journey, offering valuable insights into the transformative power of the Word of God and the significance of the condition of the heart in receiving and bearing fruit. As diverse interpretations continue to shape the theological landscape and cultural expressions within Christianity, the Parable of the Sower remains a poignant reminder of the universal call to cultivate receptive hearts and sow the seeds of God's Word in the world.

Timothy R. Berman

Timothy Berman is a Christian living a mindful crucified life who is passionate about unleashing divine insights and delving deep into spiritual musings. With a heart to nourish others, he writes soul-stirring devotionals for spiritual growth, empowerment, and encouragement. Timothy's writing is characterized by his ability to bring the reader into a deeper understanding of their faith and relationship with God.

Monday, November 20, 2023

Exploring the Trinity: Understanding the LDS Perspective and Alternative Models

Understanding the Trinity

The concept of the Trinity is a fundamental belief in mainstream Christian theology, stating that God is one being existing in three distinct persons: God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. This concept finds its roots in the early centuries of Christianity and was solidified in the Nicene Creed, a foundational document that affirmed the doctrine of the Trinity. The unity and relationship between God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are emphasized, highlighting their oneness in essence and purpose.

To further understand the nature of the Trinity, let's consider an analogy. Just as the three primary colors, red, blue, and yellow, combine to form a wide spectrum of colors, the three persons of the Trinity come together to reveal the fullness of God's nature. Each person of the Trinity is distinct in their role and function, yet they are inseparable and exist in perfect unity.

Throughout history, theologians and scholars have grappled with the mystery of the Trinity. While it may be challenging to fully comprehend, the belief in the Trinity serves to affirm the nature of God as both transcendent and immanent, existing beyond human understanding yet intimately involved in the world. It underscores the complexity and depth of God's being, inviting believers to explore the richness of the divine nature.

LDS Beliefs and the Trinity

In contrast to mainstream Christianity, the LDS faith rejects the traditional concept of the Trinity. Instead, they believe in the Godhead, which comprises separate and distinct individuals: God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. While the LDS perspective acknowledges the unity and purpose of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, it differs from the traditional understanding of the Trinity. Interestingly, some Mormon authorities have used the term "Trinity" to describe their belief, even though it deviates from the traditional understanding.

To gain a deeper understanding of the LDS perspective on the nature of God, let's consider an example. In the LDS Church, the Father is seen as the literal father of Jesus Christ and all humanity. This belief is based on the teachings of Joseph Smith, who claimed to have received revelations clarifying the nature of God and the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. These revelations form the basis for the distinct LDS perspective on the Godhead.

In Mormon theology, Jesus Christ is considered the firstborn spirit son of God and the Savior of the world. He is seen as the divine mediator between God the Father and humanity. The Holy Ghost, on the other hand, is viewed as a separate personage who serves as a guide and comforter to individuals.

Jesus and God the Father in LDS Theology

LDS theology holds the belief that Jesus is God the Father manifested in the flesh, reflecting the divine nature of Jesus. This understanding emphasizes the embodiment of deity and the physical nature of Jesus Christ. Although this belief may seem contradictory to the denial of God as an exalted man in LDS theology, it highlights the complexity and unique perspectives within LDS teachings. It's important to note that LDS teachings emphasize the physical separation between Jesus Christ and God the Father, affirming their distinct personhood.

To illustrate this belief, Mormons often refer to the biblical account of the baptism of Jesus. According to the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus was baptized, a voice from heaven declared, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased". Mormons interpret this event as a manifestation of God the Father and Jesus Christ as separate beings. This belief underscores the distinct personhood of Jesus and God the Father in LDS theology.

The physical embodiment of Jesus in LDS theology is seen as a manifestation of God's love and desire to relate to humanity in a tangible way. It is believed that Jesus experienced mortality to atone for the sins of humanity and provide a way for individuals to return to God. This understanding of Jesus as God in the flesh highlights the unique perspective of the LDS faith.

Scriptural Basis for LDS Beliefs

The LDS faith draws upon various scriptural sources to support their beliefs about the nature of God and the Trinity. The Book of Mormon, a sacred text in Mormonism, is considered by believers to be an additional testament of Jesus Christ.It contains numerous passages that emphasize the separate personages of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

For example, in the Book of Mormon, there is a verse that states, "And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen" (2 Nephi 31:21). This verse highlights the belief in the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as one God, while also emphasizing their separate personhood.

Furthermore, the Book of Mormon provides additional evidence against the idea that Christ and the Father are a single individual expressing himself in different modes. It clearly describes Jesus Christ and the Father as separate individuals, affirming their distinct personhood.

In addition to the Book of Mormon, other LDS scriptures, such as the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, also provide teachings and insights into the nature of God and the Trinity according to the LDS perspective. These scriptures are considered by members of the LDS faith to be additional sources of divine revelation.

Early Mormon Beliefs and the Trinity

The beliefs of the early Mormons regarding the nature of God and the concept of the Trinity diverged from mainstream Christian teachings. In the early days of the LDS Church, Joseph Smith received revelations that challenged the traditional understanding of the Trinity and introduced new perspectives on the nature of God.

Early Mormon leaders and members believed in an embodied God, which was a departure from the prevailing view of God as a purely spiritual being. They viewed God as a physical being with a glorified, perfected body. This belief in an embodied God is rooted in the teachings and revelations of Joseph Smith.

Moreover, the LDS Church also taught the doctrine of deification, which holds that humans can become like God. This concept, often referred to as "theosis" or "divinization," was also taught in early Christianity but later diminished in prominence. The LDS belief in deification reflects similarities to early Christian teachings and highlights the distinct perspectives of the LDS faith.

