God's Goodness: the Parable of "Be Fruitful and Multiply" to Salvation

Now after doing a bit more contemplating on Jesus Christ and the whole "be fruitful and multiply" command; I came to the conclusion that this study wasn't exactly complete in explaining the spiritual aspect of the whole question.

Now there are several references in the Bible about Christ and the church being portrayed by the parable of marriage. There are general parabolic references in places like Revelation that talk about "the marriage supper of the lamb". Jesus gives a parable about 10 virgins, and such like references. Than we have the Song of Solomon, which is quite descriptive of sexual activity. I've seen Bible commentators get "hinky" about that too. "Oh that's not talking about Christ and the church; it's just a lovely (mildly pornographic?) book of the Bible describing a husband / wife relationship. Although I would agree with these commentators that Christ does not have sex with anyone biologically speaking; the parable of sex to salvation is there.

How is that and where is it?

First off, let's start with God. God created a universe. He provides for the life in that universe and in general terms protects it. More specifically though, God (through Jesus Christ) provides atonement for the redemption of that universe (by atoning for human sin) as well as protecting that universe and the humans redeemed, from His own wrath. Which in turn, for psychologically healthy human males; provision and protection is part of their psychological makeup. They are like this because God is like this.

Now "provision and protection" like the continuum of human behavior (from general stranger to stranger social interaction to the conception of children) also runs on a continuum. Obviously this makes sense because it's part of the general psychological makeup of healthy males and seems to me to be part of the greater continuum of human behavior.

Now obviously there are female humans who operate in roles of "provision and protection". We have single mothers and we have females in occupations that "provide and protect". So, this "provide and protect" trait is a general human trait; yet also generally and specifically more obvious of psychologically healthy males. So this is why we see more males working outside the home to provide for their families and females in child care rolls across the globe. Now in practical terms, I don't see anything wrong with dads that stay home to care for kids and moms that go to work. More often than not though, it's the other way around. This I think is a reflection of how "man made in God's image" played out in practical terms of creating humanity and why God had an "only begotten son" and not an "only begotten daughter".

Jesus and gender roles:

Now we see plenty of examples in Scripture of how Jesus dealt differently with males than he/He dealt with females and children. There are more examples of "provision and protection" offered by Jesus to females and children than to males (although there are some examples of males Christ "protected"). The over all theme in this regard is the protection of the weaker and "weaker" certainly includes elderly men and little boys as well as women and girls. And so this is where the behavioral continuum comes into play in regards to Jesus (stranger to stranger social interaction to the conception of children). And on account of these examples, it's quite easy to see how Jesus was a psychologically healthy heterosexual male; who contended with the drive of sexuality on the one end of this behavioral continuum.

Now back in Genesis, God explains to Adam and Eve that her desire will be for her husband and he will rule over her. This is picked up in the epistles with commands of women being submissive to husbands; but also (more importantly noted here) the church (redeemed believers) being submissive to Christ.

And here's how that cycle works. Spirit of God is the agent of redemption igniting faith. This happens because of Christ's atonement. Real faith creates awareness of God which creates obedience (submission) to God's plan (speaking in terms of both general and individually). Furthered obedience opens the door for a greater awakening of faith, which creates more in depth awareness of God, which in turn creates even more obedience. This is the same process as 'her desire will be toward her husband and he will rule over her'. The deeper faith grows, the more we want to know Christ, the more obedient we become. In practical terms: faith makes gratitude, then comes the task assigned by God (plan for that individual), followed by "what's the next task", deeper faith, more gratitude, next task.

In the parable shown forth by the "conception of children" end of the behavioral spectrum; 'ecstasy in the culminated act' is the equivalent of the 'eureka'! gratitude moments in the redemption cycle. (The "Oh my God Thank You." moment.) Now obviously both of these cycles happen over and over again. This is how faith grows and human marriages deepen.

Jesus and the Believer:

Now as specifically for Jesus Christ in the spiritual aspect of this cycle. His 'initial ecstasy of culminated act' was the resurrection. That's what made the rest of this relational stuff between Him and the believer possible. The 'deeper faith, more gratitude, next task' commenced by 'ignition of faith (which is the believer's resurrection unto redemption) awareness of God, leading to obedience'.

