Mark 13:32: Problem Or Paradigm?

By Timothy Miller [1]

“But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father” (Mk 13:32). Mark may not have even slightly hesitated his pen stroke as he recorded these words of Jesus.[2] His readers, however, have spent hours over those three essential words — “nor the Son.” What does it mean that the Son does not know? Has Mark jeopardized the divinity of Christ? Has the text been corrupted? Might there be another definition for “know”? Could the Son be someone different than Christ Himself? This seemingly enigmatic text has elicited a legion of questions of which the previous are merely a sample. So stunning is Mark’s lucid portrayal of Christ’s ignorance that one writer concluded that the verse “has been an exegetical embarrassment from the beginning.”[3]

Many pastors have felt the weight of this dilemma. They, seeking to preach the whole counsel of God, work methodically through Mark until they reach chapter 13. At this point, two problems emerge. First, the eschatological focus of the text often places expositors on uncomfortable soil. However, nestled within that uncomfortable soil rests the second problem—the “exegetically embarrassing” text of Mark 13:32. Facing this difficulty, some pastors question their exegetical method and choose to skip the selected passage. Others generalize and avoid making definitive comments. There is a better way.

In order to expose this more efficient option, this article will survey the landscape of solutions available to interpreters for the Markan quandary. We will find that many avenues have been traveled in an attempt to alleviate the force of Mark’s words. Each avenue will be examined to determine its biblical warrant. Having examined the proposed solutions, we will focus on one in particular which has gathered strong support within orthodox Christianity. Finally, we will argue that Mark 13:32 should not be looked at as an exegetical embarrassment, but as a clear paradigm for God’s interaction with his creatures. As such, pastors should not shy from preaching Mark 13:32, but should boldly proclaim its message.

Proposed Solutions

Certainly this article cannot exhaust the various opinions concerning the Markan text; nevertheless, the major opinions through church history can be fruitfully surveyed. The survey will begin by examining some views that are either heretical or close to becoming heretical.

Unbiblical Solutions

Arianism

Arianism was the major issue leading to the Christological debates of the third and fourth century. Arianism was the breeding ground of debate because its founder, Arius, believed that Jesus was created. As such, Jesus was not equal with the Father; neither was the Holy Spirit equal with the Father. It is not surprising, then, that Mark 13:32 became a central text in the debate; not only did it explicitly claim ignorance on the part of the Son, but if the “Father alone” knows, then the Holy Spirit is likewise ignorant. Athanasius (d. 373), remembered as the defender of the modern Trinitarian formulation, said of the Arians, “For being in great ignorance as regards [Mark 13:32], and being stupefied about them, they think they have in them an important argument for their heresy. But I, when the heretics allege it . . . see in them the giants again fighting against God.”[4]

It is beyond the scope of this article to fully challenge the claims of Arianism. Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers, as church history proves, provided a sufficient defense of a biblical Trinity. For our purposes, it is important to see that Arianism sought to solve the problem of Mark 13:32 by attributing it to a false theological system. Because the system is foreign to Scripture, the interpretation is found to be foreign as well.

Non-Essentialism

A second unbiblical approach to the Markan quandary challenges the essential nature of God. Proponents of this view claim that omniscience is not essential to the being of God. With this interpretation, there is no problem in Mark, for Jesus can be God and ignorant of a fact at the same time. Kris Udd explains the logic of the position:

Because Jesus clearly states that he is ignorant of an event, and because the New Testament clearly teaches that he was divine, we ought to follow the text in concluding that omniscience is not essential to divinity. Omniscience, according to the New Testament, is a contingent attribute of divinity. It is an attribute that is normal for God to have, but not necessary to his existence as God.[5]

Udd cites Franz Delitzsch in support of his position. Delitzsch serves only to compound the problems for the view, for in response to those who hold an orthodox view he says,

These all proceed upon the supposition, that the Logos, if He surrender His omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, ceases to be God. But this assumption contradicts the declarations of the God-man Himself, who in the Gospels disclaims for Himself these attributes, and still does not thereby disclaim the divine nature. The historical Christ is of more importance to me than the unhistorical defenders of His divinity, and the bugbears of their bungling conclusions.[6]

The non-essentialist view, then, claims that omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence are not essential attributes of God.

Again, a lengthy response is not possible here. Nevertheless, it is important to determine the essential attributes of God. For non-essentialism, anything attributed to Christ, which is contrary to an attribute of God, is considered a contingent attribute for God. Thus, along with omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, nearly every other attribute is brought into question. This Kenotic Christology had never been taught prior to the nineteenth century.[7] Based on an errant interpretation of Philippians 2, Kenotic Christology asserts that Jesus “emptied” Himself of divine attributes.[8] Udd follows Kenotic theology as he dismisses omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence in an effort to alleviate the inherent tensions in the incarnation.[9] The benefit of a Kenotic Christology is that it releases one from a paradoxical solution. The central problem, however, is that Kenotic Christology strips Jesus of divinity. Grudem states, “If the kenosis theory were true . . . then we could no longer affirm Jesus was fully God while he was here on earth.”[10] God’s nature demands that He retain all of His attributes.[11] Any being without omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence is less than and in no way equal to God. Thus, the god presented in the Kenosis theory is merely a human who claimed divinity.[12] In sum, the Kenotic solution to Mark 13:32 does more than relieve the tension; it also destroys the gospel.

Jesus Misled The Disciples

A final unbiblical response to Mark 13:32 claims that Jesus misled the disciples for their benefit. It was not yet time for them to hear, and it would have been detrimental to the disciples if he had answered them. Ephraim Syrus may have stated this position most clearly when he said, “Christ, though He knew the moment of His advent, yet that they might not ask Him any more about it, said I know it not.”[13]

The best critique of this position is offered by Theodoret of Cyrus (d. 457) who said, “If He knows the day, but says that He is ignorant with the wish to hide it, you see in what a blasphemy the conclusion issues. For the truth lies and could not properly be called truth if it has any quality opposed to truth.”[14] How could the Truth—Jesus Christ—be found false? To alleviate the problem by placing deception on the lips of Jesus is not an appropriate way to solve the dilemma.

Text Critical Solutions

Another popular way of treating the Markan quandary is to contend that it is a foreign intrusion into the biblical text. Ambrose may have been the first one to popularize such a position. He contends that “the ancient Greek manuscripts do not contain the words, neither the Son. But it is not to be wondered at if they who have corrupted the sacred Scriptures, have also falsified this passage. The reason for which it seems to have been inserted is perfectly plain, so long as it is applied to unfold such blasphemy.”[15] Jerome (d. 420) apparently agrees with Ambrose for he says, “In some Latin manuscripts is added: ‘nor the Son,’ though in the Greek copies, and especially those of Adamantius and of Pierius, this addition is not found.”[16] James Brooks, a modern commentator on Mark’s gospel, appears to believe that this interpretation is still held today, for he says that “scholarly opinion is divided over the authenticity of the words ‘nor the Son.’”[17]

There is certainly warrant for doubting the authenticity of the phrase in the gospel of Matthew. Many manuscripts lack the expression “nor the Son.”[18] The textual evidence in Mark, however, is astoundingly in favor of the phrase in question. Vincent Taylor notes only a ninth-century codex and one Vulgate manuscript which omit the phrase.[19] The textual omissions for which Jerome and Ambrose contend are either lost to history or were greatly exaggerated.[20]

Along with the questionable manuscript support there is one other significant reason to doubt the credibility of the text critical solution: Why would someone insert the phrase into the text? Ambrose believed it was the Arians. However, this solution is problematic, for the distribution and proliferation of the manuscripts preceded the controversy in question. Others have claimed that Christians inserted the phrase to alleviate the problem of a delayed parousia.[21] However, as Brooks notes, “If the church felt a need to absolve Jesus from predicting an early return . . . it would have found a way to do it without attributing ignorance to him.”[22] Surely the early church could have constructed a better way to handle the problem than cause a larger one.

Thus, Taylor summarizes why the phrase, though controversial, should be accepted: “Its offence seals its genuineness.”[23]

Exegetical Solution

One of the more distinctive solutions to the problem in Mark is proposed by Basil of Caesarea (d. 379). Instead of proposing the text had been modified, he proposed that the text has been misinterpreted. The Scripture has not been tampered; it has merely been misunderstood. His contribution is not original, but was what he received in instruction as a child.[24] Basil essentially agreed with common interpretation of the text until the final line. Nearly all interpreters translate the last line (εἰ μὴ ὁ πατὴρ μόνος), “but only the Father.” However, due to the variegated use of εἰ μὴ in Scripture, it could be translated, “if not the Father.” Thus Basil contends the text really says, “No man knows, neither the angels of God; nor yet the Son would have known unless the Father had known. . . . Mark’s sense, then, is as follows: of that day and of that hour knows no man, nor the angels of God; but even the Son would not have known if the Father had not known, for the knowledge naturally His was given by the Father.”[25]

Basil’s reading is attractive in that it not only alleviates the Markan problem, but also turns it on its head. No longer is the text apparently denying Jesus’ omniscience, now it is asserting both the divinity and omniscience of God.[26] Despite the benefits of this approach, however, it appears strained. This is far from the most obvious reading of the text.[27] Further, the adjective only in the Matthew parallel seems to bring doubt on this interpretation.[28] In Matthew the text reads: “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.” Gumerlock summarizes the weakness of this approach succinctly: “Although Basil’s understanding of the passage springs from the language of the biblical text itself, to me it seems like he is forcing a theological presupposition into a biblical text for polemical reasons, rather than accepting the natural reading of the text.”[29]

Semantic Solutions

One of the more popular solutions to the Markan quandary relies upon the flexibility of language. For instance, what does the text mean when it says that Jesus did not know? Is the semantic range of know broader than most interpreters have allowed? Further, Son and Father are proven to have wide ranges of meaning in Scripture. The semantic solutions explore whether an alternative definition of key terms can explain the Markan enigma.

