The Evangelical Universalist Forum

The Situation in Hebrews 6

Nathan,

“For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Hebrews 4:12”

The egg analogy works, but there also needs to be “division of soul and spirit”. To go back to your DNA observations. If the DNA of God is in my Spirit (the yolk), I can quench the spirit by allowing the flesh (the egg white) to rule. The word of God will pierce to that division and enlighten me (assuming I allow Him to).

Seems where I differ with you is that I take Adam and Eve as historical people who had spirit soul and body, not as just spirits. The “flesh” that is “sinful flesh” is not the soma/body, but is within the soul/psuche. And my wickedness/sin/flesh is not “me”. Paul understood- see Romans 7 “the sin that dwells in me”.

Yes, we have to be careful with this notion of being “spirits in a material world”. That is a Greek pagan idea, and is not biblical. Our physical flesh body, soul and spirit are intertwined in ways we do not yet understand well, but there have been experiments done that show some interesting connections. We are wholistic beings with connected elements, not merely spirits inhabiting bodies.
While it is true that our true self is our inner man, the outer man is connected with it.

In the Garden there were two trees. One was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (TOKOGAE). The other was the tree of life

Anymore, I see the two trees not just as trees literally, but as gateways . . .we know Jesus is the tree of life right? And he’s also the ONE gate that leads somewhere . . .which is to the Father. So . . .the tree of life, to me, leads to a spiritual domain and the tree of knowledge . . .led here . . to a natural realm. I beleive “that’s” why God told Adam not to eat of it, because he knew he’d become what he chose. This may sound out in left field for some, but I believe life as we know it now is the result of the curse . . .the natural realm is now the predominant realm and the spiritual realm is invisible. I believe initially, it was the other way around but because of Adam submitted to that which he was to subdue (His Eve), that he passed through the gate of knowledge and from that day forward everything changed. The stuff we read in Genesis 3 that “appears” to be judgments handed down . .to me . . .they’re more like new instructions.

Like God was saying . . .Okay guys, this place isn’t going to be anything like the place you just left. Here, Adam, by the sweat of your brow? No . . .that’s not what it says . . .by the sweat of your “face” (identity again). In other words, instead of being fed by the fruit of the trees of others that you were in peace and harmony with, now, your identity is going to be in labor (sweat signifies labor) if you’re going to sustain life here in “this” realm.

Knowledge is the realm of death. It makes you puff up. And everything is governed by time and there is no going backwards, you are forced to only grow old. Eve . . .in this realm, when you reproduce, you’re going to do it in pain, great pain, you’ll love the results, but the process is gonna hurt. Oh, and the adversary that led you to this . . .this is it’s realm and because you submitted to it, there’s going to be a war between the two of you now (emnity). . .instead of harmony, there will be strife. You may find yourselves “wanting” to do good, but you’ll do bad instead (Paul’s frustration) And the adversary in you will thrive on the carnality in you (dust shall be the serpents meat). The more you feed your carnal man, the more your carnality will consume you. Upon your “belly” you shall crawl, the innermost parts of your identity will cling to, will crave earthy things . . .oh and Eve, you will desire after your husband . . .

Don’t you love it when you’re reading along in Scripture and then, out of thin air, this truck just drops on top of you? What on earth does Eve’s “desiring after her husband” have to do with any of the rest of what’s going on? Then you look up the word “desire” and find out it’s not a word of romantic emotion, but it’s instead a word of dominance and control. Does this mean women crave for control over men? Um . . .I don’t think I’ll go down that ugly looking road . . .

But I “will” say that when you overlay the “Man/spirit woman/soul-mind” pattern on this . .things really come to light . . .IN THIS WORLD your mind will always want to be in control over your spirit. It’s your spirit that has the God-given authority, but it’s our mind that is always trying to take matters into it’s own hands and assume authority that was never intended for it. NT calls this the abomination of desolation that “stands” in the holy place . . .with is the place of intimacy within us all. The throne upon which our spirit is supposed to be married up with God’s spirit . . .spirit to spirit relationship, the deep calling to the deep . …but when the mind (logic and reason) usurps it’s godless authority . . .all hell breaks loose.

But yeah . . .two trees = gateways into two realms . . .one is spiritual, the other is natural.

Nathan,
I don’t spiritualize the Genesis account like you have. It’s off topic, but I have done a huge amount of thinking and writing about Genesis 3:16 only recently, so its a very interesting subject to me. Hope you don’t mind if I step through how I see it.

I don’t agree. God created nature before the first couple ate the forbidden fruit. And look very closely at Genesis 3. The man and woman were not “cursed”. Only the serpent and the ground were “cursed”. This was a very important revelation to me when someone pointed it out. Changed my whole view of God.

The woman was not given to Adam to “subdue”. Their relationship in Gen 1:26-28 was one of equal dominion over creation (again before the eating of the forbidden fruit).

