What I Believe

i. How a Father?

[07/12/19]

I started this exploration of the Trinity with reference to the early creeds of the Church, and I think, as I turn to the individual Persons of the Trinity, it is well to refer back to those creeds once more. So, then, in the familiar words of the Apostles’ Creed, “I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.” Perhaps we can add the addendum to this point from the Nicene Creed: “And of all things visible and invisible.” This combined point directs our attention to one of the chief aspects of fatherhood, which is the act of creation. In human terms, one cannot be thought a father unless one has a child, an offspring. In God’s case, as concerns the created order, we find He is the Creator, the source. We readily understand that there may be natural means through which He creates, but in the initial act of creation, certainly, there is no such cause to be found. As is so often pointed out, nothing begets nothing. It is beyond the forces of man and nature to create anything out of nothingness. But, with God, all things are possible.

So, then, we see God as Father in His act of creation. As Maker of heaven and earth, He has a unique claim upon heaven and earth. In spite of the effects of sin, we still recognize this in human relations. A father has particular claim upon his children, and I have to say it is something quite distinct from a mother’s claim, although her claim is also great. It is so great as to be enshrined by God in the first commandment concerning our interrelations, and also, as is observed, the first commandment with a promise. “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you” (Ex 20:12). Why is this so important to God? I would suggest that, as with marriage, it is because of the way these relationships reflect the image of heavenly realities.

I note that it is rare indeed, if not completely absent, that denizens of the animal kingdom demonstrate any such fealty to parents. Yes, for the first years of life a mother or father may provide for their young, but once at maturity, that young one is on its own, and probably well advised to strike out for new territories. In some species, the last thing a young creature needs is to encounter its father, for it is likely to be the father’s snack. But, amongst humankind it is not to be so. No, here the call is to honor your parents lifelong, and indeed we even find punishments most severe called for in the case of those who dishonor their parents. Why? Because God is a Father, and as a Father, is due a particular fealty, a particular honor. If you can’t honor your father whom you can see, to paraphrase a passage regarding relations, how will you honor your Father who is in heaven?

But, a father’s claim goes beyond honor, certainly in the cultural setting into which the Scriptures came forth. A father had claim to obedience. Consider that it was the father’s role, really, to give name to his children, and as I have often observed, the act of naming in Scripture is often a declaration of authority over the one named. To name is to rule over, it might be said. This is evident as early as Adam’s task of naming the animals (Ge 2:20), over whom he was given dominion (Ge 1:28). The naming was at least a symbolic assumption of that dominion. What we should make of this in regard to Adam giving name to Woman (Ge 2:23) and particularly to Eve (Ge 3:20), I shall leave for another place perhaps. But, whatever man’s naming may have achieved in areas of dominion, it remains that man had his own source and name-giver in God. That is to say, whatever authority man may have remains subsidiary, answerable to the Almighty, the Final Authority.

I observe that this also plays into the declaration of the first creeds. Our Father is God, the Almighty. That primacy of power indicates as well His primacy in authority. He created. He named. As such, He commands. Thus far, we have what is effectively simple fact. It encompasses, as the creeds indicate, a reality held in common by all, whether believer or unbeliever. Acknowledged or not, the fact of God as Father Creator does not change.

If I may diverge for just a moment, I noted that the call to honor parents reflects God as Father, but who or what is reflected as mother? I believe the Roman Catholic church would point to itself as mother, and there is actually some validity to that viewpoint. But, without venturing too much further into human relations, a mother’s role in the family is much different than a father’s. A mother nurtures where a father commands. These are not exclusive roles, but they are distinct. A father is perfectly capable of nurture, and at least in the ideal his commands are geared toward that end. A mother has her role in the discipline of her children and her word is to be heeded, but she is not generally speaking the originator of command, but the implementer. I’m sure some will bristle at the idea, but certainly within the culture of that time and place into which Scripture was first promulgated, this would have been the unquestionable case.

A father creates, and as creator, has claim of command over his creation. An artist may be said to have such relationship to his art. He may not be able to dictate how it is received, but as to how it is made and delivered? Yes. A father in Scripture, however, is not a dictator, however much his word is to be obeyed. He is also an example to be followed or modelled. This plays into the significance of sonship. The son is he who resembles and reflects the ways of his father. This is not, and make of it what you will, something spoken of in regard to daughters, so far as I can see.

But, let us to the Scriptures. I actually want to turn near the end of the Old Testament, to the text of Malachi 2. I am challenged to find a proper starting point here. The chapter as a whole is addressed to the priesthood, and it is not a happy message. It is the rebuke of an angry Father. “If you do not listen, and if you do not take it to heart to give honor to My name,” says the LORD of hosts, “then I will send the curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings … I am going to rebuke your offspring” (Mal 2:2-3a). Observe: You have failed to give the Father his due reverence. Your sons shall suffer rebuke. It is payment in kind, if you will. There follows a discussion of Levi’s ways, which are honored, of the covenant God made with the tribe of Levi, and of this current generation’s corrupting of that covenant. “You have turned aside from the way; you have caused many to stumble by the instruction; you have corrupted the covenant of Levi” (Mal 2:8).

And then there comes this response which, while spoken in God’s voice, appears to reflect more a reaction of those whom He rebukes. “Do we not all have one father? Has not one God created us?” (Mal 2:10a). The questions reflect the expected answer. Yes. In fact we do all have one father, the God who created us. The argument that follows from this reality is that the treacherous dealings that defined the tribes, and which still define the interactions of mankind today, are utterly profane, utterly treacherous. They are a breach of blood ties. If human life is precious, the life of immediately family is more so. But, God is pointing out that we are all immediate family, as children of one Father.

Here, to our immediate purposes, we observe the Father as Creator and progenitor. Here is our common bond. It is a bond, as I have already observed, that we share with the whole created order, and this should, I have to suppose, inform our dominion over the animal kingdoms. It is no more a place for tyrannical rule than the home. They, too, share a common Father, although they do not share the honor of being image bearers. They, too, are to be cherished as the workmanship of His hands.

But, more to the point for this passage, as our common Father, God is our common, shared honoree. How are we to honor Him? By acting as sons, as true sons, who bear not only the genealogical evidence of His line, but who also seek to walk as He walks, speak as He speaks, act as He acts. If we have one Father, we have one model for living a righteous life. If we would honor Him, it is by living said righteous life. Claiming Him as Father is of no value if the claim is nothing more than empty words.

[07/17/19]

Both the idea of creator and model come out as well in the image of God as Potter to our clay. It comes in the midst of a prayer of repentance, but what it reveals of Isaiah’s and Israel’s understanding of God is wonderful. “But now, O LORD, Thou art our Father. We are the clay, and Thou our potter. And all of us are the work of Thy hand” (Isa 64:8). Clearly, the theme of God as creator is present, but we move beyond that. It may seem a fine distinction, but He is also our shaper. The potter, if we speak in human terms, does not create the clay, he creates fromthe clay. He shapes, molds, gives purpose to that which he makes. To be sure, he has say over what shape the clay will take, as Paul later observes. “Does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump a vessel for honorable use, and another for common use?” (Ro 9:21). Of course He does, and that takes us right back to creator as controller.

But, observe the nature of that shaping and creating which the potter does. It is formative. It is almost cajoling the clay to take up the desired shape. I could point out that there is a reason we have a product we call modelling clay. It is because we model the clay. We tend it, nudge it this way and that, until it takes up the desired form. That form may be crudely supplied, or quite refined. I think of adventures with my aunt when I was quite young. She would teach me to work with clay, and my effort was to be an ash tray whose shape would be formed by wrapping clay around a rock. This would then be smoothed, painted, and fired. But, it was a truly primitive effort. In fairness, I don’t recall whether the work ever got finished, for it really didn’t suit my temperament at the time. I had the energy of youth, and not the patience needful to the task. It moved too slowly for me. But, she could create things of beauty, camels and kings and angels and such for nativity scenes. These were creations well-defined, with fine feature and carefully applied color. Truly, as Paul observed: One for honorable use, and another for common use.

For our purposes, though, look back to the hands that shape the clay. Our Father is modelling us. He has a design for us that He is slowly molding out of us, as it were. Unlike that clay my aunt worked with, we are somewhat more active in the process. But, again taking reference to Paul’s work, we don’t have any more say as to the result, do we? Oh, we like to think we do. We are truly aghast at the idea of having no real say as to our outcome, our final form. But, there it is. God makes what He wants. He is the potter. We remain the clay, and far more passive in His hands than we are generally willing to accept. Isaiah saw this as at least a beginning of a reason for God’s anger to be turned aside. “Don’t be angry beyond measure, O LORD, nor remember our iniquity forever. Look! All of us are Thy people” (Isa 64:9). The combined message is, You made us, are You going to destroy us as well? We are Yours, after all.

I have to say, that’s a very risky ploy, and in fact the very one that Paul knocks down. His work of creation in you is no excuse for your sin towards Him. Yes, He created you. Yes, He formed you, and modelled you. But, you, O rebellious lump that you are, have fought hard against His modelling, have sagged on the wheel every time He backed off the pressure a little bit. You have discolored the tints He has applied and let go the shaping of His hands at first opportunity to take upon yourself the malformed image that is more pleasing to you. Your Potter has every good reason to look upon you with disdain and even disgust, to cast you back into the dirt and start over with some fresh lump of clay. But, He does not do this. For His own, there is unwavering patience, as He once more turns the lump on His wheel, and gently restores the intended shape.

It is interesting to observe God’s answer to Isaiah on that occasion, for it speaks volumes to us who have come later. “I permitted Myself to be sought by those who did not ask for Me. I permitted Myself to be found by those who did not seek Me. I said, ‘Here am I, here am I,’ to a nation which did not call on My name” (Isa 65:1). There is more which follows in regard to rebellious Israel, but this is the bit that has my attention. The Father called, and He did not call because those whom He called were seeking. No! They found not because they were looking, or even cared to find, but because He caused Himself to be found. That was certainly my story, so it’s no surprise, I suppose, that a message such as this captures my attention. But, the point is plain. It’s not my works that attracted Him, it’s His work that captivated me. Truly, I am a lump of clay happened upon, although in God’s case, there is no ‘happened upon’. There is purpose.

Indeed, it seems that Isaiah recognized that even for Israel, the situation was very much the same. “For Thou art our Father, though Abraham does not know us, and Israel does not recognize us. Thou, O LORD, art our Father, our Redeemer from of old is Thy name” (Isa 63:16). And observe what follows. “Why, LORD, do You cause us to stray from Your ways, and harden our heart from fearing You? Return for the sake of Your servants, the tribes of Your heritage” (Isa 63:17). I see, then, that those whom Israel does not recognize are in fact the tribes of Israel. This is not addressed to a foreign nation which the nation of Israel refused to grant access to God. It is Israel herself whom Abraham and Israel do not know. And yet, the LORD is their Father. Their story is no different than ours. Further, we see the understanding Isaiah has as to the extent of God’s control. No Arminian he! If there has been a hardening of heart, it is by His doing, even if it is according to our will. The question to ask is not why did You let me do this, but why did You do this? And the follow on question is more important still. And what must I do to have that heart restored? Note the appeal. “You are our Redeemer!” You are our only hope of restoration. It was ever so. It ever shall be.

So, then, we come to our case. “You have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, ‘Abba! Father!’” (Ro 8:15). And continue. “The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also; heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him in order that we may also be glorified with Him” (Ro 8:16-17). I will no doubt have forgotten this by the time I get to Son and Spirit, but observe the Trinitarian nature of that declaration. Father, Spirit, and Son are all present in this adoption. We see as well, a Father we are not to fear with that abject fear that is common to pagan belief systems. There is a fear, but as today’s Table Talk observed, it’s the right kind of fear, a sweet fear and reverence ‘that can silence all other fears’.

The cry which is now on our lips is not the craven appeal to one who might otherwise crush us like a bug. It is the loving appeal of a child to his father. “Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’ Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God” (Gal 4:6-7). It’s the same thought, isn’t it, and in the same Trinitarian formulation. We, like the Galatians used to be enslaved to idols which ‘by nature are no gods’, but are now known by God (Gal 4:8-9). And note Paul’s self-correction as he writes. He first says they came to know God, but immediately turns it around. Far more accurately, and more importantly, you came to be known by God. It’s not that He was unaware of them at the outset. Rather, it’s a ginosko sort of knowing, intimate observation and experience of that which is now known. God has come to be intimately involved in your life, as a father will be; a keen observer, wise counsellor, and careful tender and shaper of your life. This is something quite different than is experienced by those who refuse to know Him in the same, intimate, experiential way; not that we take up that counselling, shaping role towards Him! He remains our Father, not we His. He remains the Potter, and we remain clay.

