About ten years ago, I was sitting and musing on the Egyptian trinity of Osiris, Isis and Horus and I was trying to think about it from Lucifer's perspective - why use the nuclear family as a counterfeit representation of God? I mean, if you are going to counterfeit something it must at least be close to the original, right?
Well, I wondered, if the group of people you are trying to deceive does not necessarily know anything about the original you are counterfeiting then you don't have to work that hard to get it so close that they won't notice the difference. My thoughts ended there (I think) but came back a day or so later.
I started wondering again if this whole father, mother, and child concept was not an attempt by Satan to counterfeit some beauty that I just have not seen in Scripture about the Godhead as three Persons. And then it hit me - God created the original family unit (Adam and Eve) in His image!
But two things came to mind instantly:
- I know what the image of God is (much along the lines of what @Dottard and @Austin have posted in answer to this question).
- God created only a man and a woman (two and not three persons).
So, I once again walked off this topic in my mind for a couple more days not intending to return to it, but, then it started coming together as Jesus's words about Himself and about the Holy Spirit came to mind. I started seeing a typological object lesson of sorts about the three Persons of the Godhead, especially in the very peculiar manner that He went about creating the first man, woman and (when Cain was born) family unit.
What do I mean by typological object lesson? Well, in my mind I view what I am about to share as a mix between typology and an object lesson. I have found my understanding of what typology is to differ greatly (it seems) from others on this site so I will include a few brief examples here in an attempt to share the simplicity of typology in my mind. Go look at the examples of Joseph, Moses, Jonah, Abraham and Isaac, etc.
If there was any greater significance to the creation of Adam and Eve as created in God's image, then Adam would have to represent the Father and Eve the Son since Jesus makes prominent the Father and not Himself - just as Adam was created first and not Eve. But the fact that they were male and female barred my thinking along such lines for a while.
That was until I realised that their differing gender could be 'typologically translated' as describing the very real differences that exist between the Father and Son who are at the same time interdependent on one another and in a very complex relationship of unselfish love. In the same way do men and women differ from one another and yet each cannot live as a truly complete being without doing so in a very complex relationship with one another in which they genuinely do become one while retaining their differences as male and female.
The following verse was what got me thinking of Eve as representing the Son:
No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John 1:18
When God created Adam, He did so from the dust of the earth, but, not so with Eve. How did He do it? Yes, very unique...God took a rib that was in the bosom of Adam and from it He created Eve. So Eve was in a sense 'in the bosom of Adam' just as Jesus says He is 'in the bosom' of the Father.
In John 1:18 Jesus also refers to Himself as the 'only begotten Son'. Without getting too bogged down with exactly what monogenēs means, let's just go with Liddell and Scott's lexical entry for this word and see if Genesis 2 has any more light to shed on it.
In Gen. 2:19-23 we read:
And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
I want you to note the comment made about the animals in verse 20. It says 'but there was not found an help meet (suitable) for him'. Now I remember reading this as a child and thinking, Well duh! Of course there would be no companion found among the animals for him because Adam is a different kind of being! And this is where, I believe, Genesis gives us a very practical example of monogenēs as it describes the creation of Eve in the verses that follow.
She certainly was one of a kind both in her relationship with Adam and as the only female human being on the planet. Adam's first words about her are deeply significant. He says she is bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh - in other words, we are made of the same 'stuff'. This signified the fact that she could understand him and enter into companionship with him in a way that was impossible for any of the animals.
God has many sons, as we have seen in the Jesus's genealogy recorded in Luke 3 but none of these sons are like Jesus. He truly is a one of a kind Son in that He shares the same existence of the Father (bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh). And just like the animals could not fully enter into such deep companionship with Adam as Eve could, so too is it impossible for finite, created beings to fully enter into that level of companionship which the infinite Father has with His Son. We are just not 'made of the same stuff'!
In the following verses we read about the Holy Spirit that He is sent by both the Father and the Son:
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. John 14:26
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: John 15:26
And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. Luke 24:49
What do we find in Gen. 4:1,2? Yes, that children proceeded from both the father and the mother just as the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.
Now I am not sure how you see God's omnipresence, and, whether you tie it to any one or simply all three Persons; but, I would venture a step further and say that Adam and Eve could not be everywhere at once, however, they could be through their children that would go about and populate the earth. As they would come and visit their parents they would tell what is happening in their neck of the woods and thus Adam and Eve would benefit from the 'omnipresence' of their children.
In my thinking there is no threat to having a picture of God (image of God) where all the 'omni' attributes do not exist equally in all three Persons simply because it is in harmony with the interdependent, unselfish love relationship that I believe exists between the heavenly Trio.
There are more details about this that I could share but I have forgotten them. It has been some time since I last opened this file in my mind. If I am reminded of anything I will update this answer.