Son And Father

Gregory of Tours (d. 594) offered a semantic solution to Mark 13:32 when he suggested that Son was not referring to Jesus, but to the people of God. His solution comes amidst a reply to the Arians:

We shall here make answer to the heretics who attack us, asserting that the Son is inferior to the Father since he is ignorant of this day. Let them learn that the Son here is the name applied to the Christian people, of whom God says: “I shall be to them a Father and they shall be to me for sons.” For if he had spoken these words of the onlybegotten [sic] Son he would never have given the angels first place. For he uses these words: “Not even the angels in heaven nor the Son,” showing that he spoke these words not of the only-begotten but of the people of adoption.[30]

It is evident from this quote that there are two main reasons Gregory holds to this interpretation. First, Gregory imports 2 Cor 6:18 as an interpretive grid for Mark 13:32. By quoting 2 Corinthians, Gregory is asserting that the semantic range of the references in Mark 13:32 can have a broader meaning than has historically been recognized. Second, the order of beings in the passage—going from angels to Son—displays that he could not be talking about Christ, who should always receive preeminence.

While recognizing that Gregory has appropriately understood the value of semantic range, his attribution of 2 Cor 6:18 to the current passage seems more than dubious. First, in 2 Corinthians God is the speaker not Christ.

However, in the current passage, Gregory seems to imply that Jesus is the Father. Second, in 2 Corinthians God references His people in the plural, but here the reference is singular. If Jesus meant to speak of the people of God, one would expect the plural. Third, on this interpretation Jesus would be saying, “No one knows the day, not the angels, not the people of God, but only Me.” But the disciples already knew that the people of God did not know the last day—that is why they were asking him! Finally, the context of the gospel is the context of Jesus as Son and God as Father. This is the common sense reading of the text; to force an interpretation from 2 Corinthians seems unjustified.

Gregory’s second beam of support—that “Son” would have been mentioned first if it was referencing Christ—is a strange assertion. Most commentators view the relationship in an ascending order of authority: from angels (3) to the Son of God (2), and then to the Father (1). Gregory’s interpretation mixes the order: the angels (3) to the people of God (4), and then to Christ (2). Further, Gregory has to prove that Mark is concerned with prioritizing his listings in the way that Gregory assumes. Couldn’t Mark have mentioned the Son first for emphasis? Gregory has to prove that Mark would not.

Overall, Gregory provides a noble attempt to alleviate the problem presented in Mark 13:32, but since he relies on a foreign interpretive grid, his solution is not compelling.

Know Means Experience

Another semantic solution is provided by Origen (d. 254). He maintained that interpreters misunderstand Mark’s use of know. Instead of head knowledge, Jesus is referencing experiential knowledge. So Origin says, “‘To know’ is given its own special meaning here (as is customary with sacred Scripture), for only he who remains to meet its arrival will know that day and hour.”[31]

Undoubtedly Origen is right that Scripture has more than one meaning for the verb “know.” In the Old Testament Adam is said to “know” his wife Eve in sexual encounter (Gen 4:1). The Hebrew word ידע can have this experience-based meaning.[32] However, οἶδα, the Greek word Mark employs, does not have an experience-based definition in the book of Mark. None of the twenty-one times Mark uses the word—including the use only two verses later—have the experience-based meaning. In fact, according to Louw and Nida, οἶδα is never used in this sense in the New Testament.[33] Thus, Origen is transferring the semantic range of a word in one language to the semantic range of a similar word in another language.

A second problem inherent to Origen’s proposal is that the Father would have to be presently experiencing the last days in order for the interpretation to make sense. That is, if the Son and the angels do not know (experience), but the Father does, then the Father must be currently experiencing the final days. Perhaps Origen’s view of God’s relation to time answers the present predicament; if so, however, he would also have to account for why the Father, who is eternal and timeless, is experiencing the last days, but the Son, who is likewise timeless and eternal, is not. Ultimately, Origen’s proposal may have escaped one dilemma only to arrive at another.

Know Means Reveal

The most popular semantic solution to Mark 13:32 is found in the writing of Hilary of Poitiers.[34] He, like Origen, believed that “know” in this context had a different meaning than its normal usage. Instead of proposing that “know” is experience-based, Hilary posited that “know” means to reveal or act. To Hilary this means, “Whenever God says that He does not know, He professes ignorance indeed, but is not under the defect of ignorance. It is not because of the infirmity of ignorance that He does not know, but because it is not yet the time to speak or the divine plan to act.”[35] The implication of this view is that if Jesus had said he knew, he would have had to reveal the time. Therefore, Hilary can say that “God’s knowledge is not the discovery of what he did not know, but its declaration. The fact that the Father alone knows, is no proof that the Son is ignorant: he says that he does not know, that others may not know: That the Father alone knows, to show that he Himself also knows.”[36] On Hilary’s interpretation, Christ’s admission of ignorance had two effects. First, it answered the query of the disciples by noting that the time to reveal had not yet come. Second, it assured the disciples that Jesus actually did know, since the Father knew.

Augustine (d. 430) also endorsed this semantic solution: “[The Son] is ignorant of [that day], as making others ignorant; that is, in that He did not so know at that time to show His disciples.”[37] Augustine believed that the solution to the problem of Mark 13:32 was as simple as understanding a figure of speech. In a letter to a friend Augustine wrote,

It is no falsehood to call a day joyous because it renders men joyous, or a lupine harsh because by its bitter flavour it imparts harshness to the countenance of him who tastes it, or to say that God knows something when He makes man know it. . . . These are by no means false statements, as you yourself readily see. Accordingly, when the blessed Hilary explained this obscure statement of the Lord, by means of this obscure kind of figurative language, saying that we ought to understand Christ to affirm in these words that He knew not that day with no other meaning than that He, by concealing it, caused others not to know it, he did not by this explanation of the statement apologize for it as an excusable falsehood, but he showed that it was not a falsehood, as is proved by comparing it not only with these common figures of speech, but also with the metaphor, a mode of expression very familiar to all in daily conversation. For who will charge the man who says that harvest fields wave and children bloom with speaking falsely, because he sees not in these things the waves and the flowers to which these words are literally applied?[38]

Following Hilary closely, Augustine also noted that Mark 13:32 is not showing a weakness in Christ but is showing Christ’s omniscience. Thus, both Augustine and Hilary claim that the text defends the omniscience of Christ rather than bring it into question. In sum, Augustine can say that “the text ‘the Father alone knows’ is correctly grasped if understood to say that he causes the Son to know, and the text ‘The Son does not know,’ if understood to say that the Son causes men not to know, i.e., does not disclose to them what would serve no useful purpose for them to know.”[39]

Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), another giant of Catholicism, followed Hilary and Augustine in proposing this view. Of Mark 13:32, Aquinas said, “This text is to be interpreted in the light of the usual style of speech found in the Scriptures, in which God is said to know a thing when He imparts knowledge of that thing, as when He said to Abraham, in Genesis 22:12: ‘Now I know that you fear God.’”[40] In fact, Aquinas joins Hilary and Augustine in chorus as they each base their understanding of know on the Old Testament concept portrayed in Genesis 22. In that chapter, God asks Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham’s only son. Moments before the slaughter commenced, the Angel of the Lord called out to Abraham and said, “Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me” (Genesis 22:12). Hilary, Augustine, and Aquinas agree that God already knew Abraham would obey; God’s purpose in the divine display was to show Abraham what God already knew.[41] Transporting this understanding of “know” to Mark 13:32 allows Christ to be cognitively aware of the day, but not yet willing to divulge the information to the disciples.

There are at least two theologians in recent centuries who have promoted this view. First, Lewis Sperry Chafer (d. 1952) espoused the view. He compared Mark 13:32 to 1 Cor 2:2. In the latter passage, Paul writes, “For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” Chafer believed that the passages held the same form of “know”: “The thought is not to make known, or not to cause another to know. The truth mentioned was not then, as to its time, committed either to the Son or to the angels to publish.”[42]

The second writer, William G. T. Shedd (1894), named this form of “ignorance” as “official.”[43] By giving the phenomena a name, he hoped to clearly distinguish the different forms of knowledge and ignorance displayed in Scripture. Shedd seeking, as those before him, to establish the “official” ignorance of Christ cited Matthew 11:27: “No one knoweth the Son but the Father, neither knoweth anyone of the Father but the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.” Shedd explains this verse: “A particular Trinitarian person is officially the one to reveal another, and in this reference the others do not officially reveal, and so are officially ‘ignorant.’”[44] By referencing 1 Cor 2:2 and Matt 11:27, the modern writers were seeking to situate their definition of “know” securely in the New Testament.