And because of His work in us, we are aware of His intimacy with us. We know Him as our Father. We recognize His love for us, and fear not to cry out to Him with tenderness of affection, “Abba! Father!” Daddy God! It sounds so wrong, doesn’t it? Here is the ultimate Being, the Almighty, and we’re being so casual as to call Him Daddy! It smacks of arrogance on our part to demean Him so, and yet it is by His work in us, that our hearts defy our sense of propriety and recognize the true propriety of accepting the privilege His work in us has granted. He is Daddy, and He invites us to call upon Him with the loving, trusting hearts of children.

As I close this subsection, I want to go back to Isaiah’s writings once more. “For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on His shoulders. And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace” (Isa 9:6). The text is clearly addressing Messiah, the Christ to come, that son on the throne promised to David, whose kingdom has no end. And yet, look at the name. He is Mighty God, the Almighty. This Messiah, then, is no mere mortal. He is Eternal Father. And yet, we see that this is addressed to the Son. The Son is Eternal Father? I can answer in two ways. First, “Behold! The Lord our God, He is One” (Dt 6:4). Father and Son, though separate in Persons are One Being, One God, so sure, why not assign the Father’s title to the Son? And yet, I don’t see that this is ever reversed. I don’t ever recall finding a reference that suggested assigning the Son’s specific titles to the Father. Actually, I’m going to back down from that statement. Father is, I think, spoken of as our husband, a role that seems specifically to apply to Son.

But, let me move to the second answer. “He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” He is, then, both eternal and in this fatherly, creative relationship to us. He is as much our Father as the Father, having been the hand that created us. And, He is assuredly the Prince of Peace, because we know our Father shall never pass away. We will never be found fatherless. Our earthly fathers age and fade, and eventually depart this life. It leaves a hole, no matter how old we have ourselves become in the meantime. I have yet to experience this particular loss, although, having lost a mother and then one like a mother to me, I have a reasonable sense of what lies ahead when dad goes home.

Our Father in heaven, on the other hand, isn’t going anywhere. He is eternal. He is always present to hear us when we cry, “Abba! Father!” He is never shy of an answer, nor slow to answer. His answers are never the foolish reaction of the emotionally involved. They are all-wise, for He is a wonderful counselor, with wisdom far and away in excess of our own. His counsel ever informs us that He has things well in hand. His counsel is ever, “Be still and know that I am God.” We are children by adoption, but we are children well loved.

ii. Why a Father?

[07/14/19]

Thus far I have primarily observed the authority inherent in the Father as our creator and modeler. But, there is far more to the idea of fatherhood, and as with all that He is, God is the perfection of fatherhood. It is actually the ideals, the characteristics of fatherliness that are declared of God long before we find reference to Him as the Father. Job hints at it in his self-defense, speaking of himself as a father to the needy (Job 29:16), but it falls to David to really make the picture clear. God is, he observes, “a father of the fatherless and a judge for the widows” (Ps 68:5).

I began to address this in the previous section, noting the hole left in our lives at the passing of our father. But, there are those who suffer a greater hole in our day, which I don’t suppose was quite so great an epidemic in the time of David. We live in an era of absent fathers, and it has often been observed, if to scornfully dismissive response, that the absence of a father figure is doing great harm to the children raised in that condition. While this needs addressing as a society, any attempt to address it must, by the nature of the thing, leave behind many who have already been born into and raised under this fatherless situation. What shall we do for their case? Well, there is certainly the model of Job. “I was a father to the needy.” We can, and where possible should, step in and fill the gap. But, while we may in some degree fill the need and provide some aspects of that fatherly role, we cannot fill it in full. God can. He is a father of the fatherless. He is able and willing to step into that relationship, to be intimately and constantly involved in the lives of these young men and women, to be their role model, their tutor, their exemplar. That is not, as I am observing, an excuse for inaction on our part. Rather, it is an assurance that the damage can be ameliorated, and even undone, for with God, all things are possible.

This is not the only place David speaks of the Father’s care, nor does he reserve this fatherly care for those who have no earthly father to turn to. “Just as a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on those who fear Him. For He Himself knows our frame. He is mindful that we are but dust” (Ps 103:13-14). Now, this does not speak of God as the Father outright, but the comparison is made by parallel. God has a father’s compassion towards His children, all of them. Being the ideal, perfect Father, we can say that His compassion is shown towards all His children equally. He does not play favorites.

A quick note of clarification is perhaps in order with that statement. That God loves His children equally, and has an equal compassion towards each one does not in any way require us to suppose that He gifts each one equally, or endows each one equally. From the parables of Jesus we can reasonably infer that God gives more to some than to others, and by corollary requires more of some than of others. While He often seems to set aside the prerogatives of the firstborn, yet He observes them in many cases. He assigns rank and position as He sees fit, and for the pursuit of His purposes. Not everybody got to be king, for example, nor do we find an infinite supply of prophets or of apostles. There are a select few who are assigned that office.

But in this matter of compassion and care, the picture is much different; the care is given in equal proportion. I want carefully to observe the matter of proportion. Where there is a greater need for compassion, I fully expect a Father will have more compassion in evidence. Where there is not so great a need, to display the same depth of compassion would be counterproductive and unhealthy. God being good, He will not turn His compassion to bad end. Neither, as He seeks to form godly character in His children, will He rebuke so strongly as to damage. He may spank, so to speak, but He will not injure. He is mindful that we are but dust, that our frame can only bear so much bending before it breaks.

Others of an artistic inclination have described the process as a master sculptor working his marble. To cut to deep, or chip away too hard, or even the slightest of chiseling at the wrong spot would leave the desired result forever out of reach. Rather than an image for the ages, one would have but a chipped rock. One might think of the Venus de Milo. Once that arm is off, there’s no putting it back, or carving out a new one. It’s over. God’s work, though, is done mindful of our frame, with intimate knowledge of our fracture lines, our weaknesses. He knows how much shifting we can manage, and on what fronts, and it is there that He works, allowing us to grow into the new form before He moves on to another part.

As Jan and I have been watching an English gardening series of late, it puts me in mind of the training of roses or fruit trees to grow along the fence. There’s a term for that, but it hasn’t stuck yet, and isn’t of sufficient value for me that I care to go look it up just now. Suffice to say an apple tree, for instance, is not naturally inclined to spread but two branches in a strictly horizontal, and perfectly opposed fashion, before perhaps sending out two more a foot or so up. By nature, the apple tree wishes to spread its limbs wide all around. Now, if one comes along and manhandles that branch that wants to grow upward at an angle, and roughly force it to the horizontal, the likelihood is that this branch will simply break, followed by withering and dying. But, a gentle pressure, applied with compassion, may yet cajole that branch into a new course. That, I think, gives us a fine image of the work of the Father on His children. It is compassionate and wise. He knows our limits as fully as He knows His desired ends for us, and so He gently, patiently works His will upon us until His will becomes our habit.

[07/15/19]

Hear, then, the words of wisdom. “My son, do not reject the discipline of the LORD, or loathe His reproof, for whom the LORD loves He reproves, even as a father, the son in whom he delights” (Pr 3:11-12). The LORD God is no doting father who sees in his child one who can do no wrong. For Jesus, yes, this is so, for Jesus does do no wrong. But, for us, His is the eye of a wise Father, with great care for the discipline of His children. He knows that the undisciplined child grows wild and unruly, like a weed. The child needs tending, caring correction, loving discipline, if the child is to become the strong oak that is the Father’s desire. Yet, even in the place of correction, that child remains the apple of His eye. Thus David cries out to Him, “Keep me as the apple of the eye. Hide me in the shadow of Thy wings” (Ps 17:8). It is an appeal to the tender care God has for His own. And, in His care for His own, He calls for a similar regard. This comes again as Solomon’s advice to his child, but hear it as God’s own advice to His children. “My son, keep my words, and treasure my commandments within you. Keep my commandments and live, and my teaching as the apple of your eye” (Pr 7:1-2).

Be in no doubt. This phrase does indeed capture the Lord’s love for His own. “For thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘After glory He has sent me against the nations which plunder you, for he who touches you, touches the apple of His eye’” (Zech 2:8). You are precious to the LORD of hosts, the Father – your Father – Who is in heaven. It is in light of that fatherly love that He takes care to discipline as needed, that you may indeed be a child of His love.

Setting aside the matter of reproof for a moment, consider your own case, if you are a father. What, indeed, will you not do for the child you love? Who among you would react differently than to stand as a strong defender of that child against any who would seek to harm him or her? Perhaps it is a stronger impulse with daughters than with sons, for sons are by and large expected to be able to fend for themselves. But, even so, if a father sees his son being overwhelmed by forces against which he cannot hope to stand, will he not come to his son’s aid? If his son is in trouble, will he not act, as best he may, to see that trouble addressed and his son restored? Do you begin, then, to see why this sense of God as Father was and remains so strong? Do you being to see why God would choose to reveal Himself first and foremost as our Father? It’s not just an appeal to His own authority, although it assuredly lays out His rightful claim to authority over us. Far more, it’s an expression of comfort, an assurance to us of His eternal and unfailing care. That care by no means grants that we shall live free of trial, or even of failure. It does, however, assure that however much we may fail, however far we may stray, He will undertake to see us safely restored to His good graces.

This is ever and always the goal of His Fatherly reproofs. This may be observed as the distinction between the fiery darts of the devil’s accusations, and the loving wounds of the Father’s reproof. The former seeks only to discourage, to dissuade us from trying, to condemn once for all and bring on the full punishment of sin. “The thief comes only to steal, and kill, and destroy. I came that they might have life, and might have it abundantly” (Jn 10:10). The state of the sheep in question is no different in either case. He is a sinner in need of redemption. On the one hand comes one with condemnation, seeking to steal away this sheep from the love of his Shepherd, to kill that sheep and destroy the joy of the sheep and Shepherd alike. It is a hopeless endeavor on his part, but then, he’s a hopeless being and wants nothing so much as hopeless company. But, the Shepherd also comes. He, too, takes notice of the sins of the sheep, and speaks of them to His sheep, but not by way of condemnation; rather of conviction, reproof, correction. He points out the error not for purposes of leaving that sheep to its inevitable end, but rather that the sheep might see the error of his ways, and turn and return to the pleasant fields of the Shepherd’s choosing.

And so, we find another psalmist, Ethan the Ezrahite, speaking God’s words over David. “I have found David My servant. With My holy oil I have anointed him” (Ps 89:20). “He will cry to Me, ‘Thou art my Father, My God, and the rock of my salvation.’ I also shall make him My first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth. My lovingkindness I will keep for him forever, and My covenant shall be confirmed to him. So I will establish his descendants for him forever, and his throne as the days of heaven” (Ps 89:26-29). There is clearly a mixture of object here, between David and the Son. The throne of David, as concerns the kingdom of Israel, did not persist perpetually. The kingdom rose and the kingdom fell. Few indeed were the kings who could claim to act as sons of David, at least as sons of David at his best. Many were found who could imitate David in sinfulness, and even excel him by leaps and bounds. But rare was the king of Israel of whom God could say He was even reasonably well pleased. But, the promise remained, as it still remains. The throne in view is fully and forever occupied by the Son of God’s love, the Apple of His eye. The assurance of the Son upon the throne gives more reason for our own assurance. The reproof that was our due has fallen upon Him, and in Him has God seen the fullest discipline of our sins satisfied, the penalties of our many failures paid for in full. In Him, does the Father find just cause to love us, whom He has adopted, and to reprove us faithfully, yet mindful of our frame, that we are but dust. In Him we find our hope and our future secured. Thanks, Father.

iii. Of Whom a Father?

[07/16/19]

I have spoken of the Father’s role as model and modeler, the one after whom a proper son takes. This, sadly, has a negative side as well. God is, after all, Father of all, being the Creator of all. His model is set for all, but not all will accept the design, the imprint. There is indeed that clay which will insist to the Potter that no, it shall not take that form. These may have the Father as their father, but they cannot rightly look to Him as our Father. They have not the Spirit by which to cry out to Him, “Abba! Father!” They deny Him with every action, every word, every breath.

This is, we might say, the natural state of man in the unnatural state of his fallen condition. In the Fall, that design which was ours was thrown off, and the clay of our first forebear rejected the Potter’s hand. Thus it has been ever since. This is our starting point. But, our Father being a good father, He does not leave His children to their wicked ways, but rather brings forward such discipline and compassion as are needful to each child in order that he or she may turn and return. For some, then, there is the joyful recognition of the Father’s love for them, and that love is returned in joyful acceptance. For others, rebellion and rejection remain the course chosen.

Some even seek to rebel while yet retaining the family name. I could think of those scenes familiar from film, of the son who exercises a forced takeover of the father’s business. He is not like his father. He doesn’t look at the business as an expression of his father’s will, but as a means to his own ends, to be used and discarded as he sees fit, and father’s wishes do not enter into his calculations.

