The Nature of God–Part Three: Genesis of the Last Adam
What does the Bible tell us about the nature of God? Does Scripture present to us a “oneness” about God whose existence is defined in the context of two or three distinct beings who constitute “one” God? Moses wrote that in the beginning God created the heaven and earth, and Moses described how the heavens and the earth were ordained and fashioned for the habitation of humanity and the “genesis” of the first man Adam. Notably, then, because of what Moses wrote regarding the “beginning” of the heavens and the earth and the “beginning” of the first man Adam, we find that this book of the Pentateuch’s canon was distinguished by the phrase “in the beginning,” and the meaning of this phrase led to the adoption of the commonly used title, “Genesis.” And, interestingly, if we were to apply this descriptive method to the written works of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John we could reasonably entitle each of them “Genesis” as well, because each writer included a genesis narrative in their epistles, with each conveying an understanding of who Jesus was and is, and also who and what is God. Leading us then to review these particular “genesis” accounts in what has traditionally become known as the “gospels” of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Now when we consider the ministry of John the Baptist we see that he called upon people to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins, and these doctrines and teachings became foundational to the prophet John’s message of the coming kingdom of God. Being the same message proclaimed by Jesus when he returned to Galilee after being tempted in the wilderness by Satan. Marking the beginning—the “genesis”—of the proclamation brought by Jesus to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Mt. 15:24). For we find in Mark’s account that he wrote about the “beginning [ἀρχή, archē, origin] of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of God,” and Mark associated this origin of Jesus’ gospel with the mission and work accomplished by John the Baptist (Mk. 1:1). Noting that because of John the Baptist’s work we have, in part, the knowledge of when and where and how the good news of the kingdom of God began to be proclaimed by Jesus. [Author’s emphasis throughout.] Bringing us then to consider another “genesis” account that was recorded in the written work of Jesus’ disciple, Matthew. For Matthew wrote “of the generation [γένεσις, ghen’-es-is, genesis] of Jesus Christ” in the context of a genealogical pedigree associated with King David and the patriarch Abraham. While confirming that Jesus was indeed “born in Bethlehem of Judaea,” and destined by his lineage and by the will of God to become a governor who shall rule God’s people Israel (Mt. 1:1-6; 2:1-6; Lk. 3:23-38). Which is a rather astounding claim made by Matthew in regard to the lineage that is associated with Joseph the husband of Mary. Nonetheless, it is evident from Matthew’s testimonial work that Jesus had a genealogical context associated with his human beginning—his “genesis”—and that beginning was to be found in the lineage of the patriarch Abraham. And so Matthew was able to affirm by this pedigree that the establishment of the promises given to Abraham would be fulfilled through his descendant Jesus, who was the firstborn son of Mary. Something that was also affirmed by the biographer of Jesus’ life—the physician Luke. Now Luke wrote about the things that were “surely believed” by himself and by others who “from the beginning [ἀρχή, archē, origin] were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word [logos],” and these eyewitness accounts assure us that Jesus was indeed the firstborn human son of Mary. And so we find in Luke’s account that Mary—the mother of Jesus—was told by the angel Gabriel that she would “conceive” in her womb, and “bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus” (Lk. 1:1-2; 31). (The same message was given in a dream to Mary’s husband, Joseph.) Being a statement that undoubtedly cannot be interpreted to mean that Jesus had a previous spirit form as God—who became a “god-man”—because Mary would have obviously understood that the conception of Jesus would be brought about by the “power of the Highest,” which would mean that Jesus would be called the “son of God” (Lk. 1:35). (It is inconceivable to believe that Mary—given the context of Gabriel’s message—would have referred to her son Jesus as “God the son.”) But more than this we can be certain that Mary would have known by Gabriel’s words that Jesus would have been her “firstborn” son, and therefore she certainly would not have accepted the idea that she would give birth to a transformed being and considered herself to be the mother of God. And we know this because Mary responded to the message of the angel Gabriel by stating “be it unto me according to thy word,” which would give us confidence in saying that Mary, as an eyewitness to the origin of her son Jesus, had accepted the validity of Gabriel’s message that she would conceive by the holy spirit of God (Lk. 1:38). Thus, it can be reasonably concluded that the written works attributed to Matthew, Mark and Luke contain important narratives that explain the origin of Jesus, and the relationship of his genesis to the pedigree of Abraham, and also the origin of the gospel that Jesus proclaimed beginning in Galilee of Judea. Noting also that Matthew, Mark and Luke never testified that Jesus was previously a god-being who transformed himself into a man and was then birthed by Mary. (Jesus was not a created being, but rather Jesus was a human being conceived in Mary by the power of the holy spirit of God.) Bringing us then to review a statement made by the Apostle Paul who concluded from the historical accounts and from the testimonies of eyewitnesses that Jesus was not only the son of God, but Jesus was also another “Adam.” For Paul