Just had another interesting revelation in all of this, related to the law in Exodus on marriage and the epistle about "past the flower of her virginity". Both cases address sexual acts having taken place before the actual wedding. Which this makes an interesting translation into the spiritual realm of salvation. If the final resurrection from the dead on the New Testament side of the cross is the "wedding feast of the lamb" than the "believers resurrection unto redemption" is the man who "could not keep his virgin". Ironically, the Scripture doesn't say that he has sinned in this regard, yet in marriage is doing what is "morally appropriate".

That being said though, the point of pouring out the Holy Spirit was that we would both have power to proclaim the gospel and that power would be made manifest in obedience to God (both in gospel plan and external moral behavior).

The believers on the Old Testament side of the cross apparently didn't have the luxury of the compulsion to obedience provided by the indwelling of the Spirit. And this is why if you look at people like Abraham, Lot, Moses David, Solomon etc., their lives were an absolute mess.

Connected to this though is also Israel the national entity (which came to an end from God's perspective in the first century A.D.) God gave Israel the national entity a "bill of divorcement" because of their adultery. The believers on the Old Testament side of the cross were not divorced from God, because they were killed by the law, so they could be joined to Christ.

This is why we see in the beginning of the book of Revelation that Jesus appears as "a lamb slain" to open the seals in Revelation and with Him appear a great multitude which came out of "tribulation". These are the souls of Old Testament believers who's bodies are still waiting the final resurrection. Atonement was secured Friday night, so when Jesus died, His body went into the grave and His human soul went to stand before the Father. Thus one difference between OT side of the cross and NT side of the cross.

Now for us, one benefit of the indwelling Spirit is that this arrangement helps us to recognize that we belong to Christ. This is why there's so much admonition in the epistles about lack of obedience (especially related to morality) is a red flag of not really being regenerated / redeemed. So I would say in that regard, as a believer in-between the cross and the final judgement; I'm really glad Jesus "could't control" Himself.

This also puts an interesting twist on that passage in Matthew about Jesus the eunuch. God restrained Jesus in the flesh, but didn't restrain the Spirit after Jesus returned to heaven in bodily form.

Mary at the Tomb:

This also adds an interesting nuance to Mary at the tomb when Jesus tells her not to touch Him because He hasn't ascended to the Father.

Now there's a couple of possibilities here. (Although #1 is probably true too; I think #3 is probably the "why".)

#1 - Jesus may have still been receiving additional revelation after the resurrection in the same manner that he/He received it before. He didn't automatically know everything. Stuff had to be revealed to him/Him by the Father. And since he/He was resurrected with the same body that went into the grave; he might have been thinking that OK, since I haven't ascended to the Father, don't anybody touch me.

Where, as a result of that meeting with Mary, the Father may have said: No it's OK, They can touch you, because they need proof that You are actually resurrected. And if that's the case; it is evidenced that people did touch him/Him after Mary almost literally ran into Him.

#2 - Assumptions about Mary Magdalene's intent? A lot of church tradition says Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, but that isn't supported by the Scripture. The 'prostitute' in the NT was Lazarus and Martha's sister Mary. Although here too, the Scripture doesn't specify if Mary was a literal prostitute or just "morally loose". She's described as a "sinful woman"; which in the context does mean sexually immoral.

Another Mary:

(This is the Mary that cried all over Jesus's feet and wiped them with her hair.) We know the context denotes sexual immorality because of the language used. (Simon the Pharisee makes the assertion that Jesus could not be a prophet because he/He had no idea what kind of woman it was that "touches" him.) The word "touch" here is only used one other place in the Scripture and in that context it means to molest or fondle.

There are other clues in the text as to Simon the Pharisee's role in this. He's defrauded Mary of possessions that are rightfully hers (this jar of perfume she has). The text indicates that she "received back unto herself" this perfume, probably as "payment" for doing what Simon wanted her to. The text also indicates that only members of Simon's household were present and that Mary was notified when Jesus came into the house.

So "the plan" was that Mary was suppose to seduce Jesus (thereby giving Simon something to accuse him/Him of.) The plan fell apart though when Mary got there and pretty much "came unglued". (She couldn't bring herself to get passed Jesus's feet - basically.) So after this, Jesus starts talking about sin being forgiven, implying in the context that Mary will be forgiven, but Simon won't.