Transfer that image to the priesthood, and we see a serious problem, but not really a new one. I will take but one example, and that once more from the closing chapters of the Old Testament. “‘A son honors his father, and a servant his master. Then if I am a father, where is My honor? And if I am a master, where is My respect?’ says the LORD of hosts to you, O priests who despise My name” (Mal 1:6a). Pause for a moment on those first questions, for they are presented as parallel thoughts. The father image is a master’s image, and the son’s image is that of a servant. The servant/master relationship gives us a stronger sense of the Father’s claim upon us. His word goes. Ours is not to question or refuse or even to slow-walk His assigned duties. Ours is to obey and that with alacrity.

But, it’s not craven duty in fear of the whip. It is honor given as honor is due. This moves us beyond mere creaturely duty. “If I am a father, where is My honor?” We might rephrase it. If I am your Father, in what way are you My son? How does it show?

Carry forward to Jesus’ day, and that same question comes to the priesthood of that period, those who held themselves to be the pillars of piety. “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature; for he is a liar and the father of lies” (Jn 8:44). If, then, you are inclined to lie, you honor your father the devil. That, I should think, ought to be a rather strong deterrent, and yet it would seem not strong enough. The problem persists, and many a claimant to the mantle of being a Christian turns out to be instead a worker of antichrist, obeying the model seen in his father the devil.

It is not just a problem for leadership, for those who take up holy vocation. It is the common problem of us all, I dare say. If we accept a priesthood, a leadership that is not committed to pursuing the ways of our Father, we must surely expect it will not be long before we, too, toss aside the constraints of His discipline. I say it is far more insidious when those who serve to guide the church are gone astray, for they lead by example as well as word, but it is, it must be our first concern whose example we follow, theirs or the example of our Father in heaven.

I will look at one more passage in this regard. “As the thief is shamed when he is discovered, so the house of Israel is shamed. They, their kings, their princes, and their priests, and their prophets, who say to a tree, ‘You are my father,’ and to a stone, ‘You gave me birth.’ For they have turned their back to Me, and not their face; but in the time of their trouble they will say, ‘Arise and save us.’ But where are your gods which you made for yourself? Let them arise, if they can save you in the time of your trouble. For according to the number of your cities are your gods, O Judah” (Jer 2:26-28). This is once again aimed at the top, the leaders of both the secular and the religious aspects of life. Of course, in the economy of ancient Israel, these two were close-coupled, although never combined. But, the people that accept a leadership so inclined to turn their backs on God must surely take their share of the blame for the leadership they support, however tacit that support.

The question redounds to us. “If I am a father, where is My honor?” You who are so besotted with your idols, on what basis do you suppose you can come to Me with your problems? You have declared your loyalties, turn to the one you serve. “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (Jn 14:15). Yes, those are words from the Son, but He is One with the Father, and His commandments are the Father’s commandments, undertaken and delivered as a true Son of the Father, and as a true Brother to the saints.

Would you be found a son of your Father in heaven? Honor Him. How shall He be honored? First and foremost, by not merely being treated as the object of our deepest devotion, but truly being the one we love. How can we demonstrate our love for Him? Keep His commandments? That must lead us to the hardest part for fallen men such as ourselves. How can we keep His commandments? How can we do the work of our Father? “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent” (Jn 6:29). That is the primary, critical act of obedience. Believe Christ. Believe in Him, put your faith in His righteous obedience, and His sacrifice given on your behalf, in order that you might become sons of your Father in heaven. Do this, and all else will fall into place, as it must. Yet, don’t fall into complacency, counting on Daddy God to do it all to your passive lump. He instructs. He disciplines. He provides works for us to do that we may know our significance in Him, that we may demonstrate ourselves to be sons of our Father. As such, sons set themselves to be not merely hearers of His instruction, but doers thereof.

“If I am a father, where is My honor?” It is found in loving, joyful pursuit of His will, done in the attentiveness of a royal servant in the household of God. It is done with the spirit of prayerful desire. “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Mt 6:10b).

iv. Father's Relationship to Son and Spirit

a. Father of a Son

It is all well and good to contemplate the Father as a Father, as the Father, and even as our Father. But, when we bring our understanding of fatherhood to bear on the relationship of the Father to the Son, it can’t help but lead to difficulties. And it has led to difficulties; difficulties such as have produced perhaps as much controversy and division in the Church as have the division of Reformed and Arminian. If He is a Father, it seems to us, He must produce the Son in some fashion. After all, fatherhood is about creation, right? It’s about the role of progenitor. How can one be progenitor of an eternal being? Or, to place it the other way round, how can one be an eternal being if he has a beginning, a point of generation?

It is actually most stunning, I think, that we don’t see the Apostles wrangling with this issue at length. Perhaps it shows them as having less of a penchant for philosophical pursuits, being too busy with experiential realities. But, I observe that Paul, in writing to the church in Rome, does not seem to find any need to explore how this can be. He simply accepts that it is, and encourages unity in that acceptance. “Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Jesus Christ; that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Ro 15:5-6).

But, Paul! Are we not to worship Christ Jesus as our Lord and Savior? Most assuredly so. It is right there in the express desire. By all means know Him, acknowledge Him, adore Him as your Lord, for your Lord He is. Yet, observe: Glorify the Father, your Father, who is the Father of our Lord.

I would suggest we could look to examples of royal succession for an understanding of this relationship except that in matters of royal succession, it is a thing most rare for the king to step down to make way for his son. It’s not entirely without precedent, but it’s rare. Generally, the new king comes to the throne because the old king has died, whether peacefully or violently. If we look to Britain, for example, we don’t expect Elizabeth to vacate the throne to make way for her successor, not while remaining active, at the very least. Consider David and the succession by Solomon. It may have been well known that Solomon was to take the throne, but not while David was yet able to sit upon it. But, let it be supposed that the old king vacates the throne in a fashion akin to retirement, to enjoy his old age, and I think we would recognize that the honor due the king did not cease with his retirement. Likewise, in our system of governance, the honor due a president does not cease because he has left office. I speak, mind you, of proprieties, not of current practice. In current practice, there is hardly honor to be found for the office or for its current occupant, let alone those retirees from office.

But, God does not retire. He remains God. The Father is eternally the Father. Whatever is going on in His relationship to the Son, it ever has and ever will. Likewise, the Son, of necessity, is eternally the Son. There never has been, nor could there be a point when the Son was not. If such a point could be found, it would be necessary to account the Son part of the created order, and if that is the case, then the worship of Him would be as blasphemous an act as the Pharisees and Sadducees would propose it is. To put it bluntly, if the Son is not eternally the Son, then Christianity is a profanity of the worst sort.

We shall have to assess the idea that Jesus, the Son, was born of Mary, but begotten of the Father. That may be too fine a distinction for us, but we have to deal with it. Mary bore the Son of God. She gave birth to a baby after the normal manner of birthing. The conception was, to be sure, miraculous, there having been no intercourse with man involved. But, the birth itself was wholly typical of human birth. On the other hand, how came she to be implanted with seed, as it were? The Father begat. He did not, as one might expect from Greek myth, come down in human form and have His way with her in some secret glade. Rather, we might suggest, He spoke and it was. That is, after all, His general mode of action, isn’t it? At risk of polluting the thought with ideas of creation, yet we see that this is how things began. God spoke, and it was, and it was good.

This idea of begetting shows up as early as Job. As God peppers Job with questions designed to remind him who is who, we hit these questions. “Has the rain a father? Or who has begotten the drops of dew? From whose womb has come the ice? And the frost of heaven, who has given it birth?” (Job 38:28-29). There’s a fair amount of parallelism in that passage, isn’t there? The ideas are at the very least quite similar, and yet, by the piling up of images, there is the sense that each has fine distinctions from the other.

This term, begotten, is intriguing. Yes, it has the idea of bearing young, but in a causative manner. It is to act as first cause, if you will. It may also be to act as more of a mediatory cause, serving as a midwife. Observe: The midwife is not in any way involved in the creation of that which she helps to deliver, but she is most assuredly a means to assure its delivery. Strong’s notes that the term particularly addresses matters of lineage. Here we have our term in Hiphil form (forgive me, I don’t really know much as to proper terminology for Hebrew syntax), which the BDB indicates puts us into that sense of begetting or to bear in a figurative sense. In that sense, the example is given of the wicked begetting, bringing forth, iniquity. Okay, so the Hiphil has a causative role. Wheeler’s offers a somewhat helpful contrast here. The Qal is the thing caused. The Piel speaks of bringing about a Qal state, bringing the thing about. The Hiphil backs it off a step, if you will, and indicates the causing of the event which will in turn bring about the state. The distinction seems to lie in this: The Piel leaves the object passive, but the Hiphil has the object as participant in the action. It almost seems to play the role of the Greek Middle Voice in that regard.

Unfortunately, none of this leaves us any closer to a useful distinction between begetting and bearing, does it? We do, however, see it in parallel to fatherhood. That term, apart from the rather obvious meaning of a father, also expresses the idea of clan head, of originator, producer, or protector, and finally, a ruler or chief.

Perhaps a dictionary will help. The primary meaning for beget is that of procreation, siring. But, it has the secondary idea of producing, causing to occur. Bearing, in the most applicable sense, means to give birth to, to produce as a yield. A tree, we might say, bears fruit, but does not itself cause the fruit which grows. To birth gets back to ideas of origination, giving rise to. So, then, if the Father gave birth to the Son, we might find a point of origin for the Son, and therefore have to demote Him to the created order. But, we don’t. We find the Son begotten, not birthed. The Father may be said to have a causative role here, but not creative.

[07/18/19]

To make my point, I shall turn to the beginning of John’s gospel once more, but I want to look nearer the end of his introductory statement first, to establish the connection. “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth” (Jn 1:14). First, that the Word is the Christ is Jesus is made abundantly clear by this connection, for we know Jesus was the one who dwelt amongst them. That is pretty much the entire record of all four gospels. Second, it establishes this matter of begetting as something different from creating. The glory of Him, particularly, as we shall learn in John’s gospel, as manifested on the Mount of Transfiguration, set Jesus apart from man, although He was assuredly fully human. His glory shown through on that occasion in spectacular fashion. Third, it establishes that Jesus is the sole claimant to this begotten status. He is the only begotten.

Now, this gets us more into the topic of Son than of Father, but we are establishing something here about the Father’s relationship to this Son. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God” (Jn 1:1-2). I know I have been coming back to this verse repeatedly, but only because it establishes such a significant matter for this subject of the Trinity. That “In the beginning,” like the “In the beginning” of Genesis 1:1, actually points us back before the beginning, before there was anything begun. It points us back into the eternal. There, before there was a time to be before, before there was a was to be, was the Word, was God. The sum of this is that there has never been a time, nor even a whatever describes timeless eternity, when the Son was not. He may be begotten of the Father, but it is eternally so.

Of course, on this subject of the begetting of the Son, we must surely consider Psalm 2, which is the text of the majority of usages of this term. In particular, we find the middle verses quoted repeatedly in connection with Jesus. “But as for Me, I have installed My King up Zion, My holy mountain. I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘Thou art My Son, today I have begotten Thee’” (Ps 2:6-7). I’ve backed up just a bit from the oft-quoted part to establish one thing: It is the Lord speaking, yet He is speaking of what the LORD spoke to Him. Actually we have to go back just a bit farther to establish the speaker. “He who sits in the heavens laughs. The Lord scoffs at them. Then He will speak to them in His anger” (Ps 2:4-5a). He already sits in heaven, this Lord. He is already in His place, and we must surely presume, no child king, for the child king is a curse upon the ruled, not a blessing. But, it is the declaration of the LORD that makes plain that the begetting is not the beginning. He already IS, and yet there is this matter of “Today I have begotten Thee.”

Now I’m up against it, aren’t I? If the begetting came at some point after existence, then He has changed, and is therefore not changeless God. But, here we are dealing with things beyond our ken, beyond our capacity to properly frame the reality that is on display. We are given a glimpse into a place where ‘today’ really doesn’t have a great deal of meaning, at least not in terms we would recognize in the word. There is only the eternal today, the eternal now for God who knows the end from the beginning; God who IS beyond the end and before the beginning. Thus it is, I think, that we find Christians generally arrived at the concept of the eternally begotten Son. Today is a constant in heaven, not the fleeting moments we experience here. Yesterday and tomorrow don’t pertain. That feels a little too close to eastern religion, but I do think it describes the case for God and His heavenly realm.

Now, if the Father is eternal begetter of the Son, this has implications for their relationship, does it not? The begetter is indeed father to the begotten, but in this instance, not in the creative sense. I’m not even sure to what degree we ought to apply the causative sense, but as the Scriptures move us in that direction, I suppose we shall accept it. As concerns the passage in question, and its choice of wording, the term is taken, as with the Jewish Hiphel it translates, to address the idea of engendering, causing to arise, and as concerns the Son and that passage from Psalm 2, it is taken to be pointing particularly to His resurrection, as marking the occasion of His being particularly endowed with that begotten Sonship, or more properly, showing Him to already be the Son. It is an evidence for man’s consumption, not a conferring of new status on the eternal Son. I note as well that in the quotations of Psalm 2, the word is rendered in the Perfect Tense, displaying a present, or continuous result of prior action; that, in spite of the ‘Today’. To borrow from Wheeler’s Greek Syntax, “The action is concluded and the actor is at rest, but the results of the action are still in existence.” Yes, and ever shall be.