The official ignorance position proposed by Hilary, Augustine, Aquinas, Chafer, and Shedd is the most consistent of the semantic solutions. Each man has sought to establish from Scripture a definition of know which includes the idea of revealing. Indeed, this understanding of know is present in Scripture as their cross referencing has clearly shown.[45] However, it is doubtful whether this semantic range is present in Mark. Out of the twenty-one uses of οἶδα in Mark, none can be construed to mean “reveal.”[46]

Further problems exist with this interpretation. If the meaning of “know” is expanded over the whole context, the meaning makes little sense:

But of that day or hour no one reveals, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. Take heed, keep on the alert; for you do not reveal when the appointed time will come. It is like a man away on a journey, who upon leaving his house and putting his slaves in charge, assigning to each one his task, also commanded the doorkeeper to stay on the alert. Therefore, be on the alert—for you do not reveal when the master of the house is coming, whether in the evening, at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or in the morning—in case he should come suddenly and find you asleep. (Mark 13:32-36 modified from NASB)

Due to the context, Calvin opposes this interpretation: “According to [some] men, Christ did not know the last day, because he did not choose to reveal it to man. But since it is manifest that the same kind of ignorance is ascribed to the angels, we must endeavor to find some other meaning which is more suitable.”[47] Though Calvin took issue with the angels’ inclusion with the Son, the most problematic aspect seems to be the dramatic shift in the meaning of “know” throughout the context. Combined with the fact that οιδα lacks this definition anywhere in the book of Mark, it appears that giving the word this definition here is purely speculative and unwarranted.

Two-Nature Solutions

The vast majority of Evangelical theologians today hold a two-nature solution to Mark 13:32. This solution is the fruit of decades of Christological debate, where the nature of Christ and the nature of His incarnation were deliberated. Specifically, the two-nature approach owes its present form to the council of Chalcedon in 451, which solidified the doctrine of the hypostatic union. The Chalcedonian creed was a landmark in church history, and continues to hold a central part in modern Christology. Though there were some who held to a two-nature solution before the Chalcedonian creed, their formulations would have been more consistent had they have had access to such a clear exposition of the nature of Christ’s incarnation:

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we . . . teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man . . . of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; . . . recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.[48]

All of the two-nature approaches rely on the distinction provided in the Chalcedonian creed. Though there are some differences among the views—particularly how the attributes of both natures interact—they all share an appreciation for the two natures of Christ united in one Person.

Proponents Of The Two-Nature Solution

The great defender of Christological orthodoxy of the fourth century, Athanasius (d. 373), was one of the first to propose a two-nature solution to the problem of Mark 13:32. Of course, the Arians had latched onto Mark 13:32 as an exegetical proof of their position. Athanasius proposed another solution: “When His disciples asked about the end, suitably said He then, ‘no, nor the Son,’ according to the flesh because of the body; that He might show that, as man, He knows not; for ignorance is proper to man.”[49] In this way, Athanasius attributed the ignorance to the human nature. For many, Athanasius’ depiction borders on Nestorianism. It is anachronistic to call Athanasius a Nestorian; for he was simply trying to defend orthodoxy in the face of Arianism. In the next century other teachings would emerge which would call for greater particularity in expressing the two-natures of Christ. Thus, given the historical circumstances, Athanasius should not be faulted at this point.[50]

Gregory of Nanzianzus (d. 389) was another defender of orthodoxy against the Arian heresy. In responding to an Arian interlocutor, Gregory summarized his defense:

To give you the explanation in one sentence. What is lofty you are to apply to the Godhead, and to the Nature in Him which is superior to sufferings and incorporeal; but all that is lowly to the composite condition of Him who for your sakes made Himself of no reputation and was Incarnate. . . . The result will be that you will abandon these carnal and groveling doctrines . . . and you will not remain permanently among the things of sight, but will rise up with Him into the world of thought, and come to know which passages refer to His Nature, and which to His assumption of Human Nature.[51]

Both Gregory and Athanasius believe that the title “Son,” in Mark 13:32, is used without modifiers to indicate that Jesus is speaking specifically of His manhood.[52] While dubious, this assertion shows the early attempts by defenders of orthodoxy to be exegetically accurate and maintain an orthodox Christology.[53]

The following authors, who defended a two-nature view of Mark 13:32, are post-Chalcedonian and tend to be more careful in their postulations concerning the interaction between the two natures in Christ. However, sometimes, in an effort to avoid Nestorianism, theologians tended to allow the divine nature to overshadow the human nature. A prime example is John of Damascus (d. c.750) who proposed that “[Christ’s] human nature does not in essence possess the knowledge of the future, but the soul of the Lord through its union with God the Word Himself and its identity in subsistence was enriched . . . with knowledge of the future as well as with the other miraculous powers.”[54] Thus, Jesus’ human nature was omniscient because of its union with the divine nature. It is hard to see how such a view of the two natures could solve the problem of Mark 13:32 without asserting that Christ misled His disciples.

John Calvin (d. 1564), seeking to be biblical, is also found to have an orthodox view of the two natures of Christ. He believed that the problem with Mark 13:32 was solved by a proper understanding of the incarnation:

For we know that in Christ the two natures were united in one person in such a manner that each retained its own properties; and more especially the Divine nature was in a state of repose, and did not at all exert itself, (The Divine nature was kept, as it were, concealed; that is, did not display its power) whenever it was necessary that the human nature should act separately, according to what was peculiar to itself, in discharging the office of Mediator. There would be no impropriety, therefore in saying that Christ, who knew all things, was ignorant of something in respect of his perception as a man; for otherwise he could not have been liable to grief and anxiety, and could not have been like us.[55]

Calvin’s stress on the mediatorial role of Christ allowed him to see that it was necessary for Christ to experience life as a man. Christ never gave up his deity; rather he did not make full use of his divinity. Thus,

his being called the servant of the Father, his being said to grow in stature, and wisdom, and favor with God and man, not to seek his own glory, not to know the last day, not to speak of himself, not to do his own will, his being seen and handled, apply entirely to his humanity; since, as God, he cannot be in any respect said to grow, works always for himself, knows everything, does all things after the counsel of his own will, and is incapable of being seen or handled. And yet he not merely ascribes these things separately to his human nature, but applies them to himself as suitable to his office of Mediator.[56]

A final contribution Calvin made to the two-nature solution to Mark 13:32 is his emphasis on the unity of the two natures in the statements of Scripture. For instance, Acts 20:28 says that God purchased the church with his own blood. Blood is certainly limited to humanity, but the statement concerns Christ’s divinity. Also 1 Cor 2:8 says that the Jews crucified the Lord of glory. “Crucified” must be applied to Christ’s humanity, but the nominal reference is undoubtedly directed towards his divinity. Calvin concludes the section with a summary remark: “Inasmuch as he was both God and man, he, on account of the union of a twofold nature, attributed to the one what properly belonged to the other.”[57] The application to Mark 13:32 is obvious; Christ can apply ignorance to his person even though he uses a reference which implies his deity.

In recent centuries, the two-nature solution has become more refined. Charles Hodge (d. 1878), the late Princeton theologian, following the Chalcedonian creed submits that:

The first and most obvious of the consequences of the hypostatical union is the communion of attributes. By this is not meant that the one nature participates in the attributes of other, but simply that the person is the partaker of the attributes of both natures, so that whatever may be affirmed of either nature may be affirmed of the person. . . . Thus we may say that Christ is finite and infinite, that He is ignorant and omniscient, that he existed from eternity and was born in time, that He created all things and was a man of sorrows.[58]

Hodge puts in clear and dramatic words what Calvin was asserting hundreds of years before. Hodge’s main contribution, however, is his assertion of two centers of consciousness in Christ. Previous to Hodge, and after the Council of Constantinople in 681, there was a general agreement that Christ had two distinct wills.[59] Hodge took the next logical step: “As there are two distinct natures, human and divine, there are of necessity two intelligences and two wills, the one fallible and finite, the other immutable and infinite.”[60] Wayne Grudem notes the helpfulness of this distinction when he says, “The distinction of two wills and two centers of consciousness helps us understand how Jesus could learn things and yet know all things. . . . This ignorance of the time of his return was true of Jesus’ . . . human conscious only, for in his divine nature he was certainly omniscient and certainly knew the time when he would return to the earth.”[61]

John F. Walvoord, late professor and president of Dallas Theological Seminary, also believed that a proper view of the incarnation solved the dilemma presented by Mark 13:32. He understood that Christ possessed the most brilliant mind, surpassing even the great geniuses of world history.[62] However, Christ, in his humanity, was not omniscient. Did that mean that Christ was liable to sin out of ignorance? Walvoord concluded that this was impossible; for he believed it was “evident that the ministry of the Holy Spirit to the humanity of Christ supplied knowledge of every fact necessary to duty, to avoid sin, or to do the will of God.”[63] Norman Geisler adds, “Whatever limits there were in the extent of Jesus’ knowledge, there were no limits to the truthfulness of his teachings. . . . He was finite in human knowledge and yet without factual error in what he taught (John 8:40, 46). Whatever Jesus taught came from God and carried divine authority.”[64] Therefore, the limitation of Christ’s human knowledge cannot be used to indicate that His teachings were flawed or insufficient. It surely would be against the wisdom and foresight of God if Christ became man for the purpose of saving sinners, but because he took on flesh, he lost the ability to communicate the truth. Any god capable of such a blunder is not the God of the Scriptures.

Most recently, in his Introduction to Systematic Theology, Wayne Grudem has expounded on the two-nature solution to the problem of Mark 13:32. Grudem helpfully organizes the teaching of orthodox theology on the incarnation. Specifically, Grudem posits three main points concerning the relation of the two natures. First, “One nature does some things that the other nature does not do.”[65] For instance, Christ’s divine nature knows all things, while His human nature is ignorant on many points. But even more dramatic is the fact that Christ’s divine nature holds the world together even as Christ is being held in the arms of Mary.[66]

Second, “Anything either nature does, the person of Christ does.”[67] Grudem gives a mundane example of how this is true of people as well as Christ: “If I type a letter, even though my feet and toes had nothing to do with typing the letter, I do not tell people, ‘My fingers typed a letter and my toes had nothing to do with it’ (though that is true). Rather I tell people, ‘I typed a letter.’ That is true because anything that is done by one part of me is done by me.”[68] For this reason, Christ is able to say that he does not know the time of his coming, because in his mediatorial role he truly did not. And what is true of his humanity can be said to be true of him. Thus, at one and the same time, Christ is both ignorant and omniscient.