Now this event (crying on Jesus's feet) happens between the arrest and death of John the Baptist and appears to have happened in Capernaum. Now in the years that follow, it seems Lazarus and Mary went to go live with their sister Martha in Bethany. Martha was probably a widow (she had her own house). Simon the Pharisee, if he was related to them (which textual evidence seems to suggest); he was probably their father's brother. He would have been made responsible for both Mary and probably Lazarus (who was likely the youngest) upon their parent's death (although Martha already having been married would have been of her own household). Thus the most likely scenario for Simon having stolen things from Mary, would have been that these items (of perfume) were probably part of her dowery.

Great Tribulation and 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth:

The next time we see this Mary and Jesus's feet. (She's the only one recorded who ever puts oil on his/His feet.) is "6 days before the Passover". (John 12) This wold have been Friday before Palm Sunday. Jesus states that she's kept this oil in reserve "against the day of my burial". It's spikenard (which is used for embalming) which usually when embalming a body, you start with the head.

Now 3 days later, an unnamed woman does pour oil on Jesus's head. That event I believe commenced the "3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth"; seeing how exactly 3 / 24 hour periods later; Jesus is dead. This I think also ties to Daniel "In the middle of the week, the Messiah is cut off." This is interpreted as "half way through the tribulation".

Now the "tribulation" is usually interpreted to be "7 years" (or in this case of "middle of the week" = 7 days. "6 days before the Passover" Jesus's feet are anointed. The 7th day would have been the day of the crucifixion. The angel of death comes to Jesus at midnight on Thursday night (ending the Passover); about 15 hours before Jesus dies. This is the end of 6 days, with part of day 7 commencing; which appears to me to be saying that the tribulation ended with the angel of death.

We are told by Scripture that the tribulation would be shortened or no flesh would be saved. This was covered more extensively in the Bible study The First Adam, The Last Adam (and all the rest of us). So thus we see the tribulation didn't end up actually being 7 days and this fits right in with this time table.

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days is the sun darkened and the moon doesn't give it's light" Which is exactly what happened the day of the crucifixion. Than at the point Jesus dies; Revelation tells us he/He appears in heaven with people who've come out of the tribulation.

Jeremiah 30:7 talks about the days of Jacobs troubles. In the days of his trouble, Jacob is afraid. The text says God will come and save him from afar off. What is Jacob afraid of? The wrath of God. He's afraid he won't be able to endure it. "Jacob" in this context is Jesus. Jesus talks about the days of tribulation being shortened and they were shortened by the angel of death. And this angel of death is how God the Father saved Jesus from being afraid.

What was Jesus afraid of? The end of Jeremiah 30 says he's afraid of losing his "progeny". I.E. He's afraid of losing all he/He came to accomplish. What made him/Him afraid of that? Psalm 119:120 says "I am afraid of Thy judgements." Jeremiah 30 also talks about God's judgement upon Jacob for his transgression that were "increased" and "I have done this to you." God declares. Yet He says, you will be chastised but you won't be lost. Psalm 18 gives a good picture of the extent of what he/He feared in his/His soul. Verse 15 talks about the foundations of the world being discovered at God's rebuke. And what were those foundations? "For no greater love has a man than he lay down his life for his friends." This ultimate is what "completed" the atonement.

Back to where we left Mary Magdalene at the tomb:

So Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute. She was named among several wealthy women as one of Jesus's followers and although it does say she had 7 demons cast out of her, the Scripture never delineates the nature of that demonic possession. It does say that Mary had "infirmities of the flesh" which implies some physical problem that caused her to be in a lot of pain and therefore increasingly dependent on people. She may have had arthritis; which was common in the ancient world. The language though seems to imply that she was increasingly more dependent than was an actual result of her handicap. This leads me to believe that Mary was probably a hypochondriac, had Munchausen Syndrome or something of that nature.