Okay, I think I’ve addresses the begetting matter sufficiently. How does Begetter relate to Him who He has begotten? John has an answer for us fairly immediately. “The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand” (Jn 3:35). This, we are told, is the testimony of John the Baptist. Recall that he saw the Spirit descend, heard the Father commend, as he baptized the Son. If there was anyone positioned to recognize Who had come, this last of the Old Covenant prophets was. So, we see what must be a key element for us. The Father loves the Son, and in that highest, agape, fashion that looks to see that all that is needed for the loved one’s well-being is done for him. Thus, Father gives Him everything, gives all things into His hand. This is, to be sure, a declaration of the Son’s authority. In this, He is rather like the prodigal son who received his inheritance early, but only as to the timing of the transfer, not as to the disposition of his inheritance.

Later, Jesus makes clear just how intimately these two have their fellowship. In fairness, we could say the entire ministry of Jesus makes that clear, but here and there we get a forthright declaration on the matter. One such is this: “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works” (Jn 14:10). The Father abides in the Son, and we can as readily say the Son abides in the Father. It is a mutual, constant habitation. How could it not be? God is One.

But, we see, although I am at pains to describe it without bothering my own sensibilities as to the Trinity, that there is in fact an order here, a chain of command in some fashion. I still think command may be too strong a term to apply here, for that cannot help but suggest to us that one pulls rank on the other, or that one is in a place of submission to the other. In some fashion, this is certainly the case. It must be, for Jesus has just said, “I do not speak on My own initiative.” He may as well declare that His will doesn’t enter into it, and if we fast-forward to Gethsemane, we find that it doesn’t. “Nevertheless, Thy will be done.” But, then, He is expressing His will there, isn’t He? So, then, He doesn’t speak on His own initiative, yet we might say He refrains from doing so on His own initiative. It gets difficult, and I’m not sure it lies within the power of man to properly untangle the difficulties. It certainly doesn’t appear to lie within my power.

We find a similar point elsewhere in Jesus’ words. “I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me” (Jn 12:50). At a glance that suggest this same chain of command, doesn’t it? But, allow me to suggest it doesn’t. What it relays is a Father/Son relationship. I know My Father is wise, and His commandment, His instruction is aimed at what is needful for eternal life. Why, then, would I speak anything other than that wisdom He has imparted to Me? Of course I speak as He has told Me, for His words are life, His words are perfect and to the purpose. There’s no need for Me to invent something new.

As seems so often to be the case in this effort, I find that this observation brings me to an application to close out the morning’s effort. Here in the Son is our model. Jesus, the Son of God, God Himself, did not see fit to speak anything new. “I speak just as the Father has told Me.” Why? As I have just said, because there’s no improving on what He has already instructed. If His instruction produces, or is conducive to eternal life, how are you going to improve on that? You can’t! What, you think some access to supernatural power in this life is more significant? You think a few years of perfect health followed by the grave is more significant? I think not! “For me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Php 1:21). That’s not the confession of one focused on earthly gain in any way shape or fashion. That’s not the confession of one vying for power or position. That is the confession of one who sees, as the Son sees the commandments of the Father, eternal life made sure, and incapable of improvement.

“And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus the Christ whom Thou hast sent” (Jn 17:3). And then, return to Peter’s response when all were turning away because the message got hard to handle. “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (Jn 6:68). Yes, they may be hard to hear, but seriously, we’re going to find better elsewhere? You are the Son. You speak the words of the Father and make them to be understood by us. You walk the talk. You show us the way because You are the Way. Where are we going to find a better teacher? It’s not possible.

Well, teachers of today, get the message! You cannot improve upon the Word, upon God’s Word. All your new ideas, your vain imaginations, your fanciful interpretations of questionable texts, and your impartations of fever dreams and hallucinatory visions cannot add one least thing to what the Son spoke. He had the wisdom to speak only what He heard the Father saying, to do only as He saw the Father doing, to obey only as the Father was commanding, knowing that commandment to be for life. Can you say as much? If you are offering a message that departs from the gospel once for all delivered, no you cannot. You can only be offering words of inevitable death.

For those of us who seek to hold true to the Word of God, the challenge is really no less severe. We, too, are entirely too prone to wander in our views, to allow our ideas to become our interpretation. I see it in myself often enough, this willingness to delve into speculation. I don’t think that’s wrong in itself, but one must take great care that speculation does not become definitive to our thinking, and that as concerns the Truth, we abide within the bounds of Scripture. Where God does not speak, we can only imagine, as the song goes, but shame on us if we suppose our imagination to define the Truth. And let us remain mindful and vigilant, for our hearts are deceptively wicked, and our enemy would gladly have us pursue our ideas in favor of God’s commands. We are all too readily willing to go along with that idea. Commands are hard work. Our ideas, even if they entail a fair amount of labor on our part, are not hard work, because they are just what we want to do.

I think of a comment one of the folks on the gardening show we watched last night made. It went to the effect that the amount of physical labor that he was putting into the effort of making the backyard into a beautiful garden was far and away beyond any sort of effort he would be willing to make for anybody else. But, this is his garden, and so the labor is fine. The work is not hard if it pursues our desire. Even though the work required to pursue the far superior course of God’s desire may be far less, it looks to us like far more. But, we have this, if only we will hear it. “My yoke is easy, and My burden is light” (Mt 11:30).

In short, as I close for today, knock it off! Stop trying to make up new ways, new doctrines, new commandments. You already have in hand the words of eternal life, the commandments that lead to home. Where else will you go? Stay with your Shepherd and tune out all those other voices seeking to lead you in other directions, ways our fathers did not know. They may call their gods God, or even Jesus, but by their so-called teaching, they prove it is not so. If it were, they would speak only as they have record of Jesus speaking, not the voices in their heads, but the voice of those words which He has caused to be recorded for our good – words of eternal life.

iv. Father's Relationship to Son and Spirit

b. Giving Father

[07/19/19]

As we have already seen, the Father has given all things to the Son. Of course, we must consider the scope of all in this case as in every case. The very nature of all implies a set. It is possible that one has in view the superset that includes everything everywhere at every time, but that must rarely be the case, one should think. For example, I don’t suppose we can include the Father in that all things any more than the He is included when He says all things are subjected to Him. “For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, ‘all things are put in subjection,’ it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him’” (1Co 15:27). The Father, at the least, is not in the set that is in view. That holds in both cases. But, what is included in ‘all things’?

We can start with authority. “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Mt 28:18). By whom? By the Father. Much later, writing to the seven churches of Asia, we see this stated. “He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds to the end, to him I will give authority over the nations; and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, as the vessels of the potter are broken to pieces, as I also have received authority from My Father” (Rev 2:26-27). This again seems to require that we accept a certain chain of command even within the Triune Godhead, with the Father as chief. Yet, as chief, He has given all authority to the Son, authority with a scope encompassing heaven and earth alike. There is, then, no least portion of the created order that is not set under His authority. I must, however, exclude the Godhead from this, in all His Persons, for He is One. Only to the degree that one has authority over himself can the Son be said to have authority over Father or Spirit. Within the Trinity, even with the words we have just read taken into account, I find it difficult if not impossible to suppose that one wields authority over the other except it be by fully mutual consent. That is to say, in that eternal covenant which God has made with Himself, this fraternity of Persons have by mutual agreement assigned to the Person of the Father the office of Initiator, if you will. He shall be the source, even to Son and Spirit, but not as creator, nor even as originator. It once more defies me to put into terms what I am trying to express.

That said, Father has given all authority to the Son, and with it, has given Him the kingdom over which He wields that authority. After all, authority is of minimal value if there are none who are subject to that authority. Of whom does this kingdom consist? I would maintain that it consists, at one level, of all creatures, all created beings, whether in heaven, on earth, or, for you science fiction fans, on planets far removed. It includes then believer and unbeliever alike. It includes both angels and demons. This holds so far as the right of rule applies. Yet, there is another scope to that kingdom which becomes exclusionary. Demons and the unrighteous find no place in that kingdom, except it be in prisons far removed from its center. “And a highway will be there, a roadway, and it will be called the Highway of Holiness. The unclean will not travel on it, but it will be for him who walks that way, and fools will not wander on it. No lion will be there, nor any vicious beast. These will not be found there. But the redeemed will walk there, and the ransomed of the LORD will return, and come with joyful shouting to Zion, with everlasting you upon their heads. They will find gladness and joy, and sorrow and sighing will flee away” (Isa 35:8-10).

Now, while it does not directly concern the Father’s relationship to the Son, this news of the kingdom given Him is good news for us as well, at least for us who will be found walking there. “Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has chosen gladly to give you the kingdom” (Lk 12:32). Now, don’t misread this. Don’t suppose this makes you or I royalty in some fashion. No, it is the promise to those who seek His kingdom rather than seeking to have needs satisfied (Lk 12:29-31). It is not a matter of possessing the kingdom, nor is it a matter of ruling over that kingdom. That kingdom already has an eternal and perfect King. But, it does involve citizenship in that kingdom. Consider the era into which Jesus came to dwell amongst man. It was an era when Rome reigned supreme throughout the region, and when great distinction was to be made between the citizen and the non-citizen. Both were found in the same lands. Both were subject to the same authorities. But, a citizen had rights and privileges which the non-citizen could not claim. This, I think, gives us a clear picture of the two senses of that all-encompassing kingdom of God that I have tried to convey. All are included under its authority in the most widely inclusive possible sense of all. But, only those who have been declared citizens are included in the all of privilege.

“The Father has chosen gladly to give you the kingdom.” You are made citizens by His happy choice. Once more, we see the Father both as giver, in this case of citizenship, and as prime mover. This is the part that people don’t like. Nobody wants a God who can tell them what to do, and indeed tell them who they are. But, that is the God Who Is. He Who gives authority to the Son does so because it is His desire to do so, and for no greater cause. He Who gives citizenship in the kingdom of heaven does so because it is His desire to do so, and for no other cause, either greater or lesser. This really is an inescapable conclusion. “No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day” (Jn 6:44). “No one can come to Me, unless it has been granted him from the Father” (Jn 6:65). If the Father does not will, it cannot be so.

You will ask how this plays against the statement that God is not willing that any should lost, but all should be saved? “This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1Ti 2:3-4). That is lovely, and surely expresses God’s preference. And it is quite reasonable to question how it can be that if this is God’s preference, anything should prevent it? There is, I think, but one thing that can prevent it, and that is God’s character. For, God is not only Love, He is also Justice. He is not only Mercy, He is also Holy. Love and Mercy would, left to themselves, likely forgive any and all sins, and perhaps even force restoration on one and all. But, Justice and Holiness do not permit it. No outside agency prevents God’s desire. His own perfect character, and that alone, prevent Him from simply granting one and all citizenship, and acting to ensure that one and all are made fit citizens. There is simply too great a weight of evidence for exclusivity to grant a hearing to universalism.

Even those two declarations of Jesus that I just quoted from John require us to understand that whatever God’s desire, the reality is that only a portion of those under His authority are made citizens of His kingdom in full, and that the portion who are granted citizenship are granted that citizenship by His choice. This requires that we also accept that those who are refused citizenship are refused it by His choice. This bothers us, and I think particularly so here in America, where we are steeped in ideas of self-reliance. Christianity has no room for self-reliance. It’s all about God-reliance. But, behold that as God gives these kingdom citizens to Himself, Father to Son, it is a source of utmost assurance to those citizens. You see it already in those to verses. You can’t come unless Father grants access. But, where He has granted access, there is no question of failing to come. “I will raise him up on the last day.” You will come, and you will remain, for the zeal of the Lord will accomplish this (Isa 9:7).

Now, you may seek to quibble that this is no assurance of your accepting the offer, only that if you do, He will honor it. But that same message of Jesus in John’s gospel removes all doubt. “All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out” (Jn 6:37). I need to continue that passage, as it continues to speak to the conjoined points of irresistible grace and assurance. “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me” (Jn 6:38). Again, there’s that sense of a chain of command, however that may work within the Trinity. “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day” (Jn 6:39-40). Note: It’s exclusionary. It is only those whom the Father has given, those who behold and believe. These are, I must insist, one and the same set, for All that the Father gives the Son shall come to Him.

Here is the kingdom defined. It consists of those whom the Father gives the Son. It is not all humanity inclusive, regardless of belief or unbelief. It is not every angel, fallen or not. It is a portion, that portion which the Father has given to the Son. Here is the King defined. It is the Son, yes, but it is also the Father. It is thus that Paul has reminded us that at that last day, when all has been put in subjection under the Son’s feet (and note, that does not mean all are citizens, it means that all are in subjection, happily or otherwise), He will in turn subject His kingdom to the Father. All that has been given Him yet remains the full and rightful possession of the Father, who is, after all, the source of all.