Grudem’s final point states, “Titles that remind us of one nature can be used of the person even when the action is done by the other nature.”[69] His view here aligns closely with the exposition of Calvin above. Grudem, however, specifically points out the application to Mark 13:32. “In this way, we can understand Mark 13:32. . . . Though the term ‘The Son’ specifically reminds us of Jesus’ heavenly, eternal sonship with God the Father, it is really used here not to speak specifically of his divine nature, but to speak generally of him as a person, and to affirm something that is in fact true of his human nature only.”[70]

Distinctions Within The Two-Nature Solution

If Grudem’s three points are correct, then there is a solution to the Markan quandary. However, there are some difficulties that need to be worked through. Foremost is how one nature has knowledge while the other remains ignorant. Among those espousing a two-nature view, there has been a diversity of opinion on this question. Two options arise. The first claims that Christ did not know because in his incarnation he gave up the independent use of his attributes. Charles M. Horne succinctly summarizes this view: “He resigned not the possession, not yet entirely the use, but rather the independent exercise of the divine attributes. They were voluntarily, and conditionally, rendered without effect on the plane of historical existence . . . the divine attributes of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence are potential and latent rather than continually active.”[71]

Those who claim Christ gave up the independent exercise of His attributes stress the fact that Jesus did not lose his attributes. Instead, as Thomas Oden notes, “The Son permitted his natural human capacities and infirmities to prevail, as if alone in his human nature, for a time withdrawing and withholding from activity the divine virtue dwelling bodily in the human nature.”[72] Thus, in the case of Mark 13:32, Jesus actually did not know the time of the end, because he restrained his divine omniscience.[73] Proponents of this view claim that Christ only exercised his divine prerogatives when it was the will of the Father.

That Jesus gave up independent use of his attributes is an attractive option, because it appears to alleviate the problem in Mark 13:32: Jesus spoke frankly and honestly that he did not know. Further, it explains how Christ could display omniscience at times (John 4:18) and appear ignorant at others (John 11:34). Finally, it accords well with the general thrust in Scripture that the activity of the Son in redemption was subject to the will of the Father in all things (Matt. 26:39). The major weakness with this view, however, concerns how Jesus could be omniscient while not having access to His omniscience. That is, what is the difference between giving up use and giving up the attribute? If Jesus knew only what his Father allowed him, then it appears that he gave up omniscience when he came to earth.

Fortunately, there is a second understanding within the two-nature view. Instead of asserting that Jesus gave up use of his attributes, some assert that Jesus had two centers of consciousness. In our survey of writers endorsing two-nature views, it was seen that Hodge and Grudem both ascribe to this explanation. In fact, Grudem claims that a significant majority of the church has held to two centers of consciousness.[74] Essentially, this view asserts that the divine consciousness was fully omniscient, but the human consciousness was limited. The benefits of this view are evident. First, Mark 13:32 is explained without resorting to subterfuge or textual emendation. Second, using this position as an interpretive grid, many seemingly contradictory passages of Scripture come to resolution. One example comes from John 11, where Jesus plainly tells the disciples that Lazarus is dead (11:14). Within the same chapter John reveals that Jesus asked where the body of Lazarus lay (11:34). How could Jesus at one and the same time know that Lazarus was dead and not know where he was laid? The two-consciousness view provides an answer.

Third, this view also allows for the subjection of the Son to the Father. Only when the Father wills does Jesus act and speak according to his divine nature through his human nature. The final benefit of this approach is that it balances the assertions of Jesus’ humanity and divinity without losing sight of either. Many of the other views have one nature engulfing the other. The result is a glorified man or a God who took over a body. The two-consciousness view carefully and successfully navigates away from the dangerous pitfalls of heresy.

Despite its encouraging benefits, the two-consciousness view does have detractors. One critic in particular condemns the view because he believes that the divine consciousness would eradicate the similarities between Christ and every other person: “But an incarnate Word who had the enjoyment . . . of a supernatural consciousness is not exactly on our level. . . . If it can be said with any meaningfulness that Jesus enjoyed a superhuman consciousness, then he was not sufficiently one of us.”[75] This critique is quite serious, for if Christ was insufficiently human, then he could not sympathize with our humanity (Heb 4:15). Nevertheless, it must be admitted that Christ had abilities that others did not. He at times displayed his omniscience (Mark 2:8), at other times he displayed his omnipotence (Matt 8:26-27), and he may also have displayed his omnipresence (John 1:48). If none of these characteristics—unique to Christ—discredited his humanity, then the fact that Jesus has two centers of consciousness does not discredit his humanity. The definition of humanity must derive from Scripture and not from any external criteria. According to Scripture, Jesus was a unique human, but nevertheless he was human.

The second critique of the two-consciousness approach is likewise serious. How can one hold to this Christology without being Nestorian? Put differently, the questioner is asking whether one can truly have two centers of consciousness and yet remain one person. Gerald O’Collins answers by noting that consciousness should not be attributed to the person but to the nature.[76] Therefore, since Christ had a human and a divine nature, he had a duality of consciousness. The one person of Christ, having two natures, has two consciousnesses. Certainly some will question O’Collin’s mental astuteness here; however Grudem defends the view when he says that “two wills and two centers of consciousness do not require that Jesus be two distinct persons. It is mere assertion without proof to say that they do.”[77] Again, Christians must allow Scripture to determine truth. If the Bible says that Jesus was one person with a duality of consciousness, then Scripture must prevail.[78] Grudem’s conclusion to his defense of a two-consciousness will also serve as the conclusion to this section: “To adopt any other solution would create a far greater problem: it would require that we give up either the full deity or the full humanity of Christ, and that we cannot do.”[79]

A Paradoxical Solution

The solution to Mark 13:32, outlined above, will not satisfy many Western thinkers. Not only does the view posit two natures in Christ, but it also holds that these natures have their own consciousnesses. In this context, it is good to listen to the wisdom of O’Collins as he speaks to his readers: “If we cannot imagine and describe what it would be like to be God, we cannot imagine or describe what it would be like to be God and man.”[80] Humans should not be ashamed to arrive at inexplicable mysteries. In fact, as Van Til taught, human knowledge is always paradoxical.[81] It is to deny the creaturely status that one seeks absolute knowledge as God knows. Admitting paradox, then, is not admitting weakness, but creatureliness.

A. N. S. Lane argues that the two-nature solution is not a paradox, but a blatant contradiction. He offers a comparison by saying that the two-nature approach “is like claiming that I am experiencing both poverty and wealth because there is no money in my left pocket while in my right pocket I have a million pounds. Wealth eliminates poverty. Omniscience and ignorance, omnipotence and impotence cannot coexist.”[82] Lane’s words strike a chord within every mind. Certainly it is true that a man with money in one pocket cannot righteously say that he is broke. However, Christ, being omniscient, can righteously say that he does not know the hour (Mark 13:32). In the first case it is a contradiction, in the second it is only an apparent contradiction. The difference is Scripture. When Scripture asserts something which is inexplicable in human terms, humans must admit their creaturely status and submit to God’s Word.[83]

Though the two-nature solution presents a paradox to the human mind, it is not a paradox to God’s mind. Vern Poythress confirms this by saying, “Apparent contradictions appear to be contradictions only against a standard for what a contradiction is. Since the standard is God himself, there can be no real contradiction.” Therefore, “When we feel that so-called paradoxes are a problem, the real problem is our pretended autonomy. . . .”[84] As creatures, man must submit to the Lord in all things of which human knowledge is only one sphere. Even in eternity man may never fully understand, since limitation is not a result of sin, but a consequence of being a creature. With this understanding, the assertion of Mark 13:32 though apparently contradictory, is found to be logically coherent.[85]

Problem Or Paradigm

Having concluded that Mark 13:32 is best explained by a fuller understanding of the two-natures in the incarnation, what should be done about passages which seem to reflect the humanity of Christ? It seems that most pastors are content to avoid the passages if possible.[86] B.B. Warfield, on the other hand, argued that it is “gain and nothing but gain, to realize in all its fullness that our Lord was made man even as we are men, made ‘in all things like unto his brethren’ (Heb. 2:17).”[87] What differentiates Warfield from those who sheepishly avoid passages which explicitly declare Christ’s humanity? Undoubtedly, part of the reason resides in the central place Warfield gives to the incarnation.

The glory of the Incarnation is that it presents to our adoring gaze, not a humanized God or a deified man, but a true God-man – one who is all that God is and at the same time all that man is: on whose almighty arm we can rest, and to whose human sympathy we can appeal. We cannot afford to lose either the God in the man or the man in the God; our hearts cry out for the complete God-man whom the Scriptures offer us. It may be much to say that it is because he is man that he is capable of growth in wisdom, and because he is God that he is from the beginning Wisdom Itself. It is more to say that because he is man he is able to pour out his blood, and because he is God his blood is of infinite value to save; and that it is only because he is both God and Man in one person, that we can speak of God purchasing his Church with his own blood (Acts 20:28).[88]

It is of inestimable value to preach and extol the humanity of Christ, because in becoming man, Christ saved man. The incarnation was an act of love initiated by God, which was ultimately the greatest communication from God to man. Thomas Oden, following Calvin, understood the meaning of the incarnation when he said, “The divine humiliation was not an impoverishment of God but an incomparable expression of the empathic descent of divine love.”[89] Too many have viewed the incarnation as an exegetical embarrassment, when, in fact, it is the clearest teaching of God’s covenantal love.

