Board index ‹ Creation and Evolution

[Jax Max]

It occurs to me that since God in and of himself is the perfect existence, creating anything in addition to himself would be redundant.
The only solutions I can think of is either conceding that God has flaws (such a need express himself or to be worshiped), or that God can act arbitrarily. The latter would be a very worrying prospect!

[jimwalton]

God created the universe as a temple suitable for his majesty and deity. Other false gods had humans make a temple for them to live in; God (YHWH) made his own temple (the cosmos) that was a more suitable expression of his nature (Ps. 19.1; Acts 17.24).

> It occurs to me that since God in and of himself is the perfect existence, creating anything in addition to himself would be redundant.

Not necessarily redundant, but certainly not necessary to his wholeness.

Then he created human beings because he wanted more children (Rom. 8.16-18, 29-30; Jn. 1.14, 12; Heb. 2.10). His love was complete and fulfilled in the Trinity, but He wanted more children to share His presence and His love with, not out of need but out of desire.

So He neither had flaws nor acted arbitrarily. He acted sovereignly and lovingly. It's a little dismaying that your mind automatically goes to negatives and detriment (flaws, arbitrariness). I'm glad you came to the forum to ask!

[Jax Max]

Then he created human beings because he wanted more children (Rom. 8.16-18, 29-30; Jn. 1.14, 12; Heb. 2.10). His love was complete and fulfilled in the Trinity, but He wanted more children to share His presence and His love with, not out of need but out of desire.

He was complete and fulfilled, and yet he wanted more? Why does God desire things that are not needed?

[jimwalton]

Love can be fulfilled and yet expand. I may have three children, and we're done our family. But then my wife gets preggo and a 4th is born. I love the new child just as much as the other 3. Love has expanded, not from need but because there is more to love.

I have friends that I love. Then I meet new friends and love them, too. Nothing was wrong, flawed, inadequate or unfulfilled about the original love; nothing is wrong with the new expanded love. Love is expansive.

The dimensions of God's love are immeasurable (Eph. 3.18). Love can be perfectly fulfilled and yet desire new objects. Desire is not always the result of a lack, but sometimes is the result of capacity. I love my wife more than I could ever have imagined I could love someone, and I want more. I am so fulfilled and complete that I want more of her. It's more like math than a barrel: how many numbers can you fit between zero and one? It never fills up. It's infinity. The capacity is endless and it has nothing to do with need.

[Triple Threat]

> God created human beings because he wanted more children

Did God already have children?

[jimwalton]

Yes, he had a son. The Bible mentions him in places like Psalm 2.7 and John 3.16.

[Triple Threat]

You seem to not understand the meaning of the words "children" and "son".

[jimwalton]

Now, now, let's not get insulting. Think a little deeper. "Children" can be natural (biological), they can be adopted (legal), they can be metaphorical ("I am a son of science," "The business I started is my child," etc.), and they can be sociological (all children in the tribe are considered sons of the chief), among other possibilities.

Covenants in the ancient world, as all of their cultures, were understood in the setting (worldview) of kinship relations. Though it was a legal and judicial entity, there was always a familial element to it. By establishing a covenant an outsider could be brought into a kinship relationship, sort of like a "kin-in-law."

Sometimes kinship extended to the whole tribe. Any younger male was a "son" to any older male.

In the ancient world, some kings considered themselves as a "son of god" because the represented the deity to the people and mediated for the people to the deity. There are all kinds of ways to speak about "children" and "son".

Jesus is considered God's son in several ways also.

- The theological necessity of the incarnation, that Jesus would actually be born in human flesh.
- To emphasize the uniqueness of Jesus's relationship with YHWH in personal fellowship.
- To emphasize the sending of the 2nd person of the Trinity on a mission.
- To emphasize the "one-bloodness", so to speak, kinship relationship of YHWH and Jesus. They share a nature; they are of the same essence.

[Triple Threat]

I suppose you can use a word in any way you want. I recently had a discussion that involved the difference between the words "good" and "Good". The point is that you said: "he wanted more children." You said more. I asked if he already had children.

[jimwalton]

> I suppose you can use a word in any way you want.

People can, and people do, but I'm not guilty of that. There are accepted various definitions of "children" and "son."

- In the Bible, Hezekiah (about 700 BC) is called a "son" of David (who reigned in about 1000 BC). "Son" here means "descendent."
- In the Bible, Solomon is called a "son" of David. He was a biological child of David's.
- In the Gospels, James and John are called the "Sons of Thunder." It's a name implying something about their personality, but it has nothing to do with their heritage, biology, or ethnicity.
- In Paul's letters, wicked people are called the "sons of disobedience." It's a theological implication that they are sinners.

So I'm not making up stuff.

> The point is that you said "he wanted more children" ("He" being God). You said more. I asked if he already had children.

Yes, and I answered you. I wrote, "Yes, he had a son. The Bible mentions him in places like Psalm 2.7 and John 3.16." "He" is God; "him" is the son God had before there were human beings.