I say again, therefore, that the Father is a giver. He is the giver of all good things. “Every good thing bestowed and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation, or shifting shadow” (Jas 1:17). He gives, first and foremost, to His Son, and He gives, as well, His Son to us. God the Father so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life (Jn 3:16). Mind you, that passage again refuses universalism, for there is included there the point that the one who has not believed in the name of the only Son of God is judged already (Jn 3:18), judged in this case speaking to sentence passed and punishment declared.

God has gladly chosen to give you citizenship in His kingdom, and made of you a gift to the Son, to Whom the Father particularly inclines to give every good and perfect gift. I don’t know about you, but I find it hard to look upon myself as a good and perfect gift. But, the Father finds it good and perfect to give me to the Son; that I may be made a suitable citizen in His kingdom.

Thank you, Father. With this as my inheritance, what more could I ever think to ask?

iv. Father's Relationship to Son and Spirit

c. Powerful Protector

[07/20/19]

It is striking that as I look to the Father’s relationship to the Son I find I am also looking at the Father’s relationship to the believer in some regard. I have seen that with the Father’s choice to draw His own to the Son, the irresistible grace of God reaching out to save His own. I see it as well in that assurance which comes of His action and of the Son’s action. The Father having chosen, the Son will raise up. But, here again, one might say it is the Son doing only as He sees the Father doing.

Consider the words of Paul’s greeting to the church in Galatia. “Paul, an apostle (not sent from men, nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father who raised Him from the dead)” (Gal 1:1). I see that it is entirely likely I shall revisit this verse when I get to addressing matters of the Church, but as concerns the Father, observe simply this: He raised the Son from the dead. The Son, in His turn, has raised us – or will raise us – from the dead. I think perhaps it is both has and will, for we are already reborn, but await the resurrection of our body to dwell with Him forever in His kingdom.

Now, I have suggested by my heading for this portion that I am looking to the Father as the powerful protector of the Son, and likewise of ourselves. Surely, He who is able to raise His own Son from the dead is able to do whatever may be necessary to see us safely home! If, as is clearly the case, He has command even of death, then what shall we fear? What shall deter our homecoming? Is it any wonder that Paul would conclude, “I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Ro 8:38-39). In a very real sense, we cannot lose. If God is for us, who can be against us? (Ro 8:31b).

But, Paul is not alone in this recognition. He has it from Christ Himself. The Giver is the Guarantor, the Protector of His gift. “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand” (Jn 10:29). Father and Son together assure us of our safe arrival at heaven’s shore. It is no permit for slackness and dissolution on our part, as I shall explore in due course, Lord willing, but as we seek to walk in righteousness, and as we of necessity face our daily failures, how great a comfort to know that even our own tendencies cannot, in the end, take us from Him. For we are assuredly included in that ‘no one’, and I dare say, we are the greatest danger to our own salvation, for we are fallen creatures and inclined to continue falling. Yes, our enemy the devil prowls about, seeking whom he may devour (1Pe 5:8), but we are quite adept at playing into his hand, and must be constantly reminded, as Peter does in that very verse, to be sober-minded and alert. Why? Because our own natures militate against being thus. Our pleasures in this life threaten to distract us from the glories of life to come, such that we become too enamored of our present to give thought to our future. But even this, even our weak commitment to holiness, shall not snatch us out of the Father’s hand, though we may find ourselves with manifold reasons for sorrowful repentance. We have cause to repent, but we have the assurance that we shall, for God is at work, His Spirit working within us.

And with that, I must say, I am entirely off course in considering the Father’s relationship to Son and Spirit except in this: Father, Son, and Spirit are agreed and co-laboring to see the will of the Triune God accomplished in me, as He works to that same end in all who are His own by His own choosing. God raised the Son from the dead, and in so doing, makes clear to us that we, too, have been preserved against death and, as Jesus said, even if we die, yet we shall live (Jn 11:25).

iv. Father's Relationship to Son and Spirit

d. Greater

Now, I turn to perhaps the most challenging aspect of the Father’s relationship to the Son, the Son’s own confession that He is greater than the Son. “You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I” (Jn 14:28). How are we to take this? It would be difficult to find those words declaring anything beyond the rather clear point that the Father is greater than the Son. And yet, if Father and Son are co-equally fully God, fully possessed of one and the same essence, how can one possibly be greater than the other? If they are equal, then there can be no greater and lessor. If they are not, logic would seem to dictate that the one who is greater is God and the other is not. And yet, Jesus the Son is very clearly demonstrated and declared to be God. “He was in the beginning. He was with God. He was God” (Jn 1:1). He still is, and ever shall be. He is eternal as God alone is eternal, being the only uncreated being. Father and Son are equal. And yet, the Son says the Father is greater, and He demonstrates it by His deeds, both in this life where He who is fully God is also fully Man, but also at the summation of all things. “Then comes the end, when He [the Son] delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power” (1Co 15:24).

Isn’t that something? The Father has given the kingdom to Him, given all authority to Him, and yet, when that kingdom is fully realized and that authority fully established what transpires? He ‘delivers up’ that very kingdom to the Father. Lest we think that the kingdom was handed over, but not the kingship, observe: “When all things are subjected to Him, the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all” (1Co 15:28). That does, present a difficulty, doesn’t it? If the Son is God, how can He be subjected to the Father who is God? How can God be subjected, even if it is to Himself?

I am at a loss. I am of two minds with this, for clearly Father, Son, and Spirit are equal as concerns their deity. They are equal in their eternality, in their authority, in their self-sufficiency. Father, Son, and Spirit alike can, indeed must, as I see it, say that in their actions and in their choices, they are beholden to no other. Whether considered in the oneness of the Trinity, or the Threeness of their Persons, each can declare with absolute veracity, “I AM that I AM”. I AM because of Me, and for no other cause. I answer to no one. And yet, here is the Son answering to the Father.

The best solution I can arrive at is this: Father is in Son and Son is in Father, and both are in Spirit and Spirit is in both. These three Persons, though their individual (to the degree that individual applies) relationships to one another may vary, are in fact one Being, one God. In submitting to the Father, the Son is in fact submitting to no other than Himself.

Can I find even the weakest of parallels in my own being? Perhaps, although I fear such an attempt may drift into heresy in one way or another. But, if I consider the Christian life, is it not in some ways reflective of this? We know from Paul’s writings that the struggle we feel between our old self and our new self is the common experience of the Christian. We find ourselves desirous of living one life but in point of fact living quite another. The things we wish to do, we do not do, and the things we wish most heartily to refrain from are the very things we see ourselves doing (Ro 7:15-16). I am not, by any stretch, suggesting that God suffers this same dilemma of knowing himself simultaneously saint and sinner, but it is certainly my lot. I am at war with myself in this. Yet, am I two beings? No. Is one of those me, and the other someone else? No. I may speak of the devil influencing one behavior, and God the other, yet both behaviors are mine, and of my own choosing. I may not act according to my will, as Paul observes, yet it is no other’s will but my own that I follow in so acting. That holds whether I consider the good or the bad. As much as I speak of God’s shaping of me as being irresistible, yet it is true that to the degree that I work with Him rather than against Him in this, it is my will choosing to align with His. That is the pursuit of sanctification in short form.

But, to my current point, in every deed one or the other of these aspects of my being is being subjected to the other. It is the nature of war that victory comes not by the active choice of the loser, but by their submission to the victor. It is a forced capitulation, even if it is in the end the chosen course. Let me focus not on the warfare within, for that certainly does not apply in any form to the Godhead, who is in perfect harmony, perfect unity in Himself. Rather, let me focus on that matter of choosing a course.

I really must, at some juncture, go back and read that work of Dr. Pink on the matter of God’s eternal covenant with Himself, for in that eternal compact, I think I find my answer here. The Father is greater, but we must consider how so, and how it is so. He is not more powerful. For, if each Person of God is co-equally God, then each Person is all-powerful. He is not possessed of greater wisdom. For, if each Person of God is co-equally God, then each Person is all-wise and all-knowing. Whatever the message of the Son when He speaks of events which only the Father knows, it surely remains the case that as the Son of God, in His deity, Jesus most assuredly does know. I conclude, then, that it is in His humanity that He does not; that it is a decision of the Trinity that this knowledge is not to be revealed. It is in that same structure of decision that I find a ‘greater’ for the Father, it is a matter of relationship, of role. I could almost say it is a matter of office. But, here’s the thing: The assigning of relationship, or role, or office is an action undertaken by the Trinity in perfect Unity; a feature of that eternal covenant by which God has, if you will permit the term, bound Himself to Himself. He Who is because He is has, by this eternal covenant, declared to Himself, “This is Who I AM.”

In that declaration, it would seem, the Father has been declared at the very least to be first among equals. He makes the call. But, He does not do so apart from Son or Spirit, for the Trinity, being One, always acts as One. How can He not? Yet, there is this covenanted relationship of Persons. The Father commands. He sets the agenda. The Son implements in perfect and joyful accord with that agenda.

I could look back on my time as chairman of the elders. I may set the agenda, but the implementation of those things brought up in the course of our meetings were not mine to dictate. It could well be argued that as chairman I in fact had less say in the results than any other. The chairman can neither make nor second a motion, but finds himself wholly dependent on the other members to do so. I could, I suppose, refuse to bring up the matter for which a motion was to be brought, or defer it endlessly, but that would be a most perverse abuse of the office. Rather, it is a bit of an example of that first among equals relationship. I may set the agenda, but it happens in conjunction with the elders. I may propose a thing, but it requires sufficient agreement amongst the elders to even bring it to a vote. I don’t think it ever happened that a motion failed to at least to obtain a second, and I shudder to think of the situation that might cause such a thing. But, for a matter to be pursued, the motion must be voted upon, and a majority obtained. In that act, even the chairman, even the pastor, for all that, is but one equally weighted voice, one vote.

As must ever be the case when we seek to understand the Trinity by our earthly experience, the parallels are limited in scope, and the model falls apart rather quickly. But, I retain this: This greater role that the Father plays in the interworking of the Trinity is His by mutual agreement of the Persons of the Trinity, by covenanted determination of God with and among Himself. (How our English fails us when discussing He Who is at once One and Three, Who was and is and is to come!)

We see something of this covenanted relationship, of these assigned roles, in Jesus’ teaching of His disciples. I think particularly of the common refrain of the image of the vineyard. We are God’s vineyard; His property and intended to bear fruit. Israel had unique claim to that in her time, and per the parables of Jesus, was shown to be utterly derelict in her duties as vineyard. She had abused the Owner’s representatives and as such, had abused the Owner. She had sought to take the fruit for herself, refusing the Owner His rightful portion. She had – would – slay His very Son in the misguided pursuit of being independent and free of the Owner.

But, my thoughts go to another use of the vineyard model. “I AM the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser… I am the vine, you are the branches” (Jn 15:1, Jn 15:5a). We know the message well. Stay connected with Christ or you are fruitless. But observe, the Father prunes even the fruitful branch. Faithfulness to God is no promise of painlessness. Sorry. Pruning hurts every bit as much as being cut off, taken away, and burned. But, it goes to a very different end. The branch that is pruned bears more fruit! The pain produces greater goodness, greater sweetness, a more fruitful existence. I wander.

It seems I cannot look at the relationship of Father and Son without becoming involved in the picture, and that is, I suppose, how it should be; how it must be. But, let me come back to my purpose here. The Son is the true vine. Here is His role. His are the roots that draw sustenance from the good earth of holiness. He is the only means we have, as branches, to obtain that which sustains in us eternal life. “In Him we live, and move, and have our being” (Ac 17:28). Don’t ever suppose that can be said in reverse! He may abide in us, but He does not have His being in us. He has His being wholly and solely in Himself. He lives in Himself, moves of Himself. But, He abides in us and therefore we abide in Him. I drift again.

Jesus, the Son, has the role of bringing the life-sustaining nourishment of righteousness to us, His branches. Observe carefully. It is not that He is the channel, and the Father the source; not in this image at least. The channel is the source in this image. The vine includes the root. The Father’s role is that of vinedresser. He is the assessor, the decider. He considers each branch of the vine in turn, and determines whether that branch remains or whether it perishes. He determines what pruning is needful to bring about the best result. “Every fruitful branch, He prunes, that it may bear more fruit” (Jn 15:2). A plant left to grow wild may bear fruit, but it will be limited. An apple tree that is not carefully pruned year by year soon becomes more leafy and less fruitful. A vine left to grow wild is likely, apparently, to do the same. I think even of the thyme plant my wife left to grow as it pleases on the back porch. It has gone to flower. It is quite pretty, and the bees seem happy enough with it, but as thyme goes, as to that purpose for which one grows thyme, it has become purposeless. It is unfruitful, however lovely its blooms.