John Frame develops this theme further when he asserts that Christ’s incarnation may yield fruit in understanding God’s relation to mankind. For instance, Frame draws an analogy between Christ’s two natures and God’s interaction in time. Since God is an eternal Being, his relationship to time has caused many questions. Frame proposes a solution based on an incarnational model. Just as Christ took on the attributes of humanity, so God takes on the attributes of humanity. That is, God condescends and takes on human characteristics.[90] Christ’s incarnation, then, was the pinnacle of God’s condescension—a condescension He has been practicing since the world began. Even today in heaven Christ bears humanity, and for eternity future will bear that humanity as a banner of the condescending nature of God’s love.[91]

K. Scott Oliphint believes this understanding of God’s relation to his creation traces back to the Westminster Confession of Faith which says, “The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which He has been pleased to express by way of covenant.”[92] Thus, God condescends because man can never ascend. The love of God is displayed powerfully in those passages which seem to contradict his nature, for these passages show the voluntary and loving condescension of God. Based on this understanding Oliphint writes,

Statements in Scripture that seem to confuse, that seem to be in stark contrast to other statements, should be interpreted in the context of God’s condescension such that his divinity operates through his covenant properties. When Scripture says, therefore, “and the Lord relented from the disaster that he had spoken of bringing on his people” (Ex. 32:14). And “For I the Lord do not change” (Mal. 3:6), we should be aware that, while both statements are true, and while both show us something of God’s essential character through his contingent properties, the first verse should be seen in the context of God’s covenant, in which he takes on contingent properties in order to fulfill his promises to his people, while the second verse refers us to God’s immutable character (and the application of that essential property in the context of God’s covenant). It should not surprise us, therefore, that we will see in Scripture both “sides” of God’s activity with his creation, even as it does not surprise us when we see Christ both forgive sins (according to his essential character) and become tired (according to his covenantal character).[93]

As the quote suggests, Oliphint shows the continuity between God’s continual actions in relation to mankind and his ultimate condescension in Christ. At all times, when God relates to man, he is stooping down with the primary purpose of loving and redeeming his people. For this reason, Mark 13:32 should not be looked as an embarrassing problem but as a lucid paradigm for understanding God’s relation to his creatures.

Conclusion

Church history has provided many answers to the question prompted by reading Mark 13:32. Ambrose and Jerome led the way in offering a solution based on textual corruption. And though some modern scholars were found advocating this approach, ultimately it fails for lack of evidence. Basil of Caesarea added another solution, which sought to save the divinity of Christ by proposing a new translation of the Greek. Though Basil’s interpretation is possible, it is far from a natural reading and fails to explain the sister passage in Matthew. Augustine, Hilary of Poitiers, Aquinas, Gregory of Tours, Origen, and other modern interpreters proposed semantic solutions to the text. And though these solutions have fared well in public opinion, they fail to satisfy the language of Mark. As such, they are inventive and attractive, but not plausible.

Athanasius led the way in the final solution. He proposed that a two-nature model would answer the problem of Mark 13:32. Behind him have stood many who have accepted and built upon the two-nature structure. There are many advantages to this solution. First, the text is understood naturally without resorting to rare word uses or textual discrepancies. Second, both the humanity and the divinity of Christ are upheld without bringing either into jeopardy. Third, the two-nature solution is not limited to Mark 13:32; it can be used to decipher other enigmatic passages about Christ.[94]

A final benefit of the two-nature approach is that it provides a paradigm for understanding God’s relationship to the world. Christ added a human nature without subtracting anything from his divine nature. In the same way, the Godhead accepts human attributes in order to relate and communicate with his creatures. Though the Godhead’s additions are not all permanent like the incarnation was for Christ, nevertheless his covenantal additions are extravagant examples of God’s voluntary love for mankind. Therefore, passages—like Mark 13:32—from both the Old and New Testaments which have historically been hard to harmonize with the nature of God are actually the most intense examples of God’s love for his people. And though these passages may present an apparent paradox to the human mind, pastors should not avoid them, but preach them clearly, often, and with much passion.