It is crucial to note that early Mormon beliefs and teachings about the nature of God and the Trinity developed gradually over time. The understanding of these doctrines evolved as Joseph Smith received additional revelations and the LDS Church continued to grow and expand. The early Mormon beliefs laid the foundation for the unique perspectives on the Godhead that are central to the LDS faith today.

Alternative Models of the Trinity

The concept of the Trinity has been the subject of ongoing theological discourse and exploration. In addition to the traditional understanding of the Trinity, contemporary Christian theologians have been exploring alternative models that seek to deepen our understanding of the divine nature.

One such alternative model is the "social model of the Trinity." This model emphasizes the interconnectedness and mutual indwelling of the divine persons. It sees the Trinity as a community of love, where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist in a relationship of perfect unity and harmony.This perspective highlights the relational aspect of the Trinity and its implications for human relationships and society.

The social model of the Trinity aligns with some aspects of the LDS perspective on the Godhead. Both emphasize the unity and purpose of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, albeit in different ways. Some theologians, including LDS theologians, have found common ground with social trinitarianism, seeing it as a framework that complements their understanding of the Godhead.

While alternative models of the Trinity provide valuable insights and perspectives, it is important to recognize that they are still in the realm of theological exploration. The nature of the Trinity remains a mystery that goes beyond human comprehension. As Christians, it is essential to approach the concept of the Trinity with humility and reverence, recognizing that our understanding is limited and that there is room for diverse theological perspectives.

Coherence of LDS Beliefs

The coherence of LDS beliefs about the nature of God and the Trinity is a topic of discussion and debate. Critics often question the consistency and compatibility of LDS teachings with early Christian theology and philosophical frameworks.

One area of examination is the coherence between the teachings of Joseph Smith and the views of early Christian theologians, such as Augustine. Augustine held the belief that matter is inherently evil, while Joseph Smith taught that matter is eternal and can be divinized. Some argue that there is a tension between these perspectives, while others find coherence in the understanding that both Augustine and Joseph Smith were working within their respective cultural and theological contexts.

Moreover, the LDS belief in an embodied God has raised questions about the relationship between the physical and spiritual aspects of divinity. Critics argue that the LDS perspective contradicts the traditional understanding of God as a purely spiritual being. However, LDS theology asserts that God is both physical and spiritual, existing in a glorified, perfected state. This perspective emphasizes the importance of the physical realm and the embodiment of divine attributes.

As with any religious belief system, the coherence of LDS beliefs ultimately rests on individual interpretation and personal faith. The LDS faith provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the nature of God and the Trinity, which is consistent with the teachings and revelations received by Joseph Smith.

Similarities and Differences with Mainstream Christian Beliefs

While the LDS perspective on the Trinity differs from mainstream Christian beliefs, there are also significant similarities. Both share a belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as divine beings. However, the understanding of the Trinity and the nature of God diverge in important ways.

Mainstream Christian beliefs on the Trinity affirm the oneness of God in three persons. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are viewed as distinct, yet inseparable. The traditional understanding emphasizes the unity and simplicity of God, while acknowledging the mysterious nature of the Trinity.

In contrast, the LDS faith rejects the traditional concept of the Trinity and believes in the Godhead, comprising separate and distinct individuals. The LDS perspective views the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as separate beings with different roles and functions. This unique understanding of the Godhead sets the LDS faith apart from mainstream Christianity.

Despite these differences, it is important to recognize that the concept of the Trinity is a complex theological concept that has been the subject of ongoing discussion and debate within Christianity. The nature of God is a profound mystery that transcends human understanding. Christians of different traditions approach this mystery with humility and reverence, recognizing that diverse theological perspectives can contribute to a richer understanding of God's nature.

Contemporary Perspectives on the Trinity

Contemporary discussions and debates surrounding the nature of the Trinity continue to shape theological discourse. The exploration of alternative models and interpretations reflects the ongoing quest for a deeper understanding of the divine nature.

One notable alternative model is the social model of the Trinity. This perspective emphasizes the relational aspect of the Trinity, highlighting the interconnectedness and mutual indwelling of the divine persons. It sees the Trinity as a community of love and underscores the implications of this relationality for human relationships and society.

The social model of the Trinity has gained traction among some theologians and offers a fresh perspective on the divine nature. It integrates Christology, soteriology, and the concept of God, providing a practical foundation for Christian living. By emphasizing the communal nature of God, the social model of the Trinity invites believers to reflect the divine love and unity in their own relationships and interactions.

While the social model of the Trinity has its merits, it is just one of many contemporary perspectives being explored. The ongoing theological discourse surrounding the Trinity reflects the profound mystery and depth of the divine nature. It offers an opportunity for theologians and believers to engage in thoughtful dialogue, fostering greater understanding and appreciation for diverse theological perspectives.

Conclusion

In conclusion, understanding the nature of the Trinity and the LDS perspective requires careful exploration and consideration of theological beliefs and scriptural sources. While mainstream Christianity upholds the traditional concept of the Trinity, the LDS faith offers a unique perspective through the belief in the Godhead comprising separate and distinct individuals.

The LDS perspective on Jesus and God the Father highlights the belief in Jesus as God the Father manifested in the flesh, while affirming their physical separation. This understanding reflects the embodiment of deity and the distinct personhood of Jesus and God the Father in LDS theology.

Scriptural evidence from the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures supports the LDS perspective on the nature of God and the Trinity. These scriptures emphasize the unity and purpose of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, while highlighting their separate personages.