Although they are not “curses”, I would not call them “instructions”. I prefer the term “consequences” and I think they are designed to show the man and woman what they have lost. Desire for husband, pain in childbirth, and sweat and thorns in a man’s labor are designed to reveal a hunger in the heart which can only be restored through a return to garden intimacy with God.

The same word for “desire” is used in Song of Solomon 7:10 where it has a sexual connotation. Here I’m going to quote from a paper I wrote recently:

God‟s original plan for marriage is seen in Genesis 2:24 and Genesis 1:26-28 without any retraction. In 3:16, God is not speaking to the man, commanding him to rule over his wife. His statement to the woman should not be taken as a prescription/command of His perfect will and way for biblical marriage. Genesis 3:16 is a prophetic description of what life and marriage will be like outside the Garden.

The assumption that God cursed the man and woman in Genesis 3 is common, however, it is not in the text. Only the serpent and the ground are cursed. The judgment for eating the fruit was death, and we all remain under that judgment. But Jesus has brought hope, the promise of resurrection, and the exchange of our toilsome heavy burdens for His light and easy yoke. We do not err when we attempt to alleviate the Genesis 3 consequences via tractors, epidurals, and equality for women.

That the woman would desire to continue to do the very act which created a child and so much pain has long been an interpretation of the Gen 3:16 DESIRE. Though some dismiss the idea of a sexual component to the Genesis 3:16 desire, the textual support for it is compelling.

“Unto the woman HE [God]said,
I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception;
in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;
and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband,
and he shall rule over thee.” Genesis 3:16

This one verse speaks of conception (increased!) and pregnancy TWICE in the immediate context of the “desire” in question. Conception does not happen without sex (with only one exception- the conception of Jesus). Therefore, I do not see how we can deny the possibility that the increased sexual drive of human females is a component of this Genesis 3:16 “desire”. Additional support for this comes from Song of Solomon 7:10 which uses the same Hebrew word for desire- teshuquah- of sexual desire.

Upon eating the fruit, physical changes occurred in the man and woman which began the dying process (and compensate for the mortality of the couple and their offspring). I wonder if among these changes were hormonal changes which brought woman a monthly cycle, PMS, menopause, increased fertility, and increased sexual desire for her husband; and men a testosterone surge which feeds aggressiveness (“he will rule over you”) and polygamy? Contrast human sexuality with that of animals among which the vast majority of females mate rarely, only during fertile seasons, and not face to face (as far as I know). Sexual intimacy- as expressed in human marriage- is a consolation to the couple who have lost the ultimate delight, satisfaction, and ecstasy of Garden intimacy with one another and with God, against which human sexual intimacy is to “see in a mirror, dimly” (1 Cor 13:12 NKJV).

Contra church fathers whose writings paint the sexuality of the human female in a negative light, I see her increased sexual desire as one of the redemptive aspects of the Genesis 3 consequences. Desire, just like increased conception and childbirth can be understood as a BLESSING! Nothing in the passage indicates that they must be interpreted as negative, or “curses”. Let me hasten to add that an increased sexual desire of human women is only one facet of her desire/turning/teshuquah toward her husband. There is also the aspect of her emotional craving/longing which becomes such a painful ball and chain for some of us wives.

Even the pain/toil of the Genesis 3 consequences- prophesied in childbirth and marriage for the woman, and work for the man- has redemptive intent. Pain can bring us to our knees! When a woman‟s DESIRE turns into idolatry (husbandolatry), where her husband controls and rules her instead of Jesus, her DESIRE will bring pain and suffering which may drive her to forsake her idolatry and seek the real God and likewise, when a man makes an idol of his work/career.

Just a little explanation as to “why” I pursue what I call the spiritual application over the historical. For one, I’d like to make sure ya’ll understand I’m not denouncing the historical at all. I believe there was a real guy named David, I believe there was a real giant named Goliath . . .but again for me, I think there’s so much more to tap into than just reading a story about some kid who was tending sheep wound up becoming a king because he killed a big giant. It’s a great story for a kid, natural and spiritual kid, but if it’s true that the deep calls to the deep . . .then natural stories about intriguing people aren’t enough to sustain a spiritual hunger or thirst.

So . . .here’s my “why”.
When Jesus was here, EVERYTHING he said to people was in the form of parables. it was what I call “dimensional” meaning that no matter what it was he’d say . . . it ALWAYS had a DEEPER meaning. It frustrated both the religious and even his closest followers, being the disciples. And when they pulled him aside and inquired of this, he said a very interesting thing . . he said that it was given to them to know the deeper things. I’ve always wondered about that. If they had the ability to see the deeper things like he said they did, then why were they struggling so much. I believe it was because that it was so ingrained in them to exercise logic and reason to spiritual truths that they didn’t realize they were to lay the knowledge aside and just listen with their hearts. It was given to them to know . . .Jesus was the one that enabled that in them, all they had to do was enter into what he had enabled.