The Vinedresser, by His pruning, prevents us becoming merely show. He renders us fruitful in our loveliness, even if our loveliness may to some eyes appear constrained or even misshapen. Oh, they might observe, that poor branch has been cut at and injured! Why, oh why would the gardener go lopping off such perfectly fine growth? Well, because he is a gardener, and he understands that even good growth can lead to bad result if it happens in the wrong course. He knows that a better result can obtain by cutting back here and there. He knows what is needful, and it is this, and this alone, that He does.

In the relationship of Father to Son, He makes the call. Remember? “None can come to Me except the Father draws Him.” “I am the Vine, yes, but He is the Vinedresser.” To Him falls the task of making the decisions, setting the timetable, determining the purpose of each vessel He makes, to shift images to that of the Potter. The Son is not the clay, no. We are. The Son may perhaps be said to be the Wheel upon which the pot is formed, or the Hands that form it. But, what He forms of our clay, He forms in accord with the Potter’s intention.

So, the Son is given the kingdom, but in due course, He turns it over to the Father, as giving back to Him what is His. Yet, the Son loses nothing in the giving, nor did the Father lose a whit in having given to the Son. What was given is returned in full. What was given is retained in full.

I have no idea if I have managed a sensible, let alone an accurate depiction of this relationship between Father and Son, particularly in this matter of being greater yet equal. But, I have done what I can. Now it is time to consider the Father’s relationship to the Spirit.

iv. Father's Relationship to Son and Spirit

e. Sender of Spirit

[07/21/19]

I don’t find a great deal said of the Father’s relation to the Holy Spirit, if you will grant that there is a distinction to be made between that and the Spirit’s relation to the Father. Even taking into account the many mentions of the Spirit of God or the Spirit of the Lord, not a great deal is added in regard to the relationship of one to the other. The one thing we might observer is that there is no mention of the Lord of the Spirit, or God of the Spirit. Here is what I observe.

I have spoken of the Father as Giver to the Son, and through the Son to us, and that role or relationship certainly carries over into His relationship to the Spirit. Consider the message given to Moses, particularly at the point when he was appointing the seventy elders to help him in leading Israel. God speaks to Moses and say, “I will come down and speak with you. And I will take of the Spirit who is upon you, and will put Him upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with you, so that you shall not bear it all alone” (Nu 11:17). And so it happened. “Then the LORD came down in the cloud and spoke to him; and He took of the Spirit who was upon him and placed Him upon the seventy elders. And it came about that when the Spirit rested upon them, they prophesied. But they did not do it again” (Nu 11:25).

So, what do we observe? First, I see that it is the LORD, God the Father in control here. He takes and He gives. Moses and the people may have done their part in putting forward these seventy to be elders, but it is the Father’s choice in the end. He come down, is physically manifest in the cloud, leaving no doubt of His presence and His control of the situation. He speaks to Moses, leaving no doubt in people or elders that here is a special, unique relationship. They could presumably hear the sound of His speaking, see Moses listening, but it was to Moses alone that He spoke, as it were, face to face. He also leaves no doubt amongst the people that these elders are to bear an authority like unto that of Moses. They prophesy, but if one asks why, it is pretty clearly in order to confirm the Spirit’s presence upon them. Not the emphatic point at the end. They never did this again. It was not some spirit of prophecy that came upon them. It was the Holy Spirit. The prophetic moment, if you will, was solely for purpose of confirmation to those observing. But, that gets us more into the role of the Spirit than the Father’s relation to the Spirit.

This is, it seems to me, the biggest, arguably the sole aspect of that relationship that is made plain to us. God gives the Spirit to whom He will. His right and role as decider always comes into view in His giving. He gives as He chooses, as He wills, and to the purpose He purposes. It is so with the Son. It is so with the Spirit. It is so with us, as we are given to the Son. That He is wholly and solely in charge of the giving does not render it wrong to ask. Indeed, the Son asks and He will send, and the Son encourages us to ask as well.

In one of His parables regarding our pursuit of entrance into God’s kingdom, he speaks of that persistent petitioner coming to his friend’s house after midnight seeking loaves to feed a visitor (Lk 11:5-13). There is much to observe in that parable, including the nature of appropriate prayer, but the primary point is that this man receives his answer not because he asked once, but because he wouldn’t accept no for an answer. Having received the initial response, he doesn’t simply give up and go home, he keeps asking. I would not wish to press the point too hard. The point of the parable is not, after all, that we ought to pester God until He capitulates to our desires – never that! Rather, it is the assurance of good answer. “I say to you, ask, and it shall be given to you, seek and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives” (Lk 11:9-10a).

Now, I find I must immediately add the caveat that this assumes something about the asking. It is not a blanket offer, or a guarantee that whatever frivolity may come to mind, or even whatever great and wonderful good, He is going to answer you and that’s that. It is not a name and claim promise. If it were, we should soon find ourselves rid of cancer, of floods, of sweltering heatwaves and frigid winters. Or, at the very least, we should each find ourselves in our personal bubbles of ideal weather, because that’s just the way we are. Our first thoughts tend to be for ourselves. But, if we look to those greater matters of human suffering, who among us would not pray for an end to it? Who among us has not prayed for a government that was more in line with God’s governance? Who among us has not prayed for all the societal ills that plague the nation to be eradicated? Now it may be that in time we shall receive answer on some of these, but it’s certainly not the case at present, is it? If it were, we should have no calls to pray for this one or that one who is confronting cancer, because the thing would have been done away. We would not need to remind ourselves to pray for our leadership because that prayer would have long since been answered. But, the needs are constant, and the answers are as God chooses. Yes, there are answers, but the answers are not always, “Sure, here you go.” The answers are in accord with God’s predetermined will, in the fullness of His infinite wisdom, and as He knows will best serve His good purposes in and for us.

But, going back to the parable, there is an added assurance, that the answer will be in keeping with the request – again, I must insist, with the prerequisite of the request being in keeping with a kingdom mindset. Note the original requester’s reasons for asking. It was not simply that he was hungry and hadn’t managed to get to the store. It wasn’t that he coveted his friend’s better foodstuff. It wasn’t even, though it could have been, a matter of pride and saving face. Considering how important hospitality was to the mindset of this people, it could have been a matter of pride. I have a visitor come to my house, and I am unable to provide him with a meal. What will be said of me? But, there’s no hint of this in Jesus’ tale, there is only the concern for that visitor. He has come from a journey. He will be hungry. It is no less after midnight for him than for his friend, after all. A proper fellowship meal would not typically be on offer at this hour. It could wait for tomorrow, if that’s all that was at stake. But, they have a need, and he feels it necessary to supply the need if at all possible. It is on this kingdom-minded mission of mercy that he has come asking, and it is because his request is in full accord with kingdom principles and kingdom purposes that he receives his answer. So it is with us.

Now, perhaps I can come to my point. “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?” (Lk 11:13). Here, I have to say, we have come to the point of the whole parable. Here is what you ought to be asking for, and here is what He will assuredly give. He being the Giver does not preclude you asking. Your asking does not render the giving a capitulation to demand. No, it remains a gift given, and God remains in control of His decision to give. He knows how to give good gifts. He knows far better what is good to give than do you, being evil. And His chief gift, after life itself perhaps, is the Spirit, whom He gives as He pleases.

Observe later, as Jesus prepares His disciples for His departure, that He sets Himself in the place of asking. “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides in you, and will be in you” (Jn 14:16-17). Jesus will ask. The Father will answer, will give. There is no doubt of this. It shall be. But, careful observation reveals that for them, it already is in some regard. “You know Him because He abides in you.” That’s present experience spoken of. He could not say this of one whom they had yet to meet. That would be ‘you will know Him’. This is present. He is already present.

Perhaps we might see it as a shift from upon to within, for certainly in those Old Testament contexts, the Spirit rests upon the one to whom He is given, and it most often seems that the giving is for a period or a purpose. I think, for example, of the one chosen to oversee the work of constructing the components of the tabernacle in the wilderness. I expect to encounter him again when I turn more directly to considering the Person of the Spirit, but the case serves here. The Spirit came upon him, and clearly for the purpose of oversight in that work, filling him with all the artistry and skill necessary to the task. I see no cause to suppose this was a permanent feature of his life thereafter. The task being done, I can readily suppose the Spirit moved on. These were temporary visits for the purposes of God’s kingdom. That purpose is no less the case with this new assignment, but the duration is something new, even for these who know the Spirit because He already abides in them. Here is an added promise from the Son Who asks: He will be with you forever. This is no longer anointing for a specific task. This is now to be made a permanent condition.

Later, we are given cause to understand why Jesus could speak with such confidence of this gift. “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me” (Jn 15:26). Observe: The Father gives, but the Son sends. They may be said to give together. We see also that most peculiar term used by the creeds to describe the Spirit’s relation to Father and Son. He proceeds from them. What does this mean? It appears to have a causative sense to it. It’s not merely a going forth, but a being caused to go forth, a being led out. Interestingly, the term is used to cover OT references to going out to war. It is also used of the Spirit of God going forth to produce life, or the words of God going forth from the mouth of Christ. The Holy Spirit being He who proceeds from the Father is to be seen as co-equal with the Son – and the Father as well. Jesus is declaring Him equal, and indeed declares that He is better for us than would be the case of Christ remaining. Of course, had He remained, there was no atonement, so certainly, this is more to our advantage, but I think there is more to it than that.

For the moment, though, I think this will suffice. The Spirit is given by the Son and the Father alike, proceeding, flowing forth from Him/Them and proceeding forth at His/Their direction. I observe, though, that there remains the dynamic that the Son asks and the Father answers. As He answers, so they both together send forth. For our part, yes we may ask, but then, for our part there is no need. The Spirit is given. He is given in that moment of our first conversion, and He remains forever. We may ask for particular gifts and endowments, and where those things sought suit the purpose of God and serve the kingdom of God, we have good cause to expect we shall have the answer we desire. But, the assurance is not of our desires met, but of the kingdom and our best good served by the answer.

v. Father's Relationship to Man

[07/22/19]

Having considered the Father’s relationship to Son and Spirit, it seems to me the next consideration is His relationship to man, to us. Surely the most exciting news that comes of our salvation is that the Father, of Whom the Son says, “My Father”, is indeed our Father. This is a point I find I cannot emphasize enough of late. It is stunning. That the God of heaven should declare us His own children, we whom He has created and caused to be, is a marvel. It’s not just this matter of creation, as Pastor Najem so often observed. God does not speak of lions or of giraffes or of apes as His children. They, too, are His creation, and live because of Him and only because of Him, yet they do not look to Him as their Father. All dogs may or may not go to heaven, as the popular sentiment has it, but either way, it remains the case that God does not look at them as sons and daughters nor do they discover themselves granted to speak of Him as their Father. This is a reserved privilege, given by the Father to those whom He has given to His Son.

I will step back just a bit and note that man’s role as image-bearer applies equally to all who compose mankind, and not one least individual is excepted. The inherent dignity that comes of this role is present in all, and to be honored in all, however marred the image. But, to be spoken of as sons, and to be granted this great privilege of knowing Him as our Father? That is reserved for the many who are being saved.

“Everyone therefore who shall confess Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven” (Mt 10:23). And I suppose we must include the counterpoint. “But whoever shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven” (Mt 10:24). That is something I shall no doubt have to consider in due time, but for the moment, I want to focus on those He confesses. What does this mean? Is He admitting to our existence as we admit to His? No. It is something far greater. Our confession of Christ not only proclaims that He is God, but that He is our God, and we belong to Him. His confession of us confirms our own. Think of that scene of the Judge dividing the sheep from the goats in the last day. To the goats, He says, “Depart from Me, I never knew you.” This is the anti-confession, if you will. It may be that many amongst the goats will try and claim association. Indeed, from that same example, it seems certain they will. “Did we not do thus and so in Your name?” Well, you may have uttered His name, but you were never acting in His will. You were never His, never drawn by the Father, and all your deeds cannot alter that. You did not confess Him as God. You sought to use His name to embellish your own credentials, and that will get you nowhere before the Father. In such a case, it must be said, the Father is not your father. Your father remains, as evidenced by your false claims to His Son’s authority, the devil, the father of lies.

But, for those who are the called, the message is different. “I will confess Him before My Father who is in heaven.” Yes, Father, this one is Mine. Of course, the Father already knows this, doesn’t He, for He gave you to the Son. Thus it was, that when Jesus was asked to teach His disciples how they ought to pray, the first thing He taught them was to say, “Our Father, Who art in heaven” (Mt 6:9). This was something new, certainly. It was one thing to pray to the God of your fathers, but to address Him as your Father? Wasn’t this the same sort of thing Jesus was being threatened with death for? He makes Himself out to be God, calling Himself the Son of God. Well, if your prayers proclaim that God is your Father, what else does this say than that you are His sons? But, let me be very careful to preserve that distinction of case. There is only one Son, although we are sons. He is Son by begetting, and we by adoption. The claim of sonship is certainly no claim to deity in our case.