Early Mormon beliefs diverged from mainstream Christian teachings on the nature of God and the Trinity. They embraced the belief in an embodied God and the doctrine of deification, which reflects similarities to early Christian teachings.

Contemporary discussions on the Trinity explore alternative models, such as the social model of the Trinity. These perspectives provide valuable insights into the interconnectedness and relationality of the divine persons, fostering a deeper understanding of God's nature.

As Christians, it is important to approach the concept of the Trinity with humility and reverence, recognizing that our understanding is limited. The diversity of theological perspectives enriches our understanding of the divine mystery and encourages interfaith dialogue and mutual respect.

References:

Timothy R. Berman

Sunday, July 19, 2020

An LDS Perspective on Why God's Identification as Male is the Key to Understanding Life's Meaning

This article is in response to an article regarding the nature of God, the question of masculinity and femininity, and specific gender roles as established within the context of the Bible. A careful and thoughtful review of the article has required an adequate response to some assertions that may be misleading, irrelevant, and potentially harmful concerning such ideology and perceptive interpretation of scripture.

Introduction

The first part of this article will provide the context and foundation of the assertion being made, the question that is being addressed and answered, and whether or not the writer has given due diligence in providing an accurate, scriptural response and answer to the question postulated. The second part of this article will briefly introduce some of the main assertions that are cause for questioning and examination and how they falter in meeting true scriptural teaching on the nature of God, masculinity, femininity, and gender roles. The third part of this article will explore a more in-depth analysis of the presenting issues derived from the main points of the article itself and how a more appropriate answer is given to the misinformation of the article under review.

The presenting dilemma and postulation of God, masculinity, femininity, and gender roles

What if I were to tell you that God’s Identification as male in the Bible is not because of the “misogynist” and “patriarchal” times the Bible was written in nor is it a mystery we must just accept. What if I were to tell you that understanding why God identifies as male can actually answer the greatest question any man or woman could ask and that is “Why am I here?”

This premise appears to be based on the following perception of the writer:

Is the only reason God is identified in the Bible by masculine titles such as Father, Husband, Son and King and not also as Mother, Wife, Daughter and Queen because of the “misogynist” and “patriarchal” times the Bible was written in? Many non-Christians and sadly even professing Christians today would have us belief this.
On the other hand, we have Bible believing conservative Christians who tell us that “Everything created in woman that sets her off from man comes from God and reflects something of him… God is not male and God is not female… And yet God’s self-chosen titles matter”. So, these Bible believing Christians are basically saying God is not masculine or feminine and they don’t understand why he chooses masculine titles or even why he established male headship, just that he did and we must accept it. It is a mystery to them as to why God consistently reveals himself in the masculine sense.

And the reason the writer has chosen to focus on this issue is due to a reported email from one of his readers asking about some of the passages of scripture where people seemed to have identified a dyadic nature with God (meaning, dual qualities of being both male and female). He further reports that the concern centers on the split ... attributes of his [God's] nature into male and female human beings so only together do man and woman represent the nature of God. He reports that his research into the subject matter led him to an article by Tony Reinke at DesiringGod.org titled Our Mother Who Art in Heaven. The writer acknowledges that Reinke's article is a review of the movie "The Shack" that came out in 2017. A movie that is also based on the book with the same title.

Now, prior to mentioning of the article, the writer states that they will:

While writing a response to her concerns I decided to look into a few other conservative Christian sites to see their response to this issue in comparison to my own.

After responding to, what he refers to as biblical errors, Reinke's review, the writer turns to John Piper's article titled - Creation, Culture, and Corinthian Prophetesses. The writer appears to dismantle Pipers understanding of 1 Corinthians Chapter 11. In his refutation of Piper's understanding, the writer makes this assertion:

Is there anything in this passage that states “Man is God’s glory in that he came from God through Christ without coming through woman”? Absolutely not. These verses do not just “imply” that “she is not the image and glory of God”, they EXPLICILTY state it!
This is why I always chuckle when people act like John Piper is this big traditional gender roles guy. He is NOT. Yes, he teaches male headship, but like most complementarians today he does not teach the REASON for male headship.
God did not just flip a coin and put men in charge of women. He put men in charge of women because the male human being “is the image and glory of God”. And because Piper and most Christian teachers refuse to acknowledge this truth that is staring them in the face – they cannot fully understand the purpose in why God placed men over women.

What is complementarianism? The website gotquestions.org has this answer (and may be the best answer to the question):

Complementarianism is the teaching that masculinity and femininity are ordained by God and that men and women are created to complement, or complete, each other. Complementarians believe that the gender roles found in the Bible are purposeful and meaningful distinctions that, when applied in the home and church, promote the spiritual health of both men and women. Embracing the divinely ordained roles of men and women furthers the ministry of God’s people and allows men and women to reach their God-given potential.

This is opposite of the doctrinal position of egalitarianism, where the idea is that there are no specific gender roles within the body of Christ. From the Latter-day Saint (Mormon) perspective of the Restored Gospel, there is a sense of a complementary component through the ordination of priesthood authority given to worthy men and women being subordinate to the proper and healthy authority of a righteous and worthy priesthood holder within the home.

The writer concludes with this thought (in response to Reinke's quote of Piper):

This is FALSE. There is not one scripture passage that says everything that sets a woman apart from man reflects something of God's nature. In fact, in 1 Corinthians 11:9 we are told this truth: Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." That means that everything that "sets her off from man" was created in her FOR MAN, not to further reveal the nature of God.