Notes

1. Timothy Miller is Assistant Professor of Bible and Apologetics at Maranatha Baptist Bible College.
2. “It is likely that this issue, and the embarrassment which it brings to his text at 13:32, would not have occurred either to him or to his readers.” R.T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 544.
3. Ralph P. Martin, Mark, Evangelist and Theologian (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 124.
4. Athanasius, “Four Discourses Against the Arians,” 3.28.42.
5. Kris J. Udd, “Only The Father Knows: A Response to Harold F. Carl,” Journal of Biblical Studies 1.4 (2001), http://journalof biblicalstudies.org/issue4.html (accessed December 4, 2009).
6. Franz Delitzsch, A System of Biblical Psychology, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1867), 385 fn 2.
7. Unfortunately a lengthy response to the interpretation of Philippians 2 is beyond the scope of this paper. For further analysis see, Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 550.
8. Ibid., 549-552.
9. Grudem is correct when he notes that the Kenotic theory had its beginning because, “It just seemed too incredible for modern rational and ‘scientific’ people to believe that Jesus Christ could be truly human and fully, absolutely God at the same time.” Udd’s article exemplifies this modernistic trend. In the end, his Kenotic theology seeks to avoid the inherent paradox in the incarnation. See, Udd, “Only the Father Knows” and Grudem, Systematic Theology, 551.
10. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 551.
11. Oliphint succinctly notes that “God is essentially God; there is nothing in him that is in any way contingent or otherwise not necessary.” See K. Scott Oliphint, Reasons for Faith: Philosophy in the Service of Theology (Phillipsburg: P & R, 2006), 307.
12. Though Udd would never accept this portrayal of his position, he comes close to saying it himself: “The fact that Jesus did evidence supernatural power and knowledge on various occasions indicated that he came from the Father, but those actions in and of themselves were not necessarily indicators of divinity. . . . It hardly seems coincidental that Jesus performed no miracles until after the Holy Spirit came upon him at his baptism, and that the disciples performed those same deeds through the power of the Holy Spirit.” Udd, “Only the Father Knows.”
13. Quoted in Charles Gore, Dissertations on Subjects Connected with the Incarnation (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1895), 130.
14. Theodoret, “Counter-statements to Cyril’s 12 Anathemas,” IV.
15. Ambrose, “Exposition of the Christian Faith,” trans. H. Romestin, New Advent, 5.16. 192, XCS81993http://www.newadvent.org /fathers/34045.htm (accessed December 4, 2009).
16. Jerome, Commentary on Matthew, trans. Thomas P. Scheck (US: CUA, 2008), 277.
17. James A. Brooks, Mark (Nashville: Broadman, 1991), 217.
18. Charles Powell, a PhD in New Testament from Dallas Theological Seminary, has contributed a thorough essay on this topic. “The Textual Problem of ‘οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός’ in Matthew 24:36,” Bible.org, 2004, http://bible.org/article/textual-problem-font-facegreekoujdev-oj-uijovfont-matthew-2436 (accessed December 4, 2009).
19. Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indexes, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 522.
20. In fact, the translator and commentator of Jerome’s commentary notes that the Greek mss. support is in favor of the omitted phrase. He further notes that one of Jerome’s two sources actually contains the phrase in question, and Jerome must be referring not to a mss. but to the writings of the author. See Jerome, Commentary on Matthew, 277 fn 119-120.
21. Carl, though not ascribing to the position, describes it well. See Harold F. Carl, “Only the Father Knows: Historical and Evangelical Responses to Jesus’ Eschatological Ignorance in Mark 13:32,” Journal of Biblical Studies 1.3 (2001), http:// journalofbiblicalstudies.org/issue3.html (accessed December 4, 2009).
22. Brooks, Mark, 217.
23. Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark, 522.
24. Basil of Caesarea, “Letter 236 to Amphilochius,” trans. Blomfield Jackson, New Advent, 1, XCS81993http://www.newadvent.org /fathers/3202236.htm (accessed December 1, 2009).
25. Basil of Caesarea, “Letter 236 to Amphilochius,” 2.
26. Francis X. Gumerlock, “Mark 13:32 and Christ’s Supposed Ignorance: Four Patristic Solutions,” Trinity Journal 28.2 (2007): 205-213.
27. Basil recognized that his answer would not convince everyone—particularly the unregenerate—for he says that his answer “may . . . suffice to convince all that love the Lord, and in whom the previous assurance supplied them by faith is stronger than any demonstration of reason.” Basil of Caesarea, “Letter 236 to Amphilochius,” 1.
28. Gumerlock, “Mark 13:32,” 207.
29. Ibid.
30. Gregory of Tours, “History of the Franks,” trans. Ernest Brehaut, Fordham University, “Prologue to Book One,” http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/gregory-hist.html (accessed December 1, 2009).
31. Quoted from Manlio Simonetti, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Matthew 14-28 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002), 207.
32. Francis Brown, S. Driver, and C. Briggs, Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), Accordance 7.1.
33. However, γινώσκω is used this way (Matt. 1:25) and certainly would have been the word Mark would have used if he had meant “to experience.” See Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 2nd ed. (United Bible Societies, 1988), Accordance 7.1.
34. Hilary is extremely hard to interpret on this issue. In the same article he posits multiple views: (1) Jesus knew, but said that he did not; (2) knowing means revealing; (3) ignorance should be attributed to Jesus’ human nature; and (4) it is a mystery how Jesus can know and not know at the same time. Hilary of Poitiers, “On the Trinity,” 9.63-75.
35. Ibid., 9.63.
36. Ibid., 9.71.
37. Augustine, “On the Trinity,” 1.12.23.
38. Augustine, “Letter to Oceanus,” 3.
39. Augustine, Eighty-Three Different Questions, 114.
40. Thomas Aquinas, Compendium Theologiae, trans. Cyril Vollert (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), 242, http://www.josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/Compendium.htm (accessed December 1, 2009).
41. Thomas Aquinas, “Summa Theologica,” New Advent, 3.10.2, http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4010.htm (accessed December 1, 2009); Hilary of Poitiers, “On the Trinity,” 64; Augustine, Eighty-Three Different Questions, 114-115.
42. Lewis Sperry Chafer, “Trinitarianism,” Bibliotheca Sacra 97 (1940): 401.
43. William Greenough Thayer Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 3rd ed. (Phillipsburg: P & R, 2003), 319.
44. Ibid.
45. Gumerlock, “Mark 13:32.”
46. Verse 34, the very next verse, would make little sense at all given this definition of “know.” It would say, “Take heed, keep on the alert; for you do not reveal when the appointed time will come.”
47. See John Calvin and William Pringle, “Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke,” Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 3.36, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom33.toc.html (accessed December 1, 2009).
48. “Chalcedonian Creed,” Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics, 451, http://reformed.org /documents/index.html? mainframe=http://reformed.org/documents/chalcedon.html (accessed December 5, 2009). Emphasis mine.
49. Athanasius, “Four Discourses Against the Arians,” 24.46.
50. Gumerlock, “Mark 13:32.”
51. Gregory Nazianzus, “Orations,” trans. Charles Gordon Browne and James Edward Swallow, New Advent, 29.17, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3102.htm (accessed December 1, 2009).
52. Athanasius, “Four Discourses Against the Arians,” 28.43; Gregory Nazianzus, “Orations,” 30.15.
53. The title “Son” without any modifiers may actually be a clear declaration of Christ’s deity and not an indication that he is speaking of His human nature.
54. John of Damascus, “Orthodox Faith,” Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 21, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209. iii.iv.iii.xxi.html (accessed December 1, 2009).
55. Calvin and Pringle, “Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke,” 24.36.
56. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.14.2.
57. Ibid.
58. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, abridged ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 359.
59. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 560.
60. Charles Hodge, “Systematic Theology,” Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2:405, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge/ theology2.iv.iii.v.html (accessed December 3, 2009).
61. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 561.
62. John F. Walvoord, “The Holy Spirit in Relation to the Person and Work of Christ,” Bibliotheca Sacra 98 (1941): 45.
63. Ibid.
64. Norman L Geisler, “Theory of the Limitation of Christ,” in Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 426.
65. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 559.
66. Ibid., 560.
67. Ibid., 562.
68. Ibid.
69. Ibid.
70. Ibid., 562-563.
71. Charles M. Horne, “Let this Mind Be in You,” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 3 (1960): 37-44.
72. Thomas C. Oden, The Word of Life (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1989), 87.
73. Millard Erickson, while in general agreement with this view, holds that Jesus was unaware of the time of the end because it was in his unconscious. When the Father allowed, the knowledge in Christ’s unconscious would be called to memory by Christ. For this unique view and an interesting analogy, see Millard J. Erickson, The Word Became Flesh (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 558-559.
74. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 561. For an alternative view, see Anthony T. Hanson, “Two Consciousnesses: The Modern Version of Chalcedon,” Scottish Journal of Theology 37 (1984): 474-476.
75. Hanson, “Two Consciousnesses,” 481.
76. Gerald O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus (London: G. Chapman, 1983), 190.
77. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 561.
78. Udd is a good example of one who argues that consciousness is on the side of person. See, Udd, “Only The Father Knows: A Response to Harold F. Carl.”
79. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 561.
80. Gerald O’Collins, Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus Christ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 234.
81. Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 4th ed. (Phillipsburg: P & R, 2008), 67-69.
82. A.N.S Lane, “Christology Beyond Chalcedon,” in Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology Presented to Donald Guthrie, ed. Harold H. Rowdon (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1982), 270.
83. Grudem specifically challenges Lane’s conclusions noting that Lane’s assertions “fundamentally deny that infinite deity and finite humanity can exist together in the same person—in other words, they deny that Jesus could be fully God and fully man at the same time. In this way, they deny the essence of the incarnation.” Grudem, Systematic Theology, 559-560 fn39.
84. Vern S Poythress, “Reforming Ontology and Logic in the Light of the Trinity: An Application of Van Til’s Idea of Analogy,” Westminster Theological Journal 57 (1995): 214 fn14.
85. Oliphint proposes a method of explanation which “will allow for meaningful discussion about Christ, such that we are not left with bare contradiction.” His strategy takes predicative compatibility inherent in Thomas Aquinas’ thought and combines it with the Reformed views on essentialism and ontology. The result is an ability to speak of the two natures in such a way that is not clearly contradictory, though “we are affirming something that is ultimately mysterious and beyond the pale of understanding for our finite (and sinful) minds.” For a fuller exposition see, Oliphint, Reasons for Faith, 304-315.
86. To his knowledge, this writer has never heard a message on Mark 13:32 and only one or two messages on the many other texts which explicitly teach anthropomorphic activities of God.
87. Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, “The Human Development of Jesus,” in Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1970), 163.
88. Ibid., 166.
89. Oden cites Calvin’s Institutes 2.13.3-4. Oden, The Word of Life, 85-86.
90. “Could it be that when God enters time he takes on some human characteristics, foreshadowing the incarnation?” For his full discussion, see John M. Frame, “Response to Howard Griffith,” in Speaking the Truth in Love: The Theology of John M. Frame (Phillipsburg: P & R, 2009), 972-973.
91. Warfield notes that “Reformed theology . . . has not shrunk from recognizing that Christ, as man, had a finite knowledge and must continue to have a finite knowledge forever.” Warfield, “The Human Development of Jesus,” 162.
92. “Westminster Confession of Faith,” Reformed.org, 7.1, http://reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ (accessed December 9, 2009).
93. Oliphint, Reasons for Faith, 315.
94. For instance, none of the other solutions can handle the seemingly contradictory comments about Christ which Gregory of Nanzianzus emphasized:

[Jesus] was baptized as man—but He remitted sins as God . . .
He was tempted as man, but He conquered as God . . .
He hungered—but He fed thousands . . .
He was wearied, but He is the Rest . . .
He pays tribute . . . He is King of those who demanded it . . .
He prays, but He hears prayer . . .
He weeps, but He causes tears to cease . . .
He asks where Lazarus was laid, but He raises Lazarus . . .
He is sold . . . but He redeems the world . . .
As a sheep He is led to the slaughter, but He is the Shepherd of Israel . . .
He is bruise and wounded, but He heals every disease and every infirmity . . .
He dies, but He gives life . . .
He is buried, but He rises again . . .
Gregory Nazianzus, “Orations,” 29.20.

The Water That Divides Baptism And Baptists

By Larry R. Oats [1]

In an article called “We Believe In: Water Baptism,” Arthur Farstad identifies a problem in the broad evangelical world:

If one were writing an article on baptism for a Baptist publication – or a Church of Christ, Presbyterian, or Roman Catholic one – the task would not be too difficult. Each group has well-defined positions on all aspects of this doctrine. . . . Our readership holds differing views not only on the mode but also the meaning of baptism, and perhaps most important of all, the proper candidates for water baptism. Difficult as it may be, in this article we propose to examine the consensus of nearly all Christians on water baptism.[2]

His article concluded that most evangelicals agree on only three elements: water baptism confers no saving grace, baptism in some way identifies believers with Christ, and baptism is important for obedience and as a testimony to the world of the believer’s identification with Christ.[3]

In similar fashion, J. I. Packer states,

One of the church’s unhappy divisions concerns the subject of baptism. Nobody defends baptizing all infants as such, but most denominations baptize the children of the baptized. Baptists, however, see this as either non-baptism (because infants cannot make the required confession of faith) or as irregular baptism (because, they say, it is not clearly apostolic, nor pastorally wise). Some hold that by not actually commanding infant baptism God in Scripture forbids it; all urge that to postpone baptism till faith is conscious is always in practice best. (Note that when I speak of “Baptists” here, I am referring to a whole range of Christians—members of Baptist and baptistic denominations, along with some charismatics, independents, and other evangelicals—for whom believer-baptism is the standard practice.) 

On the other side, some have deduced from covenant theology that God commands the baptism of believers’ babies after all. Many more maintain that this practice, though fixed by the church, has better theological, historical, and pastoral warrant than the alternative has, and so should be thought of as “most agreeable with the institution of Christ.”[4]

Baptism divides Baptists (and baptistic churches using Packer’s definition in the quote above) from almost all other denominations. In the current culture, baptism is frequently denigrated – the mode is unimportant, the recipient can be almost anyone, and the meaning is uncertain. The purpose of this article is to look briefly at various historical views on baptism, examine what Scripture says on the subject, and then analyze the significance of baptism for Baptists.

A Brief History Of Baptism

The first reference to baptism by means other than immersion is found in the Didache (written about 120 to 150). Baptism by pouring was viewed as an acceptable alternative only when it was not possible for the candidate to be immersed.