But, Jesus leaves us in no doubt that it is one and the same Father we are talking about. First, there is that very instruction. “Our Father who art in heaven.” Well, that pretty well limits the range of possibilities, doesn’t it? How many fathers are there up there? I dare say, there can be only one. But, let us step forward to the end Jesus’ ministry, to those days just prior to His return into heaven. We find Mary Magdalene encountering the risen Jesus there in the garden in which He had been entombed. She does not recognize Him at first, but supposes He is the gardener, and asks Him where her Lord’s body had been taken. But, Jesus reveals His person to her, and she turned to Him with the heartfelt cry of, “Rabboni!” Dear Teacher! And observe Jesus response. “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren, and say to them, I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God” (Jn 20:17).

I see I shall come back to this in connection with the Son, but consider what the Son has here said of the Father: My Father and yours. It is on this basis, that He can speak of them as My brethren. What is the result of this for us? “There is one body [the Church] and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph 4:4-6). It seems pretty clear that this was an early form of confession in the church, but focus on the end of that. There is One God and Father, as there is one God and Spirit, one God and Lord. No, those added conjunctions are not present, but the point is. God is the one Father of all. Again, I should have to insist that in the sense of what Paul is saying, that ‘all’ is of limited scope, and hardly universal in application. It is limited by the start, to those who are the one body, the Church. But, for those who are the Church, and let me stress further, the True Church, this holds: God is Father of all. He is over all who are the Church. He is through all who are the Church. He is in all who are the Church.

There are no second-class citizens of God’s kingdom. There are no carnal Christians as they are sometimes called, or Christians without the indwelling Spirit. It cannot be, for apart from the indwelling Spirit, there can be no calling, and certainly no answering that call. Besides, that same confession has put paid to any such idea. There is one Spirit as there is one hope. If there is a Christian who has not the hope of eternity, then one must ask in what way he is a Christian? In like fashion, if there is a Christian devoid of the Holy Spirit, in what way is He a Christian? He has not the chief gift of Christ to His own, and you suppose he can claim to be Christ’s? I think not.

[07/23/19]

If I were to sum up the Father’s relationship to man, and particularly to those He calls His sons and daughters, I would say that our Father is our source, and He is our end. He is our Father, our source. He has caused us to be, and not merely to be, but also to live in the fullest, truest sense of the word. In honestly, I awoke with what might be construed a rather melancholy thought this morning, considering the point that even from a purely physical perspective, we begin dying the moment we are born. Scripture would actually propose that the situation is far more bleak. We were already dead, and but for the grace of God we would remain so throughout this life. I say it might be construed as melancholy, and if it were not for the Father’s grace, it would be more than melancholy. It would be utterly tragic, and life would be, as the nihilist would propose, worse than pointless. It would be, in point of fact, a wholly negative thing.

But, the Father’s grace, His chosen relationship to us, shifts all this. Because of Him, we are not born once, but twice, and that second birth, which comes of His work alone, albeit in conjunction with Son and Spirit, shifts us from out of death and into life. It is the exact reversal of the natural condition. By nature we are dying the whole time we live. By the determination of the Father, we are living the whole time we die. “Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day” (2Co 4:16). That was Paul’s story. It is also our own as God pursues His desire in each one of us. He is our source. He has caused us to begin to truly live, forming us from the dust of our life of dying.

He is also our end. That must hold as determines our course of life on this plane, for surely He has determined the number of our days, and for all our technology and science, nothing man can do is going to alter God’s determination. He knows the end from the beginning and that is that. But, we are not here as pointless automatons putting in our hours, as it were. No, we have an end, a purpose, and that we have both in God and because of God.

It would be all but impossible for me not to turn to the Westminster Catechism and its great first question at this point, for it so well expresses our point. That catechism begins with what must be the ultimate question man has in regard to himself. What’s the point? “What is the chief and highest end of man?” I could answer simply, “God,” but that leaves too much ambiguous and subject to sinful abuse. The Catechism does not suffer that problem. “Man’s chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy Him forever.” This particularly directs us to the Father, to our Father, as the Son, our Beloved Lord and King, our Brother, our Husband, directs us ever to the Father, doesn’t He? Even as He teaches of Himself, He points us to His Father and ours. We have seen that. He teaches us to ask of Him, but to pray to the Father. Likewise the Spirit does not come abide in us to promote Himself and His glory, to the degree that we can consider the Persons having any such distinction in glory. No, He comes to bring to mind all that the Son spoke and did, and what did the Son speak and do? Only and fully what He heard from the Father did He speak. That is to say, He taught only as the Father instructed Him to teach, and what the Father had not authorized to be revealed, He did not reveal. He did only as He had learned from the Father, so to speak, only as He saw the Father doing did He do, and in so doing, He indeed acted as the Father’s agent, modelling perfectly before us just what it means to be the Father’s sons.

So, then, if our highest end is to glorify God, it is chiefly in our Father that we find our enjoyment forever. Oh, but we cherish the Son, and rightly do we do so! And yes, we love the Spirit, although He seems to us the most obscure of the three Persons of God, and the one too easily misapprehended and abused by our sinful proclivities. This is as it should be – not the abuse, of course, but the adoration and veneration of God in all His Persons. But, by His own example, Father God is to be adored above all, honored above all, enjoyed above all. He, after all, has commanded our being. He has adopted us as His own. He has given us as a gift to His Son. He has both authored and ensured our salvation. This in no way lessens the glory of Son or Spirit, for there is one glory of God, and Father, Son, and Spirit are both communally and individually possessed of that glory in full. But, observe! Jesus has pointed us in this direction.

“Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Mt 5:16). So He taught, and so He spent His life exemplifying. When the Jewish leaders accused Him of blasphemy and of deserving death by stoning, we see that His example was indeed well known. “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” (Jn 10:32).

An examination of that early Sermon on the Mount demonstrates that the whole message is largely an expansion on that one statement. It is instruction on how to live with the Father as your end, your purposed. It is because He is your purpose that you have cause to let your works glorify Him. Nothing so rejoices a father than to see his sons following in his footsteps. As John would write to Gaius, “I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth” (3Jn 4). He is but expressing what every father feels in regard to his children, when they follow his better examples. For most if not all of us, I suspect we also know the sorrow of children who choose to follow in the example of our errors. But then our errors give us cause to hope for them, for God brought us out of our sinful darkness and into His marvelous light, and so we pray He may do for them as well. And we pray in the confident knowledge that He is most assuredly able.

But, back to Matthew, lest we wander too long. Jesus is bringing a long overdue correction to popular understanding of Mosaic Law, and in so doing, He is raising the bar significantly. Over the years I have written often of the Codex of the Achievable. This is the book we write when we seek to reduce the demands of righteousness to that which we can manage on our own. That is the book of works righteousness, and it was very much the book of the Pharisees. So, Jesus points to the popular, Moses-lite version of things and then points to the reality of the Law. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,” and here’s our purpose for visiting this passage, “in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For He causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good. He sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Mt 5:43-45). If you missed the point of that, Jesus is wise enough to reinforce that point. “You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt 5:48). There is the bar not only raised, but lifted well out of reach.

Here is the Law in its fullness: The unobtainable ideal of man living as He ought. I say it is unobtainable for it is impossible that man should ever reach the point of perfect obedience. I dare say, it’s impossible that we should even make a decent start of it. But, with God all things are possible, and that indeed is our only hope. Here’s the best part. That hope is not wishful thinking, but solidly grounded certainty that He who began this good work in us, this purposeful end of letting our light shine to His glory, will indeed perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus (Php 1:6). This is our end realized.

This same end is in view as Jesus addresses our tendencies in pursuing what we suppose to be righteousness. It is not something we do in order to be noticed. Letting your light shine isn’t about bringing fame upon yourself, nor even about having a good reputation, although we are, as children of God, to have a good reputation before God and man alike. Let it be said the goodness of that reputation is God’s to define, not man’s; and it is solely by His work in us that we have reputation at all. But, that’s not the point of our pursuit of righteousness. No, we do what is right out of love for our Father. We do what is right because we see our Father’s example and recognize that nothing could be better than to emulate Him in all our ways. We see also the impossibility of our ideal, but then, that’s the way of ideals, isn’t it? If your ideal is achievable, then I dare say it’s hardly ideal.

So, then, alms are to be given as a private matter, not as a grand demonstration of your generosity, that all may see and applaud. Prayers are to be uttered in private, which is not to say there is no place for public prayer, but public prayer that is become public ostentation is a stench in the Father’s nostrils. The model prayer that Jesus provides for us, it must be observed, sets the Father foremost, even to the point of exclusion of any mention of Son or Spirit. He does not, at this juncture, say, “Pray in My name.” He does not say, “Pray as the Spirit gives utterance.” He says simply, “Pray this way” (Mt 6:9). And what is the way He would have us to pray? With God’s will foremost in our thoughts, with His character firmly in our minds, and His desires in our hearts. Pray that we may indeed function as sons of our Father, forgiving as He forgives, loving as He loves, doing as He bids.

Remembering that God is a giver in His relationships, and perhaps even returning to that point that He gives to good and evil alike in many regards, live in light of that fact. God is the giver of good gifts, and in particular to those who ask Him (Mt 7:11). This is not to say He will give you whatever you ask for, for you know not how to ask aright. Too often, our prayers become wish lists. Too often, our requests are fashioned on ill-informed premises, and have not our true good or the true good of others in view, but only what our feelings and desires suggest to us must surely be good. But our knowledge is in part, our wisdom lacks much in understanding. God, our loving Father knows in full, and His wisdom is perfect. He will assuredly answer your prayers, and just as assuredly will answer in accord with His desires, that we may have every good and perfect gift from Him. He will not give us a stone if we have asked for bread, but neither will He give us candy, however much we may beg and plead for it, when He knows what we need is good milk and solid meat.

vi. Father's Role

[07/25/19]

Now I would turn to the Father’s role or position as regards our worship of God. This breaks along very similar lines as what I have already considered. The Father is our source. He is the source of every blessing and every promise. Jesus hints at this, at the least, in His teaching regarding the sheep and the goats come Judgment Day. “Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world’” (Mt 25:34). It falls to another time and place to discuss the nature of those on His right, but here is King Jesus pointing not to Himself, but to His Father as our source for blessing. We are blessed of the Father.

But, then, what does it mean to be blessed? Most literally, it means to be well-spoken of, eulogized. But, we associate eulogies with funereal proceedings. Here it is entrance into life. God’s well-speaking of us suggests a certain prospering of our condition, although not necessarily measured by the standards of worldly wealth. Rather, it speaks to our treasure in heaven, that being God’s good will towards us, shown most certainly in drawing us to Christ. Here indeed is our chiefest blessing, and how has it come about? It has come of the Father, of My the Father. It is delivered in Perfect Tense, a continuous result of prior activity, of which activity we are the passive recipients, and here, the Father is indicated as the source. It is His blessing, His well-speaking that has come to us and caused us to be His own.

As to the matter of promises, I turn to the closing hours of Jesus’ earthly ministry for my example. “Behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high” (Lk 24:49). I could, and will, note the Trinitarian nature of this bold announcement. The Son is sending forth, but the Father promised. And what is He sending forth? What is this promise? It is the Spirit poured out upon the sons and daughters of God in accordance with the ancient prophecy of Joel. It is the Spirit not merely resting upon, but abiding in, clothing His people.

As our source, our Father is most assuredly worthy of worship, and is indeed the proper object of our worship. I say this holds whether we are directing our worship specifically to the Person of the Father, or whether our praises are aimed more at the Son or the Spirit. In worshiping Son and Spirit, it must be that our true object of worship remains the Father. This is what the Son has modelled before us, and this modelling is that which the Spirit brings to mind as necessary, that we may recall all that the Son said and did. Look, for but one example, at the message Jesus delivered to the Samaritan woman He met at Jacob’s well. “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall you worship the Father. You worship that which you do not know. We worship that which we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers” (Jn 4:21-23). Surely, whom the Father seeks to be His worshipers assuredly are His worshipers. But, to our present point, it is the Father whom they worship in spirit and in truth. You know, were I to but capitalize those terms I think we should see my point upheld. We worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth. I could as readily say, I should think, in Spirit and in Son. That may be encroaching on the eisegetical, but I don’t think it strays very far from the proper mark.

God the Father is our proper object of worship. This is not, then, to the exclusion of Son and Spirit, for there is one God however it may be that He is three Persons. To worship the Son is not therefore sacrilege, but is indeed to worship the Father who sent Him. To worship the Spirit is not wrong, insomuch as to worship the Spirit is to worship the Father from whom He proceeds. It is when we elevate Son or Spirit above, or even to the exclusion of the Father that we run into trouble. At the same time, I expect we are just as inclined to elevate the Father too far above Son and Spirit rather than to hold to our proper worship of God in three Persons.