The writer is calling the attention to the assertion of this statement (from Reinke's article):

Everything created in woman that sets her off from man comes from God and reflects something of him.

The writer makes this additional response to Piper's statement of - Women was not modeled after some other god. There is no other god. She was modeled after God.

This is what is called a strawman argument. Who said woman was modeled after some other god? The false argument Piper is pushing is woman must be modeled after a god, and therefore since we know there is only one God then woman must be equally modeled after God in the same way man is. The fact is that woman is NOT modeled after God or man while she does share common attributes with man whom she was taken from and therefore God as well because man was made in the image of God.

The writer, further, postulates the idea that the Bible never states that woman is the image of God, nor does it state she is the image of man. She shares a common human nature with man, but she is not his image as her nature is still very different. He justifies his statement with this:

Woman was given her core human traits like self-awareness, creativity, the ability to feel emotions, the ability to appreciate beauty and the ability to learn to make her a "help meet" (Genesis 2:18) for man. Man was given these same core human traits and then addition traits of increased strength, competitiveness, aggressiveness and many other traits we understand as masculine for a different purpose.

He contrasts the nature of woman to that of man by saying this:

Man was given his masculine human nature to image God and thereby bring him glory. Woman was given her feminine nature not to be God's image bearer, but instead to be a HELP to his image bearer. This is the truth of the Word of God.

The reader continues to push the issue that MAN alone is the image bearer of God and woman is not made in the image and likeness of God. His conclusion asserts that because MAN is the sole proprietor of God's image, then we are able to conclude that God is masculine. He also makes the conclusion (based on John 4:24) that all Evangelical's make, and that God is spirit with no ontological or anthropomorphic nature. He further concludes with this:

We are told that if we embrace the truth of God's Word that woman was not made in God's image then we are saying women are less human than men, and less valuable to God. This is false. God loves men and women equally and men and women are equally saved by Christ and can both become part of the body of Christ as the scripture tells us.

He continues with another point on the nature of marriage being only for this time and time alone (which the Bible itself is actually silent on and the only scripture reference Evangelical's use to prove that marriage is for this time is Christ's response to the religious leader's question of the woman who died after marrying seven men). The writer also makes a soft polemic against transgenderism in his concluding remarks.
It is not until we get to the final paragraph of the article that he revisits the question of Why am I here? By claiming to have answered the question:

And what I have just described answers the most important question that we as human beings can ever ask and that is Why am I here? If we not only accept that God identifies as male but accept why he identifies as male then we as men and woman, can know the meaning of life. But if we do as so much of the world today does and reject that fact that God identifies as male and why he identifies a male then we reject our very purpose for being here.

To which one may ask, scratching their head to make sense of this last paragraph, in what way have you actually answered the question? Sadly, the article never fully addressed the question, and provided a scriptural perspective regarding the nature of God and why the scriptures refer to God in the masculine, while also making reference to a feminine connotation.

Briefly addressing the main observations and false teachings

The second observation we will discuss is the heart of a heretical teaching that has perpetuated within the theological landscape of modern Christendom - namely a heretical doctrine and teaching on the idea of God's incomprehensible and ontological nature. This begins with understanding the proper interpretation of John 4:24 and how the Bible (both Old and New Testament's) speak to an anthropomorphic construct of God's nature.

The third main observation is the linguistic dynamics of how the masculinity and femininity represent God's nature, man's nature, and specific gender roles of man and woman. This is important to understand because all languages have 2 or more gender fluid attributes. This is true within the Biblical context in how one comes to understand the nature of God in relation to the nature of man and woman and their specific gender roles.

For the fourth main observation has to do with a more symbolic understanding of certain scripture passages that do not appear to be linguistically feminine and more prone to reveal a hidden truth that appeared to have been suppressed by modern Christian teachings. This pertains to the nature of the final aspect of our observation concerning marriage.

A fifth, and final, observation is the nature of marriage from a Biblical construct and understanding. While the Bible itself appears to silent on the actual doctrine of marriage, there are some scant verses that bring to light the purpose and relationship between man and woman, their gender roles, and the importance of marriage.

This article will conclude with the appropriate answer concerning the question - Why am I here? and how this question never received the appropriate and honest treatment Biblical Gender Roles attempted to answer.

The Nature of God, Creation of Humanity, and Gender Roles defined

Single tree space background

We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
~ First Article of Faith ~

... all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator
.~ Alma 30:44 ~

The Existence of God

The foundation of Judeo-Christian belief constitutes the knowledge of the attributes and character of a Divine, Sovereign, and Supreme Being. This is central to an intelligent exercise in faith.

James E. Talmage remarked, "There is a filial passion within human nature that flames toward heaven." (Articles of Faith - Chapter 2). Talmage also observes that humanity has a natural propensity toward worshiping:

...his soul is unsatisfied until he finds a deity. When men through transgression fell into darkness concerning the true and living God, they established for themselves other deities, and so arose the abominations of idolatry. And yet, even the most revolting of these practices testify to the existence of a God by demonstrating man's hereditary passion for worship.

Talmage refers to this as an inborn attribute of mankind that needs demonstration of proof or a question of reasonable logic. The existence of God is proven as evidenced by history and tradition, human reason and intellect, and conclusive evidence through direct revelation (whether ancient or modern).

In Hyrum L. Andrus works - God, Man and the Universe - he remarks on the following observation: "The Father is the ultimate source of all attributes and powers of life, and He is the Supreme Intelligence over all other beings known to man."