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [flowing] water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.[5]

The Didache allowed pouring, but the first documented case of pouring instead of immersing came a hundred years later (in about 250). The significance of this event was the effect that pouring instead of immersion had on the spiritual qualifications of the recipient. It involved a man by the name of Novatus or Novatian, who lived in Rome. Novatus was believed to be at the point of death and so was poured on in his sickbed. Baptism was viewed as the means of washing away original sin; therefore, numerous individuals waited as long as possible before being baptized so that they could wash away as much sin as possible. However, this case was unusual in that Novatus was too ill to be immersed, was therefore poured upon, but then recovered from his illness. Had he died, no one apparently would have been concerned, but he was now a healthy individual who had not been immersed. Eusebius of Caesarea described the incident and used it to argue why Novatus was not eligible for church office; it was not deemed “lawful that one baptized in his sick bed by aspersion, as he was, should be promoted to any order of the clergy.”[6]

Cyprian of Carthage (3rd century) wrote concerning the baptism of heretics. The developing Roman Catholic Church argued that salvation was found only in the “true Church.” Therefore, baptism by heretics was not valid, since they had no ability to confer salvation. Only the one “true Church” had the authority to baptize. Cyprian had to explain to Magnus, the recipient of his letter, concerning those who obtain God’s grace in sickness and weakness, whether they are to be accounted legitimate Christians, for that they are not to be washed, but sprinkled, with the saving water. . . . In the sacraments of salvation, when necessity compels, and God bestows His mercy, the divine methods confer the whole benefit on believers; nor ought it to trouble any one that sick people seem to be sprinkled or affused, when they obtain the Lord’s grace.[7] Apparently Magnus assumed that only baptism by immersion was acceptable, and Cyprian needed to correct that “error” in his thinking.

Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem in the fourth century, stated:

For thou goest down into the water . . . to be swallowed up by the terrible dragon. Having gone down dead in sins, thou comest up quickened in righteousness . . . so thou by going down into the water, and being in a manner buried in the waters, as He was in the rock, art raised again walking in newness of life.[8]

As late as the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas, who lived from 1225 to 1274 and was one of the most prominent Catholic theologians, stated, “[I]t is safer to baptize by immersion, because this is the more ordinary fashion, yet Baptism can be conferred by sprinkling or also by pouring, according to Ezekiel 36:25: ‘I will pour upon you clean water.’”[9]

Another change concerned the recipients of baptism. In the New Testament and until the rise of the Roman Catholic Church, baptism was reserved for believers. As baptism began to take on a salvific quality, combined with the high rate of infant mortality, the rite came to include infants. Since baptism was believed to save, it was logical to baptize infants to ensure their salvation during the years prior to being able to exercise personal faith. There also developed in the rising Roman Catholic Church a system of instruction before non-Christian adults could be baptized. This fostered the idea that people could be educated into salvation. Conversion by means of the work of the Holy Spirit was no longer necessary. Therefore, in addition to the baptism of unregenerate infants came the baptism of unregenerate adults. This was the dominant position until the Reformation. It was not, however, the only position. Prior to the Reformation there were many Bible believers who rejected Catholic theology, frequently paying a great price to do so.

Numerous groups stood against Catholicism throughout much of its history. A significant group was the Waldenses. The Dean of Notre Dame in Arras, in the 14th century, declared that one-third of Christendom sometimes attended Waldensian meetings and were Waldensian at heart.[10] The various non-Catholic groups were not homogenous, but the more biblical of them had significant similarities: they condemned the worldliness of the Roman church, they rejected its priesthood, they denied the validity of the sacraments, and they tried to live in biblical simplicity. A significant issue for these groups was baptism. If the church was corrupt, would not its baptism also be corrupt? If the priesthood was to be rejected, then should not baptism by such a priest also be rejected? If the sacraments did not save, then what was the purpose of baptism? If baptism was a response to personal commitment, then of what value was infant baptism?

Similar to the Waldenses in Western Europe were the Paulicians in the East. The Paulicians were the enemy of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. In 1828 a colony of Paulicians moved into Armenia and brought with them an ancient manual of doctrine, which they claimed dated back a thousand years. It was translated into English as The Key of Truth. The three keys were repentance, baptism and holy communion. “These three He gave to the adults and not to catechumens who have not repented or are unbelieving.”[11]

In the Reformation the Reformers developed numerous theological distinctions from Catholicism. Baptism was not one of them. In spite of the preaching of the gospel and the destruction of the framework of medieval Christianity, the Reformers failed to replace Catholic baptism with a biblical model.

Luther believed that what justifies the recipient is not the baptism, but faith in the promises which God makes in association with baptism. Infants, incapable of believing, are assisted by the faith of those who bring them to baptism and by the prayers of the witnesses. His baptismal services included exorcism, the sign of the cross, the use of salt, and the immersion of the child in water. In a sermon on baptism in 1518, he stated:

First baptism is called in Greek baptismos, in Latin mersio, that is, when we dip anything wholly in water, that it is completely covered over. And although in many provinces it is no longer the custom (in other provinces it was the custom) to thrust the children into the font and to dip them; but they only pour water with the hands out of the font; nevertheless, it should be thus, and would be right, that after speaking aloud the word (baptize) the child or any one who is to be baptized, be completely sank down into the water, and dipt again and drawn out, for without doubt in the German tongue the word (taufe) comes from the word tief (deep), that a man sinks deep into the water, what he dips. That also the signification of baptism demands, for it signifies that the old man and sinful birth from the flesh and blood shall be completely drowned through the grace of God. Therefore, a man should sufficiently perform the signification and a right perfect sign. The sign rests, in this, that a man plunge a person in water in the name of the Father, etc., but does not leave him therein but lifts him out again; therefore it is called being lifted out of the font or depths. And so must all of both of these things be the sign; the dipping and the lifting out. Thirdly, the signification is a saving death of the sins and of the resurrection of the grace of God. The baptism is a bath of the new birth. Also a drowning of the sins in the baptism.[12]

Elsewhere Luther declared:

For this reason I would have the candidates for baptism completely immersed in the water, as the word says and as the sacrament signifies. Not that I deem this necessary, but it were well to give to so perfect and complete a thing a perfect and complete sign; thus it was also doubtless instituted by Christ. The sinner does not so much need to be washed as he needs to die . . . and to be conformed to the death and resurrection of Christ, with Whom, through baptism, he dies and rises again. . . . [I]t is far more forceful to say that baptism signifies our utter dying and rising to eternal life, than to say that it signifies merely our being washed clean from sins.[13]

Luther argued for immersion, and he argued that infants should be baptized because they do indeed exercise faith. He based this on his belief that faith is a gift of God and has no relationship to the act of believing by the individual. “Right faith is a thing wrought by the Holy Ghost in us, which changeth us and turneth us into a new nature. How then can we insist that we know exactly when faith is granted? . . . We hopefully assume the child to be a believer and thus regenerate. The baptism then strengthens the seed of faith.”[14] He believed that the helplessness of the child symbolized how the grace of God alone saves a man. Melancthon, Luther’s successor and the theologian of Lutheranism, was concerned that the elimination of infant baptism would remove the church-state relationship, set people free from the established religion, and interfere with the Reformers’ view of Christendom.

Zwingli, the Zurich, Switzerland reformer, was more biblical, although politics got in the way of truth. He declared, “Nothing grieves me more than that at present I must baptize children, for I know it ought not to be done. . . . But if I were to stop the practice of Infant Baptism, I would lose my office.”[15] When several of his followers began to practice believer’s baptism, Zwingli and the city council of Zurich fined, imprisoned and eventually executed those who dared to practice believer’s baptism.

John Calvin was a second generation reformer.[16] Calvin saw the weakness of Luther’s assumption that a true church was produced only by preaching and the sacraments. His connection with the Anabaptists[17] undoubtedly affected his adoption of spiritual discipline as a third characteristic of the church. He rejected Luther’s view of infant faith, but also rejected the Anabaptists’ view of adult baptism. He was concerned that the Anabaptist view required a discontinuity between the Old Testament and New Testament. He argued that the old and new covenants are alike in foundation, meaning and purpose, differing only in the external ordinances. Since circumcision was administered to infants, so baptism can and should also be administered in the same way. He also argued that restricting baptism only to believers displaced grace from its essential position.[18]

Calvin recognized that New Testament baptism was by immersion. In his discussion of the geographical locale for the baptism of Jesus by John, he concluded:

Now geographers tell us, that these two towns, Enon and Salim, were not far from the confluence of the river Jordan and the brook Jabbok; and they add that Scythopolis was near them. From these words, we may infer that John and Christ administered baptism by plunging the whole body beneath the water.[19]

He was not, however, committed to using immersion, believing (amazingly like the Roman Catholics) that the churches have the authority to make a change in mode when it suits them.

Whether the person baptized is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either, according to the diversity of climates, although it is evident that the term baptize means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church.[20]

Under Catholicism, pedobaptism stood for “truth” and adult baptism for evangelical “heresy.” Under Lutheranism, pedobaptism symbolized state Christianity, while adult baptism symbolized voluntary Christianity. With Calvin, pedobaptism came to represent a predestinarian view of salvation, while adult baptism accompanied an emphasis on human responsibility.