But, I am at present considering the uniquely Fatherly aspect of God as concerns our being. He is our proper object of worship, and it is also to Him uniquely that atonement is due. This is the debt that was paid by Jesus on the cross. This is the significance of His prayer from that horrid place. “Father, forgive them; they don’t know what they are doing” (Lk 23:34). Even as the soldiers cast lots for his garments and the populace looked on with derision, the Son prayed for their forgiveness. He prayed that His payment might be received for the penalty due their sins. But, He was not atoning to Himself any more than He was atoning for Himself.

This gets tricky because of course Father and Son are One God, so in a sense He is indeed atoning to Himself, but in this unique arrangement of the Godhead, the distinction applies such that it is not quite to Himself, but rather to the Father. Sin is against the Father. It may grieve the Spirit, but it is against the Father. The Son can be no more pleased by our sin than is Father or Spirit, and indeed has perhaps the greater cause for being offended by it, given that He it is who shall repay the offense. But, as David prayed, “Against Thee, Thee only, I have sinned, and done what is evil in Thy sight” (Ps 51:4). Every sin is against God, and more particularly against the Father, for in Him is our source both of being and of regulation for life. In Him is the rule of righteousness and from Him is the Law. As every sin is a breach of Law and righteousness, it is rightly said to be against the Father from whom the Law has come and righteousness been proclaimed and defined.

Therefore, as every sin is against our Father in heaven, who is rightly the object of our worship and of our worshipful obedience, it is to Him and Him alone that atonement is rightly due. It is our relationship with Him that must be restored if we are to be blessed of God and enjoy His promises. It is the very righteousness of God that requires atonement for our sins, and not some form of no-fault forgiveness. Justice and righteousness must be upheld, and for that to be the case, the penalty for sin must be paid before sin can be forgiven. In the Son, that penalty has indeed been paid and forgiveness, true and eternal forgiveness been not merely rendered possible, but rendered certain to all who are the called of the Father. “For nothing can snatch them out of the Father’s hand.”

This points us to another aspect of the Father’s relation to us and His role in our salvation. He it is who raises the dead to life. “For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes” (Jn 5:21). Again, while we look to the Father here, we see a Trinitarian work in the raising of the dead to life. The Father raises the dead and gives them life. The Son gives life. The Spirit, we are told elsewhere, was the power by which even the Son was raised from death. But, as first cause, the Father remains the source of resurrection. He remains the source because in the eternal covenant of the Godhead it falls to Him to make the call. That is to say, unless He calls, that resurrection is not happening. Son and Spirit have their roles to play in the work, but His is the decision to do that work.

His is also the decision to love us. It assuredly isn’t a response to our lovable natures. Far from it! But, as John observes, “See how great a love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God! And such we are! For this reason the world does not know us, because it did not know Him” (1Jn 3:1). Observe: It’s not the love of Jesus that has caused us to be children, but the love of the Father. He spoke and we are. He loved us enough to call us children, and to see to it that we developed as proper children, walking worthy of our Father (Eph 4:1).

But, as significant and utterly critical as this is, it is the next item that strikes me as truly stunning in its significance. “Jude, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to those who are the called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Christ” (Jd 1). I have already addressed the matter of being called by Him, called as proper children of our Father. I have, in observing the blessings God bestows upon us, considered in some fashion the fact of our being beloved in Him, well-spoken by Him. But, now observe: in the Father, by the Father, we are kept for Christ. This is simply amazing. It smacks of pride for us to say it, and yet it is the Scriptural truth. We, the called, are God’s gift to Christ. Jesus spoke of this. Consider the High Priestly prayer of Christ. “I ask on their behalf. I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom Thou hast given Me, for they are Thine” (Jn 17:9). “While I was with them, I was keeping them in Thy name which Thou hast given Me” (Jn 17:12a). “I desire that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am, in order that they may behold My glory” (Jn 17:24a). Over and over again, Jesus speaks of those whom the Father has given Him. What the Father has given is His gift to the Son, and we are that gift. It is not a matter of pride on our part, but indeed cause for utmost humility that God could look upon the likes of us, could work upon the likes of us, and make of us a gift worthy of His Son, worthy of His giving.

He does not merely give us to the Son and walk away. He is actively engaged in the work of our sanctification, and indeed is our assurance that said work shall be completed. “For none can snatch them out of My Father’s hand.”

[07/26/19]

Now, while it surely offends many to hear it, I have to hold forth what Scripture declares; that those whom the Father keeps and gives to Christ are those He has chosen of His own determination, and further, that in all things, the Father determines not only what will happen, but when and by what means. This is said only of the Father, and indeed is said of Him by the Son. Speaking of the Last Day, and His own return in glory, Jesus says, “Of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone” (Mt 24:36). This is truly a bothersome declaration, for the Son, being fully God, must be all-knowing, and yet here He says there is this which He does not know. Is it that He speaks in terms of His humanity rather than His deity? Perhaps so, but in fairness, I have difficulty perceiving how this being, wholly God and wholly man could be so compartmentalized. Could it be that He speaks of Himself only as concerns this period where He had laid aside the prerogatives of the godhead? I think not, for He did not cease being fully God when He came to be born a man. God cannot cease to be God and remain God, for God is unchanging. I think rather we are speaking of matters of determination. The Father knows it, as it were, intuitively, oida, because He it is who set the schedule from the beginning.

Solomon saw it. “There is an appointed time for everything, a time for every event under heaven” (Ecc 3:1). “Every man who eats and drinks sees good in all his labor – it is the gift of God” (Ecc 3:13). Even so small a detail as mealtimes and daily provision, Solomon observes, is God’s to give, His to determine. “God has set eternity in the heart of man, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end” (Ecc 3:11). Everything is proceeding as He has determined. It can do no other. It is thus that even as the Son prays His most fervent prayer, it is conditioned on one final thought: “Yet not as I will, but as Thou wilt” (Mt 26:39b).

I cannot imagine how difficult it must have been to maintain this view in that moment. God or no God, Jesus knows what lies ahead and knows He is about to experience such agony as neither He nor any other has ever known. Here is one Who has known perfect fellowship within Himself, has eternally been in close contact and perfect communication with the Father, about to experience, however briefly, the Father turning His back on Him completely. Here is the sinless One about to take upon Himself the full weight and consequence of sin. It’s not the death by crucifixion alone that was cause for such depth of agony, but this added: That He must taste in full the Father’s wrath who has known only the Father’s love. “My Father,” prays the Son, “if this cannot pass away unless I drink it, Thy will be done” (Mt 26:42).

Here I observe both that if Jesus prayed thus, surely we must pray in kind. We are in no position to demand God’s action in accord with our preferences. We are not possessed of such wisdom as might qualify us to counsel God. Yes, we bear our petitions before Him in hopeful confidence of His attention to our cares and concerns, but if we do not pray with the clear mindset that His will is assuredly to be done, and assuredly to be preferred above our own, come what may, then I dare say we have not prayed aright.

Many will look to the end of James 4:2 and seek to assure one another that every prayer must surely be answered according to our desire. “You do not have because you do not ask.” But, how horribly it is wrenched from its setting to arrive at this idea! “You lust and do not have, so you commit murder.” There’s a mindset that reflects a sound prayer life, eh? “You are envious and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel.” These are the precursors to that more popular declaration. And there is also follow up. “You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures” (Jas 4:3). It gets worse. “You adulteresses! Don’t you know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God?” (Jas 4:4a). The sum of this is painful, and painfully clear. It’s not about failing to ask, it’s about failing period. It’s about turning from God’s ways to our own, and then expecting God to bless us anyway, and becoming severely frustrated when it doesn’t come to pass.

But, God has the say, and it is His will we pursue, else we pursue our course in vain. It is for His will we pray else we pray in vain. And, in particular, as per the Son’s model and express teaching, it is to the Father we direct our prayers. To Him we pray and from Him we obtain answer. “When you pray,” says the Son, “say: ‘Father, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves also forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation’” (Lk 11:2-4). Observe, to my point, that the first word is “Father.” In Matthew’s record of this lesson, it is “Our Father,” which is most marvelous, but I’ve commented on that enough. But, then, the first petition is for God to be revered as He ought. The second petition is that His purpose, His kingdom be realized in full here with us. Only then does the prayer turn to personal concerns, and even then, with greatest restraint. Provide what we need today. We don’t ask for riches, but for necessities. We don’t anguish over coming days and years. See us through today and it is enough. And then, the prayer turns back to kingdom matters, concerns for sin, and recognition of weakness. Yes, forgive us, else we are doomed. But, then, too, lead us not into temptation, for we are weak and prone to sin again, and we would not have it thus. And even here, I think we must hear that conditioning clause that concluded Jesus’ prayer life: “Nevertheless, Thy will be done.”

Now, we pray to the Father, and in the name of – which is to say according to the authorizing power of – Christ. And, because as James observed, we generally don’t ask aright, but corrupt even our prayers with our sinful desires, the Holy Spirit steps in to clean up our requests, as it were, and in many cases, even provides the thought for our prayer because we simply don’t know how to pray as we ought, or what exactly we ought to seek in prayer. This gets into a much greater topic on the matter of prayer, which I choose to defer until another point, Lord willing. Suffice to say that one reason our prayers need the Spirit’s guiding, and one apart from our sinfulness, is that the value of prayer is contingent upon the alignment of that prayer with God’s purposes. That is to say, our prayers do not change God’s mind. They are far more likely to change ours, as we align ourselves once again with God’s will. See again Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane. He wasn’t changing the Father’s will in the slightest, but He was assuredly bolstering His own commitment to the course set before Him, steeling Himself for events to come.

And here, let me set a beautiful note of assurance. When we pray, when we ask, the Father indeed answers. “Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there I am in their midst” (Mt 18:19-20). Now, it should be patently obvious, I would hope, that this does not indicate that no matter what that prayer requests, God is binding Himself to answer in keeping with that request. If, for example, you and your spouse decide to pray for great wealth to be poured out upon you with an eye to living a life of luxury and disregard for heavenly matters, don’t expect an answer. If you and your friend pray together agreeing that so and so should meet an untimely end because he happens to have crossed you on some matter or another, nope, this is not your assurance of answer. It might should be an assurance of you never being so foolish as to pray in any such fashion, but should you do so, God is not bound by your foolishness.

Even where your desires are wholly honorable, if such is possible for us in our fallen state, this is not a guarantee. Whether or not we voice it, the fact of it remains. “Nevertheless, Thy will be done.” It will. His is the final say, even in this.

I must observe as well, however, that this declaration is made within a setting. That setting is a discussion in regards to matters of discipline amongst the followers of Christ, which is to say church discipline. That is the discussion which this promise concludes. As such, it is not only a promise, but also a bit of a warning. If you decide that this one is not to be accounted forgiven, as you are acting as authorized representatives of the Father, and acting properly in that capacity, God backs your decision. He backs your decision because, dear ones, He guides your decisions in these matters. God is not going to leave the well-being of His own to you without supervision. Yes, you act of your own accord, you decide matters as best you may, and largely by application of such wisdom as you have obtained. But, if you are a leader of God’s people, it is devoutly to be wished that you do so, also, with abundance of prayer and seeking of God’s wisdom, God’s determination, for your words in this situation are to be His, not yours.

It is, then, both an assurance and a call to care and humility. Be careful what you pray. Be careful of how you give your amen. For in prayer you seek the Father’s will, and His alone. In prayer you seek to better align yourself with His will, not to bend His will to yours. I see this so often in David’s prayers as we find them in the Psalms. Many a prayer of David begins with imprecation, with a desire for vengeance and violence played out upon his enemies. Yet it seems that as often as he begins with such a mindset, he ends with one that is completely different, focused on God’s care, God’s mercy, and God’s purposes. Yes, vengeance might be nice and satisfy our anger, but how much more wonderful if these enemies were to become boon companions! How wonderful should my adversary become my brother! There is a greater good and longer lasting satisfaction. What we see in these cases is man’s will changed by God’s instruction, even and especially in these times of intimate, heart-felt prayer. The Father hears. The Father answers. But our expectations may very well need to change if we are to recognize His answer. For He answers in accordance with His will even as He answers in response to ours.

So, then: In the Father we find the true and proper object of our worship. In the Father we find our reason for being, both as concerns how we came to be, and as concerns why we are here. He made us, and He made us that we might worship Him and enjoy Him. He made us for fellowship with Himself, as it was in the Garden. In the Father, we discover the One against whom we have sinned, and the One to whom atonement for sin is due. In the Father, we have the One to whom we direct our prayers, and the one from whom the answer to those prayers shall come. In the Father, we meet to One who is sole determinant of the entire schedule of events not for ourselves alone but for all creation. It is His and He arrays it as He pleases in pursuit of His good and perfect purposes.

May we rest in the knowledge of His careful direction of our lives. May we indeed come to worship Him as we ought, to trust Him as we ought, and to represent Him as we ought.