Vayera-Vision-or-Visit

The Supreme, Sovereign, and Divine Council

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have long held the belief that the Godhead is comprised of three separate and distinct personages. The Father and Son possess resurrected, glorified bodies of flesh and bone. The Holy Spirit is a personage of spirit.

Through Jesus Christ, the only begotten of God in the flesh, we worship the Father as the absolute sovereign and supreme being. We accept Jesus Christ as not only the Savior and redeemer of fallen humanity, but we also recognize him as mediator and the only means by which salvation is given. It is through the power and gift of the Holy Spirit are we able to find comfort, guidance, inspiration, and personal revelation.

The doctrine of a divine council is nothing new. It is a restored revelation based on ancient origins and theophanies recorded throughout ancient cultures of the Hebraic, Sumerian, and Canaanite peoples. Much scholarly work continues to enlighten us on the nature of this divine and supreme council.

Fatherhood of God

When Mary came to the Tomb, she found it to be empty. Afraid, she turned and spoke to whom she thought was the gardener. Instead, the Savior revealed himself to her. Naturally, she wanted to reach out and touch him. The Savior forbade this, saying: "Touch me not: for I am not yet ascended to my father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God and your God. (See John 20:17, KJV).

This is the only place in scripture where we read how Christ referred to God as not only His father, but the father of the disciples who followed him. What did he mean by my father and your father, and my God and your God?

Through modern revelation, we are taught:

“Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 335).

Joseph Fielding Smith also taught:

God is our Father; he is the being in whose image man is created. He has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s (D&C 130:22), and he is the literal and personal father of the spirits of all men. He is omnipotent and omniscient; he has all power and all wisdom; and his perfections consist in the possession of all knowledge, all faith or power, all justice, all judgment, all mercy, all truth, and the fullness of all godly attributes. … If we are to have that perfect faith by which we can lay hold upon eternal life, we must believe in God as the possessor of the fullness of all these characteristics and attributes. I say also that he is an infinite and eternal being, and as an unchangeable being, he possesses these perfected powers and attributes from everlasting to everlasting, which means from eternity to eternity (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Fielding Smith (2013), 35–47)

Through these teachings, we see God as a loving Father who cares for our needs and blesses us accordingly. This is quite important for us to understand.

Importance of Knowing God

We are only able to know who God is through His Son, Jesus Christ. In John 17, Christ offers up a priestly prayer. In this prayer, Christ proclaims that our eternal life is based on knowing whom God is and Knowing Jesus Christ (see, John 17:3). In Moses 1:39, we understand that God's purpose is to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life" of humanity.

This requires our obedience to the commandments God has established. Through our obedience, we come into perfect harmony with Jesus Christ, who is in perfect harmony with the Father. In our reverential awe toward the supreme sovereignty of God, we see Him as merciful, kind, compassionate, and forgiving. We walk with him as our ancient fathers have walked with God. This comes out of our love toward God, and His love toward us.

What do we know about God?

He is supreme, sovereign, full of wisdom, power, and glory
He is a distinct being who is glorified and exalted, omniscient and omnipotent
He is our Eternal Father who desires us to believe on Jesus Christ for salvation and eternal life
He provides comfort and direction through the gift and power of the Holy Spirit.

Creation of Humanity

The first passage we want to address is that of Genesis 1:26-27. I also want to include the passage of Genesis 2:7, 18-24. There is a difference between Genesis 1:26-27 and Genesis 2:7, 18-24. This is because the accounts seem to be from two different sources.
According to the Jewish Study Bible, the following comments are observed regarding Genesis 1:26-27:

The plural construction (Let Us...) most likely reflects a setting in the divine council (cf. 1 Kings 22:19-22; Isa. 6; Job chs 1-2): God the King announces the proposed course of action to His cabinet of subordinate deities, though He alone retains the power of decision. The midrash manifests considerable uneasiness with God's proposal to create something so capable of evil as human beings are. Playing on Ps. 1:6, one midrash reports that God told his ministering angels only of "the way of the righteous" and hid them "the way of the wicked" (Gen. Rab. 8:4). Another one reports that while the angels were debating the proposal among themselves, God took the matter in hand. "Why are you debating?" He asked them. "Man has already been created!" (Gen. Rab. 8:5).

The commentary continues with this observation:

...humankind has a different origin and a different character. In the ancient Near East, the king was often said to be the "image" of the god and thus to act with divine authority. So here, the creation of humanity in God's image and likeness carries with it a commission to rule over the animal kingdom (1.26b, 28b; cf. PS. 8:4-9).

The Jewish commentary of Genesis 1:26-27 appears to show that God created both, male and female, after his own image and likeness. This is something that we find disagreeable with the article at Biblical Gender Roles. However, let us continue the consideration of what aspect image and likeness humanity was created after.

In an extant, and modern discovery of one of the missing texts of the Old Testament, we have a more condensed version of the Genesis account. Taken from R. H. Charles interpretation of the Ethiopic language of Ge'ez, the Book of Jubiless has this to say: And after all this He created MAN, a man and a woman created He them. This passage does not specify image and likeness as that of Genesis 1:26. However, it does reflect that man and woman were created in a collective sense.

It is not until we get to Jubilees 3 that we gain some interesting insights on the nature of man and woman's creation:

And the Lord said unto us: "It is not good that the man should be alone: let us make a helpmeet for him:" And the Lord our God caused a deep sleep to fall upon him, and he slept, and He took for the woman one rib from amongst his ribs, and this rib was the origin of woman from amongst his ribs, and he built up the flesh in its stead, and built the woman. And He awaked Adam out of his sleep and on awaking he rose on the sixth day, and He brought her to him, and he knew her, and said unto her: "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; and she will be called my wife [Hebrew ishah] because she was taken from her husband [Hebrew: ish]

Modern Christians may excuse the nature of the Book of Jubilees as not being part of the canonicity of scripture, however, it was well known among first century Christians and very well may have been part of some ancient canon of scripture. It became lost and was only discovered when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered.