So there's a lot of assumptions that Mary Magdalene wanted to drag Jesus into the bushes or something like that; but there's no evidence of that either. (Not that she would have been able to force him/Him if he/He wasn't a willing participant in the first place.) For all we know Mary might just have been "Hey! I'm happy to see you!" and just wanted to hug him/Him. There's nothing in the Scripture of her intent of wanting to touch him/Him and what that constituted to her; nor is there any indication of more than platonic intent by what Jesus says: "Don't touch me." Also, of her reaction to Jesus's statement. She's just kind of like "OK" (shrug).

#3 - Now the third possibility; (and probability) had more to do with Jesus Himself. He's just come back to the tomb after assuming someone (gardener of the cemetery) provided him/Him with clothing and most likely the opportunity to bathe. He'd come out of the tomb naked with all this burial spice (and blood) / goo still stuck to him/Him. The cemetery caretaker (or son) would have been the first human to see Jesus.

Witnesses of the Resurrection:

Obviously the angels saw him/Him upon being resurrected and may have actually rendered assistance to him in getting out of the burial shroud. (The Roman soldiers were all unconscious and no one else was in the immediate vicinity.) We have various account of two angels being seen by people coming to the tomb. We are told one descended to roll the stone away; yet we aren't told how many "angels" were present to actually witness the resurrection.

Which this has got me thinking; of any entities I hypotheses would want to "be there" - I'd guess the Spirit and the Father. Now if there were two "angels"; were they theophanies? Would that be who they would have represented? I don't know, but to me that would make a lot of sense.

Any how; next consideration. What would it actually entail to raise the dead?

Now other people in the Scripture had been "resuscitated"; (Lazarus even after having been dead a considerable amount of time). Yet these others could not have been raised if Jesus was not "the first born from the dead". The ability to bring these other people back to life was predicated upon the atonement being satisfactorily secured. So in this sense; Jesus's resurrection came upon a different paradigm than theirs did. Jesus was the first and only to come back after having endured the wrath of God.

Also duly noted of Christ's resurrection as opposed to anyone else's; was that no one else was accompanied by earthquakes and angels - thus a reflection of the special circumstances of having overcome the wrath of God.

This resurrection was the culmination of a lot of work. This was the conclusion of "the hard part"; (after having accomplished this - the recreation of the universe is going to be a piece of cake). This was the "Big Kahuna" so to speak; the "Main Event"; the anticipated finality of the work that had been accomplished.

Add to this; a body that has known no corruption, a sinless human entity and a Divine nature. Reassemble all these elements to be incarnated again back into the same body which is simply fashioned in the likeness of the first Adam.

Considering also the subject of this study and the reflections of God's goodness woven into the physical presence of life itself. What it means to be alive and the reflection of the good pleasure of the Creator instilled as part of the make up of the created. Set all cylinders to fire simultaneously, hit the switch and what do ya think happened? For the intensity of the "joy that was set before him" Jesus probably woke up... screaming. (Thus also likely as to why in the practical realm, no other human being actually witnessed the resurrection.)

So if I'm correct and being resurrected really was the "spiritual" 'initial ecstasy of the culminated act'; (having physical ramifications in the course of the natural event) which would have been personally a very profoundly humbling experience for him/Him - there probably were some very practical physical reasons why he/He didn't want Mary touching him.

Now obviously later on that day, there were many people who touched him/Him; women included and apparently he/He was fine with that. So this might have been just as simple as a "biological reality" that was present in the current moment that wouldn't have been obvious and under layers of clothing, but would have been obvious if Mary had hugged him/Him. (Save you the shock and me the embarrassment - Don't touch me.) Which if something like this was the case. It would make sense that his/His thought would be - I need to ascend to the Father; since how long have I been resurrected now (hours) and still... ehhh, in this state.

Jesus's persoanl experiences:

Now given the amount of wisdom and thoughtful contemplation that Jesus obviously possessed in regards to sexuality. I suppose it is possible he/He'd gone through his/His entire life (prior to death) and never experienced this particular type of 'Oh my God - Thank You' moment; but how likely do we really think that would be biologically; given he/He was almost 40 years old? Probably not very likely. And given the entire scope of what all this represents; I can't imagine that he/He wouldn't know.

That would kind of be like someone very well versed in automobiles and types of cars, history of cars, how they are assembled and how to fix them; yet never driven one. Doesn't seem likely.