So . . .if EVERYTHING Jesus said was dimensional . . .and Scripture was inspired by the same spirit that Jesus was operating from, then why would the Scriptures be any different? In fact, John 1:1 tells us that in the beginning was the WORD, the WORD was WITH God . . .and the WORD WAS GOD. “That” is a dimensional truth. John is the only one of the gospel writers that comes right out of the gate with a dimensional statement. So . . .when I read Scriptures, I’ve had to retrain my head to not get caught up in the story on the surface so much and look deeper for the symbolism.

David and Goliath . . . Goliath had 6 fingers on each hand, 6 toes on each foot, his spear weighed 6 cubics . . .GASP HE’S THE BEAST!! Yeah, he represents the beastly nature in man. He was dressed in brass . . .brass/bronze . .the same elements the altar of sacrifice was made from . . it depicts judgment. He taunted the Israelites for 40 days . . .for me, 40 is the number of birthing . . .question is, what, in this story is being birthed?

Here comes David, he steps into the stream, signifying the Holy Spirit . . .he selects 5 smooth stones . . .ever do a word study on stones in Scripture? Christ is the rock . . .law was written in stone . . .when a man stoned someone, it signifies we take “pieces” of God’s law to kill . . .but David selected “five” stones . . .five is the number of grace. What was about to transpire was an act of God’s grace . . question is . .to “whom”?

Okay . . .the stone was released by a man-made sling, an extension of David’s arm, a catapult. A rock in and of itself is not a weapon, but when we propel the Word, nothing can stand in it’s way. Now, here’s a huge key to this whole picture . . .the stone doesn’t hit Goliath in the neck, the heart, the lung or liver . . .it land in his forehead . . .what picture do you suppose “that” is implying? How about the Word penetraiting the mind of men??? And what did that do? That brought the giant down . . .he literally planted his face in the dirt. Again, that tells me the identity of this guy was connected to earth . . .natural, carnal, fleshly . . .all the above. But having the Word of God penetrait the mind wasn’t enough . . .the head needed to be removed all together . . and what did David use? Did he use “his” sword? No, he used Goliaths . . you live by your sword, you’ll die by it. What? Yeah, some time I’ll do a thing on the sword that Peter used . . .but the key here is, we’re not to live by the Word . . .it’s not about using the Bible to “prove” our belief to anyone. We’re to have the sword live in us. It’s not meant to be used as a weapon against one another . . .it’s meant to ignite a fire of purification and light within us.

The fact that he head was cut off tells me that for God to bring down the carnality in me, it’s going to require that I LET HIM disconnect MY CARNAL THINKING MIND from the body so that HE can be the HEAD . . .its’ the same with the priests carrying the ark on poles (extension of his presense) their shoulders. God is the head, we are his body.

That’s what the simple story of David and Goliath mean to me. But it’s every story, every passage, from Genesis to Revelation . .it’s been given for us to know the spiritual implications that lie beneath the natural history of what’s been written. “that’s” what I choose to pursue. I’m not denying the other things didn’t really happen, but the application has so much more effectiveness in my growth and walk when I pursue the spiritual truth that lies within the natural stories.

I understand and agree that there is deeper meaning. However, I’m cautious about spiritualizing because of having a seminary training where it was frowned upon and observing how it can go so far overboard taking someone off track- Harold Camping, for example.

I do think that God uses Scriptures to give us spiritual rhema (word of life). Sometimes just for us, sometimes to be shared. It wasn’t my rhema, but your David and Goliath story reminds me of a message from Jill Austin which was very uplifting to me. I found a clip online which is similar:

The personal application for me was being married to an extremely intelligent seminary trained, christian professor husband who had elaborate intellectual “biblical” justifications for alcohol use (which anesthetizes his conscience and exacerbated an escalating sexual addiction). Intellectual intellectual intellectual… and behavior which produced death and bondage. I am Jael, hammering the tent peg through the proud arguments setting themselves up against the knowledge of God. I don’t need any man’s permission for this. It’s God’s calling for me and, like Mary and Jael, I am blessed.

Nathan wrote:

“And as I said, I do believe that to be true, but incomplete. And the part that I seldom hear people embrace is realilzing that IN SPITE OF our flesh’s inability to remain pure, God’s power of redemption disregards all of that because the cross was never established for the purpose of measureing sin. It’s purpose was to enable us to be free from it’s power but not it’s presence. In this world, sin runs rampant. **But the question is, from which perspective are you observing? God’s? Or man’s? **When Scripture says things like . . .it’s impossible to sin we either skim over that or . . .we misinterpret it. We can’t imagine our flesh being sinless. But like everything else about Christ, this isn’t a literal observation . . .it’s not being observed on a level of flesh . …but in the spirit is where perfection manifests.”

I was just thinking about this concept (in bold) last night after I had overheard a conversation between some people in my church ripping on Rob Bell (again). One of the comments was that “everyone eventually ending up “falling in love with Jesus” just can’t work, because, well just look at the history of mankind in his fallenness and sin, it goes against entropy”.

I thought the very same thing you just expressed. From which perspective are you looking at this? :unamused: Obviously it is from the side of man’s failure. But just because man has failed does not mean that God or His promises will! The scripture testifies to just the opposite…