Regardless of one's view on the Book of Jubiless, it does provide some insight that the Book of Genesis does not provide. Namely that it refers to a marriage ceremony by God himself between man and woman. It also provides insight in that woman was created in the same manner as Adam was from the dust of the ground. With one exception, God took a rib from Adam and created woman around that rib.

The creation of man and woman is solely not a Biblical account. Prior to the creation (as rendered in Genesis 1:26-27 and Genesis 2:4-25), we have a more ancient Sumarian creation story that describes the God Enki and the Goddess Ninhursag-ki dwelt in paradise:

‘Enki and Ninhursag’ is perhaps one of the most difficult Mesopotamian myth for Judeo-Christian Westerners to understand, because it stands as the opposite of the myth of Adam and Eve in Paradise found in the Old Testament Bible. Indeed, ‘ the literature created by the Sumerians left its deep imprint on the Hebrews, and one of the thrilling aspects of reconstructing and translating Sumerian belles-lettres consists in tracing resemblances and parallels between Sumerian and Biblical motifs. To be sure, Sumerians could not have influenced the Hebrews directly, for they had ceased to exist long before the Hebrew people came into existence. But there is little doubt that the Sumerians deeply influenced the Canaanites, who preceded the Hebrews in the land later known as Palestine’ (Kramer, 1981:142). Some comparisons with the Bible paradise story: 1) the idea of a divine paradise, the garden of gods, is of Sumerian origin, and it was Dilmun, the land of immortals situated in southwestern Persia. It is the same Dilmun that, later, the Babylonians, the Semitic people who conquered the Sumerians, located their home of the immortals. There is a good indication that the Biblical paradise, which is described as a garden planted eastward in Eden, from whose waters flow the four world rivers including the Tigris and the Euphrates, may have been originally identical with Dilmun; 2) the watering of Dilmun by Enki and the Sun god Utu with fresh water brought up from the earth is suggestive of the Biblical ‘ But there went up a mist from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground’ (Genesis 2:6); 3) the birth of goddesses without pain or travail illuminates the background of the curse against Eve that it shall be her lot to conceive and bear children in sorrow; 4) Enki’s greed to eat the eight sacred plants which gave birth to the Vegetal World resonates the eating of the Forbidden Fruit by Adam and Eve, and 6) most remarkably, this myth provides na explanation for one of the most puzzling motifs in the Biblical paradise story - the famous passage describing the fashioning of Eve, the mother of all living, from the rib of Adam. Why a rib instead of another organ to fashion the woman whose name Eve means according to the Bible, ‘she who makes live’? If we look at the Sumerian myth, we see that when Enki gets ill, cursed by Ninhursag, one of his body parts that start dying is the rib. The Sumerian word for rib is ‘ti’ . To heal each o Enki’s dying body parts, Ninhursag gives birth to eight goddesses. The goddess created for the healing of Enki’s rib is called ‘Nin-ti’, ‘the lady of the rib’. But the Sumerian word ‘ti’ also means ‘to make live’. The name ‘Nin-ti’ may therefore mean ‘the lady who makes live’ as well as ‘the lady of the rib’. Thus, a very ancient literary pun was carried over and perpetuated in the Bible, but without its original meaning, because the Hebrew word for ‘rib’ and that for ‘who makes live’ have nothing in common. Moreover, it is Ninhursag who gives her life essence to heal Enki, who is then reborn from her (Kramer, 1981:143-144).

There is scholarship regarding the commonalities and parallels between the Ancient Near Eastern creation stories and that contained with the Bible. All of these creation stories have variant understandings. Despite the variants of the stories, the point is that all creation stories match up with the understanding that God (or Gods) created man from the dust of the ground in His image and likeness, and then realized Man is not meant to be alone and therefore fashioned woman from man and in the image and likeness.

The question is, what do we mean by image and likeness? The Bible Study Tools has an excellent article that presents varying degrees of thought concerning the understanding of Image and Likeness regarding man's creation. None of which substantiates the Biblical Gender Roles main assumption concerning the creation of woman.

In another lost book - the Book of Jasher, we read the same type of account that we find in Genesis 2:4-25, with some slight variations within the text.

And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and God created man in his own image. And God formed man from the ground, and blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul endowed with speech. And the Lord said, it is not good for man to be alone; I will make unto him a helpmeet. And the Lord caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept, and he took away one of his ribs, and he built flesh upon it, and formed it and brought it to Adam, and Adam awoke from his sleep, and behold a woman was standing before him. And he said, This is bone of my bones and it shall be called woman, for this has been taken from man; and Adam called her name Eve, for she was the mother of all living. And God blessed them and call their names Adam and Eve in the day that he created them.

Again, while the text of Genesis 1:26-27, Genesis 2:4 - 25, and the book of Jubilees and Jasher share the same understanding, both conclude that God created both man and woman. The Hebrew for create is Bara and it means to create, shape, form. This is consistent in reviewing the different variants of the Creation accounts and how men and women were created. In addition, we understand that humanity was fashioned after the image and likeness of God. This is direct correlation to God's physical, spiritual, and characteristic attributes.

Not only were men and women fashioned after God's own divine likeness and image. They were brought together under the divine marriage of God (which we will explore in the other main point). Suffice it to say, the Bible does clarify that man and woman were created after God's divine image and likeness.

