Pisteuomen - πιστευομεν - T. Michael W. Halcomb

At present, I have three growing interests in the field of biblical studies and in this post, two of those have come together: the Gospel of Mark and Barrenness/Infertility issues (from a biblical-theological standpoint). I noted in an earlier post that when one facing sterility/infertility struggles reads the Bible, there seems to be little hope and much condemnation (read this post too). However, as I continue to read Mark’s Gospel, I am beginning to find a lot of hope in some of the images and words that Jesus uses, as well as in His actions. For the barren Christian couple, there is hope. Take Mk. 13.17-9 for instance, that passage says: “How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! Pray that this will not take place in winter, because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again.” We find the parallel to this passage in Luke’s account at verse 23 and following: “D...

If Jesus was a foster child then why is He rarely ever spoken of as such? Is it because in the West, a scientific and DNA-driven society, that the prevailing definition of family has to do with biology and as such, the tendency is to consider anything other than biological as less? Or is it because compared to noble nomenclatures like King, Lord, Savior and Messiah, Foster Child seems less dignified? In all reality, there are likely a number of reasons that Jesus’ title as a foster child has been relegated to the metaphorical shadows. The fact remains however: Jesus was a foster child! Perhaps it is high time to resurrect this powerful image of Jesus. Indeed, it is an image, which, in a world where the fostering and adopting of children is on the increase, can offer helpful and hopeful ways for thinking about and relating to Jesus. For instance, what if we altered the traditional phrase “King of Kings and Lord of Lords” to “King of Kings and Foster of Fosters”? Might persons begin to r...

It is a widely known fact that antiquity had various gods and goddesses that were revered as fertility deities. Indeed, there were many fertility cults. I think, for instance, of Baal, Inanna & Dumuzi, Min, Isis and others. These sought after deities were not only connected with human fertility but also the fertility of the land; the two were intimately connected actually. This is not hard to understand by any stretch of the imagination; the forces behind nature were thought to be the same forces behind human reproduction. Little known to some is the fact that fertility deities were both male and female. Often times the rain was associated with a male god “spilling” his seed and the blooming of crops was connected to the female deity giving birth. One thing this suggests to me is that, though the Bible often stresses the woman’s role in infertility, in the larger culture, men may have also sought divine guidance for such issues. But for an Israelite to seek after a false deity such...

In post #3 of this series ( Thoughts On Adoption ), I made the comment that in the Scriptures, sterility is never blamed on men. Even more, sterility or barrenness is always portrayed as a curse from God. Further, in the Bible, every matriach who at one point is barren, is said to have recieved the gift of child from God. Add all of these together and the picture is quite terrible for Christian women who have pregnancy complications today. Indeed, while the issue of barrenness is tough in and of itself, the language of being cursed by God makes it worse. Since entering the adoption process I have personally been dwelling on how the Scriptures might speak in a pastoral sense to both sterile men and women today. In fact, I noted before that it appeared that Scripture never indicted the male on charges of sterility. However, as I was reading Mk. this week, I realized that I might stand corrected. I also realized that this passage can be one that helps us to see that even in the Bible, it...

In Ephesians 4.22-4, Paul says to the Ephesians: "You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness." Of course, this comes at the beginning of the more ethically-oriented section of the epistle. Paul is exhorting the Gentile Christians, here, to abstain from indulging in sinfulness and to be holy. What may not be as clear to the untrained eye is that Paul's statement here is cloaked in baptismal language. In antiquity, baptism was commonly done in the nude, especially for symbolic purposes. The person would take off their old clothes, go into the water and upon coming up out of the water, exit the other side of the pool and put on new clothes. Crossing to the other side of the pool and putting on new clothes represented making the cross or journey into a new ...

When one starts reading adoption materials, they soon realize the struggle that many couples go through: not being able to have a child. For Christians, one of things that I think must be so tough is the fact that, in the Scriptures, the inability to birth a child is always blamed on the women. (*Note: Since writing this, my view has changed. See Pt. 5 of this series for more on this!!!) Indeed, the Bible lacks any account that I can think of where a man is blamed for this. Of course, today, we are more sensitive to the issue. We now know that men as well as women are often unable to reproduce. Still, how do barren Christian women, looking for comfort from the Good Book, find it, when the blame is always on them (and not the men)? One argument could be that since biblical antiquity functioned within predominantly patriarchal cultures, men must have been sterile but it was simply blamed on women. This may be too hypothetical of an argument, however. It could also be posited that within...

One of the foundational beliefs of Wesleyanism is that the God of Christianity is a God who pursues people. For the theologically adept, you know this belief (in some form) as prevenient grace. The idea is that God the Spirit is constantly at work, wooing people to the Godhead; He is pursuing them that they might become part of God's people. Personally, I like this concept a lot. I also think that for those going through the adoption process, this can be quite an encouraging / empowering view. I was reading an article last night and a few thoughts came across: 1) In adoption, parents are relentlessly pursuing a child; they long very much to have that child in their lives and in their arms. The adoptive parents have been working so much, ahead of time, for this to hapen. It is quite similar with God the Spirit. 2) This period where God is pursuing us or even the period where we have responded to God but are awaiting the completion of our salvation, is often a tough time. We are in t...

Throughout time, persons have read John 3.16--arguably the most famous verse in the Bible--in terms of adoption. What I mean is that people have read this as if God were the birth parent relinquishing His son, giving Him to others as a gift (as is often the case with real adoptions). Of course, the Scriptures portray God as the adoptive parent too, but what do you think about this analogy/metaphor of God "relinquishing" or "giving" His son in terms of adoption. Is it helpful? Hurtful? Errant? Any thoughts?