 |
| YVR approach |
Last Sunday, our church featured a fine, educational sermon on the Trinity. Genesis 1: 26 (a) was referenced from the English Standard Version:
Genesis 1:26 English Standard Version (ESV)
26 Then God said, “Let us make man[a] in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” Footnotes: Genesis 1:26 The Hebrew word for man (adam) is the generic term for mankind and becomes the proper name Adam
Courson, via his commentary, is in basic agreement on what was preached on Sunday. He explains that in Genesis 1: 26 (a) the name God is translated from the Hebrew (In English, my add) as Elohim El is in singular form and Elohim refers to three or more. (4). Courson reasons the Trinity is being referenced here. (4).
Hebrew Bible scholar, Hamilton, acknowledges that based on 1: 26, God is multiple in nature. (22). Based on exegesis he reasons it is impossible to state that it is a reference to the Trinity. (22). Several unrealistic possibilities are offered as alternative interpretations (mythological interpretation as in God to other gods, or the Earth being in partnership with God, or God and the angels creating, or God speaking of his majesty in plural, or the plural of divine self-deliberation) and then finally Hamilton reasons that most likely 'us' refers to the fullness or plurality within the Godhead. (23). Perhaps God is referencing the Holy Spirit mentioned in 1:2 as the Spirit of God moved upon the earth...(23). Hamilton is not denying the Trinity, but he does reason that it is not revealed until the New Testament revelation. (23). Hamilton, I reason, would not necessarily agree with Courson that multiple in nature meant at least three, based on exegesis.
I would state that the Trinity is foreshadowed in Genesis.
The pastor on Sunday stated that God was in eternal relationship. I agree. I would like to state that God as infinite and eternal did not have eternal time to be in triune relationship. God did not have an eternal past to ponder in Trinity on whether or not he would create humanity, the universe and solar time, or a type of time for finite angels, without infinite knowledge, to reason in.
God has infinite knowledge and infinite, eternal, triune relationship. God simply is and created the finite, including finite humanity, the finite universe and finite time, both solar time and time within the spiritual realm for angelic beings, to reason from point A to point B. God may have created finite angelic beings within a type of finite time prior to creating the physical universe of time, matter and energy.
It is error to hold to a view that God reasoned in infinite time because this is a fatal problem of vicious regress and this is a fatal problem that is not reasonably solved. God simply reasoned and yet had infinite knowledge and fellowship within the Trinity.
In the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Simon Blackburn discusses ‘infinite regress’ and mentions that this occurs in a vicious way whenever a problem tries to solve itself and yet remains with the same problem it had previously. Blackburn (1996: 324). A vicious regress is an infinite regress that does not solve its own problem, while a benign regress is an infinite regress that does not fail to solve its own problem. Blackburn (1996: 324). Blackburn writes that there is frequently room for debate on what is a vicious regress or benign regress. Blackburn (1996: 324). An example of a benign regress is infinite numbers both plus and minus, as they in reality represent conceptualized things as opposed to being real things.
BLACKBURN, S. (1996) ‘Regress’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.
HAMILTON, VICTOR P. (1988) Handbook on the Pentateuch, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