This brings us to the next point of observation within the article at Biblical Gender Roles. Namely, the understanding of God's ontological nature as revealed in scripture.

However, it will be remiss if we did not move forward into the New Testament to Paul's epistle to the Colossae Church. In there, Paul describes the nature of Creation as being completed by Christ himself. We know Christ existed with the Father as the Gospel of John mentions the term Logos and how this Logos became flesh (cf, John Chapter 1). In that passage, it complements the doctrinal truth that Christ (Logos) made all things through the Power and authority of God the Father.

The Apostle Paul writes:

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell...(Colossians 1:15-19).

While there is much pertaining to our next observation, what we learn in this passage (and that of the Gospel of Joh) is this:

1) Christ pre-existed and was with the Father before the Creation of the Earth and the creation of Humanity.

And,

2) Christ is the active person that has created all things - under the direction and will of the Father.

In fact, what we will see in our next point is that Christ will hand over all that he has to the Father. The most significant point is the use of image of the invisible God. We know that Paul encountered the resurrected Christ. We also know that upon Christ's resurrection, he showed himself unto his disciples. He possessed a body that is resurrected and glorified. This is important to follow because it will set the foundation going into our next main observation regarding the ontological nature of God, the Father.

Since Christ was resurrected with a body of flesh and bones, and that he ascended into heaven with flesh and bones, we conclude that Paul is referring to the nature of Christ's physical image being in that same image and likeness of the Father.

Elsewhere, we see this in relation to our own resurrected bodies:

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is (cf 1 John 3:2)

In our resurrection (which the Biblical text distinguishes two different resurrections) we will come to see Christ in His Image and Glory and that our own resurrected bodies will be in like manner - when Christ appears, we will see him and be like him - resurrected with a body of flesh and bone. This is not including just men. It is including women for they will also possess a resurrected body of flesh and bone as that of Christ has.

Where this is going is that the pre-incarnate Christ, through the direction of the Father, created all things including humanity - men and women by fashioning them after the image and likeness of - God. Christ was only a spiritual being without a body as tangible as man. So, he had to fashion humanities body after the image and likeness of the Father.

Understanding the deeper significance and meaning brings us closer to answering the question of Why am I here? While addressing the false understanding of the article at Biblical Gender Roles on God's nature and masculinity.

Within the creation of humanity, there were specific gender roles defined between man and woman. These roles were first defined in the Garden of Eden under the marriage ceremony God anointed. The other gender role involved human sexuality: Go therefore and be fruitful and multiply the earth. This included the authority of humanity (both man and woman) to work together in having dominion over all of God's creation. This may also be an allegory toward the doctrine of theosis and human potential toward progression into divinity (which will be explored under the main observation point of the wedding ceremony itself).

One thing is clear, the roles became more defined when Adam and Eve transgressed the law of partaking of the forbidden fruit. No, they did not transgress the law by thinking they shall become like God. In fact, when you read the account in Genesis Chapter 3, God does say, Behold man has become LIKE ONE OF US to know good and evil. Humanity (Adam and Eve) were banished from the Garden of Eden so as to not partake of the fruit of the Tree of Life and live forever.

Once out of the Garden of Eden, God declared that Man will be the patriarch, and the woman will be under his protection and authority, yet both were to still have dominion over the Earth and were still required to multiply and replenish the earth. Through them, humanity sprung up. In this context, we see the gender roles defined in the marriage relationship.

The Ontological Nature of God and Biblical Anthropomorphic Descriptors

One of the most common passages modern Christians utilize to prove that God does not have a physical resurrected body of flesh and bones is based on a grossly misinterpretation of John 4:24. Biblical Gender Roles writes this in their article on God's nature:

If the male human being is “the image and glory of God” then we can we rightly say God IS male in the sense that the Trinity is imaged in the masculine human nature. Now does that mean God is biologically male? Yes and No. Christ is the God man, but God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are spirit as the Bible tells us: “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” John 4:24 (KJV)

Like many modern Christians and Evangelical Apologists, they make a false interpretation on this one passage.

There are two main reasons such an interpretation is wrong. The first one is that it is contextually in error; and the second, it is contradictory toward the many passages relating to Christ's ontological and anthropomorphic descriptors in comparison to that of the Father.

Let us address the first main issue with how John 4:24 is contextually misinterpreted. We will do this by appealing to the immediate context of the passage where Christ is at the well and a Samaritan woman comes to draw out water. They engage in a conversation regarding the nature of worship and the idea of salvation being from the Jews. In fact, Christ informs the Samaritan woman:

You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But an hour is coming, and now is, when the TRUE worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His true worshipers. (Cf. John 4:22-23, NASB).

Since the context around John 4:24 refers to the nature of Worship as a Spiritual discipline, there is no means to interpret the understanding from an act of spiritual discipline into an ontological argument. To do so will render the context to refer that those who are "TRUE WORSHIPERS" that the Father (GOD) seeks must also have the same ontological nature as that of God - both being of Spirit.

Since the context of John 4:22-25 does not refer to the ontological nature of the worshipers, we cannot conclude that verse 24 suddenly refers to God's ontological nature of being Spirit only. The actual rendering that is contextually applicable is that because God seeks true worshipers that will engage in a spiritual discipline renders us to conclude that God is a Spiritual Being.

Many Bible Commentaries reflect the present mindset that John 4:24 is an ontological descriptor of God being A Spirit and not a Spiritual Being. Take for example Ellicott's commentary for English Readers:

God is Spirit - better, God is spirit. His will has been expressed in the seeking. But his very nature and essence is spirit, and it follows from this that all true worship must be spiritual.

Benson Commentary says this:

As a further answer to the woman's question, our Lord delivered a doctrine which may justly be called his own, as it exhibits an idea of God, and of the worship which is due to him, far more sublime than the best things said by the philosophers on that subject. Christ came to declare God to us, and this he has declared concerning him, that hi is a Spirit. and he declared it to this poor Samaritan woman

Benson goes further and says this: God is a spirit, for he is an infinite and eternal mind; an intelligent being, yea, the supreme intelligence, who by one act sees the thoughts of all other intelligence whatever, and so may be worshiped in every place; he is incorporeal, immaterial, invisible, and incorruptible: for it is easier to say what he is not than what he is. If God were not a spirit, he could not be perfect, nor infinite, nor eternal, nor independent, nor the Father of spirits.

Keep the above statement in mind because what will be revealed is that this idea of God being spirit, and therefore being incomprehensible, incorporeal, immaterial, and invisible is a Gnostic heretical teaching from the Second Century. This heretical Gnostic teaching stems from the Valentinius school of thought on the nature of God:

Valentinians believed that God is incomprehensible and cannot be known directly. Therefore he defies accurate description. He is infinite, without beginning or end and is the ultimate origin of all things. He encompasses all things without being encompassed. Everything including the world lies within the deity and continues to be part of it. The Godhead manifests itself through a process of self-unfolding in the subsequent multiplicity of being while maintaining its unity.

Notice how this follows the same vein of thought Benson's commentary provides. Yet, this is recited as Biblical doctrine within the construct of the Trinity. The problem here is that if the present understanding of God's nature as being a spirit stems from the second Century heretical teaching of Valentinus, then what is the actual Biblical ontological descriptors concerning the nature and being of God?

Part of that is provided in the previous segment on the nature of humanity and our creation from God's image and likeness. Briefly spoke on the ontological descriptors of Jesus Christ himself. Here, we will explore the relationship between those ontological descriptors as it serves to understand and define Christ's nature (a Physical being who now possesses a Physical and resurrected body).

We first turn ourselves over to the first statement Christ made in relation to himself and the Father: The Apostle (yet still a disciple of Christ) asked the Savior to show unto them (the disciples) the Father. Christ responds that if they have been with Christ so long, how do they not understand that if he (referring to Philip) has seen Christ, then he certainly has seen the Father (cf. John 14:8-9).

A careful read through the New Testament (specifically the gospels) reveal that Christ always differentiates himself from the Father. He does this when relating to the disciples, and he does this when relating to the religious leaders.

Peter's very own confession reveals that there is a very distinct nature between Christ and the Father:

Thou art the Son of the LIVING GOD

More specific, one unique passage stands out and that is in the resurrection account of the Gospel of John. Here, Christ meets a woman who mistakes him for the gardener. Christ reveals himself to her and admonishes her not to touch him. His reason for her to not touch him.
Jesus saith unto her, touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father and to my God and your God. (cf John 20:17, KJV)

This is further understood when we look at Christ coming to the upper room where the disciples were present. When the disciple Thomas came in, he wanted to see for himself. On both accounts, Christ refers to the fact that He is not a spirit. That he possesses a body of flesh and bone that was resurrected.

Not only does the New Testament show that Christ had a bodily and physical resurrection, it also relates that he ascended into Heaven and that the Disciples were informed that Christ will return with his resurrected glorified body.

Paul describes in detail the nature of our own resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15. Revelation describes the resurrection of the Righteous and the Resurrection of those whose names were not written in the Book of Life.

Going back to Colossians, Paul writes that Christ is the First born of the Resurrection.

What we conclude here is that Christ possesses a body of flesh and bone. The Bible explicitly states that Christ rose from the dead with a resurrected body of flesh and bone, and that Christ will appear, and we will see him as we are - with a glorified and resurrected body of flesh and bone.

Christ consistently differentiated himself from the Father yet expressed in ways and terminologies that he also is in the express image of his father (if ye seen me, ye have seen the Father). The New Testament also places Christ in position of authority at the right hand of God's throne.

We also understand and know that when he was challenged, the religious leaders decried blasphemy because Christ either said that he was "I AM" (YHWH) or that he was placing himself Equal to God. When in reality, Biblical teachings and understandings is that Christ is YHWH in the Old Testament and the God of Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac.

What modern day scholarship has revealed is that YHWH was a subordinate God to the Most High God and part of the Divine Counsel. This is evident in passages like Deuteronomy 32: 8 - 9, Psalm 82, Job 1 and 2.

Therefore, the rendering of God being spirit traces its origins back to the heretical teaching of Gnosticism of St. Valentinius where God is incomprehensible, incorporeal, and a Spirit (or essence).

These leaves us with the last three main points of observation. The third relies on the linguistic style of Hebrew and Greek (which I will not further discuss here to any length or extent as I have the last two main points). And the fourth and fifth observation coincide with one another where the fourth focuses on the feminine descriptors within the Old Testament and the symbolism of Wisdom as it pertains to the nature and idea of a Goddess consort. The final thought further extends from the symbolism of a female consort within the divine council and into the realm of Adam and Eve's marriage, the Temple, and priestly authority.

Those three observations will be treated in a follow up article to Biblical Gender Roles article. However, where does this leave us in answering the question postulated by the article? How are we going to understand the reason we are here and in what context does our purpose have? That will be in the third installment to follow up these two articles.

Timothy R. Berman