Standing in opposition to both Catholicism and the Reformers during the Reformation were the Anabaptists, the “re-baptizers.” They condemned Catholicism as anti-Scriptural and the Reformation as an incomplete return to the truth of Scripture. They rejected pedobaptism and baptized only adults upon a confession of their faith in Christ; the Catholics and Reformers viewed this as “rebaptism,” but the Anabaptists protested that this was the only true baptism.[21]

Theologically, these Anabaptists of the Reformation era, like the earlier Waldenses, Paulicians and others, viewed baptism as an act of obedience by an adult believer. For them, it became an eloquent way of rejecting Christian sacramentalism and all it stood for. When persecution became a way of life for the Anabaptists, baptism took on an additional meaning; it became a demonstration of the believer’s willingness to “die to self,” which at that time was viewed as literal death. Conrad Grebel wrote, “He that is baptized has been planted into the death of Christ. True Christians are sheep among wolves, ready for the slaughter. They must be baptized into anguish and affliction, tribulation, persecution, suffering and death.”[22]

For the next three hundred years, little changed with respect to baptism in Catholicism and Protestantism. During this time, however, the modern Baptists began,[23] and the truth of believers’ baptism became more prevalent.

Biblical Examination Of Baptism

There are only eleven instances of church-related baptisms recorded in the New Testament.[24] There are eight references to baptism in Paul’s writings[25] and one reference in Peter.[26]

The Mode Of Baptism

Baptism is by definition an immersion. “The practice of baptism in the New Testament was carried out in one way: the person being baptized was immersed or put completely under the water and then brought back up again.”[27] The English word is not a translation, but a transliteration. The Greek word βαπτίζω (baptizo) means “to immerse” or “to dip.”[28] “Despite assertions to the contrary, it seems that baptizô, both in Jewish and Christian contexts, normally meant ‘immerse’, and that even when it became a technical term for baptism the thought of immersion remains.”[29] Greek is a rich language, with a broad vocabulary. There are Greek words which mean other than immersion. λούω (louo) and its related forms mean “to wash” or “to bathe.” νίπτω (nipto) means “to wash the extremities,” as in the washing of hands or of feet. ῥαντίζω (rhantizo) means “to sprinkle.” χέω (keo) means “to pour.” The Greek language was fully capable of indicating which “mode” of baptism the church was to practice.

In addition, the Biblical examples of baptism fit immersion better than sprinkling or pouring. In Mark 1:10, when John baptized Jesus, the text declares that they went into the Jordan and Jesus ἀ᾿᾿νέβη (anebe) “came up” ἀπό (apo) “out of” the Jordan. Some commentators will argue that the text here does not give any indication of the mode of baptism. The question, however, is why the special language to declare that Jesus both came up and came out of the Jordan. “Inasmuch as the word ‘baptize’ means to immerse, the expression ‘coming up out of the water’ almost certainly refers to from beneath the water rather than upon the bank.”[30] John the Baptist did not need a river of water if his intent was only to sprinkle or pour upon his disciples. Similar language is found in Acts 8:36-39, where Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch stopped where there was water and also went into and up out of the water. The Ethiopian was traveling through the desert; certainly he would have had a sufficient supply of water to get home. Sprinkling or pouring a small amount on his head would not have jeopardized his supply.

The Joint Committees on Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Communion of the Anglican Church recognized that baptism is by immersion. “It is clear that the recipients of Baptism were normally adults and not infants; and it must be admitted that there is no conclusive evidence in the New Testament for the Baptism of infants.”[31]

The Greek Orthodox Church still immerses; Greeks understand that βαπτίζω means “to immerse.” “The Service of Holy Baptism” of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America states:

The Baptizing 

When he has anointed the whole body, the Priest baptizes him (her), holding him (her) erect, and looking towards the East, says: 

The servant of God (Name) is baptized in the Name of the Father, Amen. And of the Son, Amen. And of the Holy Spirit, Amen. 

At each invocation the Priest immerses him (her) and raises him (her) up again. After the baptizing, the Priest places the child in a linen sheet held by the Godparent.[32]

The Purpose Of Baptism

New Testament Baptism had its origins with John the Baptist.[33] John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance for the remission of sin, a baptism that was the visible, outward expression of an inward change in attitude toward God, one’s sinfulness and need of repentance, and, this writer would suggest, toward the Jerusalem-based, unbiblical Judaism of the day (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 13:24).[34] A Jew who was baptized by John identified himself with a return to a genuine Judaism which saw mankind in need of a Savior. Jesus’ disciples baptized, in keeping with John’s baptism (John 3:22; 4:1, 2), long before Pentecost. John 1:31 also links John’s baptism to the revelation of Jesus as the Messiah. It is unlikely that the Jews of John’s day saw his baptism or the baptism by Jesus’ disciples to be a picture of the death, burial and resurrection; that linkage was to come later. Instead, John’s baptism was prompted by repentance, a return to the truth of the Old Testament, and identification of the one baptized with the Messiah concerning whom John preached.

The Great Commission (Matt 28:19-20 and Mark 16:15-16) records the commandment of Jesus for his disciples to baptize believers. The order of his commandment is first to evangelize the lost, then to baptize those who believe, and finally to teach them the things Jesus had taught his disciples and would teach them through the Holy Spirit. There is an implied connection with John’s baptism, since salvation (which involves repentance) precedes the baptism and since the only baptism the disciples were familiar with up to this point in time was the baptism of repentance. This is one purpose for baptism. “For baptism is among Jesus’ commands. He sent his followers to disciple all nations, baptizing them in the triune name (Matthew 28:19). So a church that did not require baptism, and an unbaptized Christian who did not ask for it would be something of a contradiction in terms. The root reason for the practice of baptizing is to please Jesus Christ our Lord.”[35] There is no hint at the baptism of the unrepentant.

This commandment was first obeyed on the day of Pentecost, when some 3000 people were saved and baptized. Peter urged the people to be baptized for essentially the same reason for John’s baptism. Acts 2:38 records Peter’s call for the Jews who heard his message to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, language essentially identical to John’s baptism. Acts 2:41, however, demonstrates a change in the concept of baptism from John’s baptism of repentance to a church-related baptism. This is the first reference to a connection between baptism and church membership, in keeping with the Great Com-mission – the people were saved, then baptized, and then came under the teaching of the disciples in the church in Jerusalem. This is New Testament baptism.

The next baptism recorded in Scripture was that done by Philip in Samaria (Acts 8:12). The only information gathered here on baptism is that believers were baptized by Philip, in keeping with the Great Commission. Then Philip went down to the desert and baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, after having preached the gospel to him. There was no church and no indication of any related church membership, although Phillip was acting as an agent of the Jerusalem church. Therefore, some have suggested that he baptized him into the membership of the church; this may have been the case, but the text does not tell us this. History does, however, speak of a later vibrant church in Ethiopia, perhaps as a result of this man’s testimony. This event could be used to be warrant the baptism of new converts in a new community where a church does not yet exist, as is the case frequently in a new church plant or on the mission field. This unusual case, however, should not be viewed as the norm, for everywhere else in the New Testament baptism is clearly related to a specific church.

The next baptism, recorded in Acts 9:18, is that of Paul, after his conversion on the Damascus Road (see also Acts 22:16). Immediately after his conversion and baptism, Paul is found with the believers in Damascus, engaged in Great Commission work himself.

In Acts 10:48 the first Gentiles, Cornelius and others, were baptized, but little is said about the baptism itself. Acts 16:15 records the baptism of Lydia and her household. Acts 16:33 speaks of the baptism of the Philippian jailor. In each of these cases, the one who brought the message of salvation spent time with the new converts; they were starting the process of the third element of the Great Commission – teaching them the truth of Jesus Christ. In the case of Lydia and the jailor, it is clear that a church began in the city of their salvation and baptism.

Acts 18:8 records the baptism of a number of believers in Corinth, and in 1 Corinthians 1:13-17 Paul gives testimony of baptizing several of the early converts in Corinth. Paul makes it clear in the context that baptism does not save; he came to evangelize, not to baptize. Nevertheless, the context indicates that the Great Commission order was followed – evangelization, followed by baptism, followed by the planting of a church where teaching occurred.

Acts 19:5 presents a difficult case, and space does not permit a thorough discussion. This writer concludes that several men who were followers of John the Baptist (but apparently had no idea what John’s message truly was and so may have actually been followers of a follower of John) were baptized in the name of Jesus. The usual order of regeneration, then baptism, is evident.

These passages demonstrate that the norm for the New Testament is the baptism of adult believers upon repentance and a confession of their faith in Christ,[36] and usually in connection with a local church that either already existed or was being begun by a missionary.

Baptism In Covenant Theology

Since the Reformers, especially Calvin, argued for the connection of the New Testament church to Old Testament Israel, they tied baptism to circumcision. The covenant position is that baptism is the “sign and seal” of the union between the individual and Christ.[37] Covenant theologians historically have taken two approaches to this concept. One is that of “presumptive regeneration.” Those who take this approach presume that the infant is already regenerated and proceed as if he is; these children are regarded as regenerate until they demonstrate that they are not. The second, more common, approach is that infants are baptized predicated on the all-encompassing promises of God in the covenant. The fact of the regeneration or non-regeneration of the infant makes no difference.[38]

Since there is only a single covenant of grace, in the covenant view, and since children were considered to be in the covenant in the Old Testament, and since God commanded that an external sign be given not just to the believing adults, but also to their children, “it is incumbent upon all God’s people to continue to put a sign of the covenant upon themselves and their children until God says otherwise. . . . [Since] baptism is identical in meaning with circumcision, it must be concluded that baptism should be used instead of circumcision.”[39]

Reymond ties baptism to circumcision, using a shortened reading of Col 2:11-12. “The relation between Old Testament circumcision and New Testament baptism may be seen . . . ‘in him you were also circumcised . . . , having been buried with him in baptism.’ Clearly, for Paul the spiritual import of the New Testament sacrament of baptism—the outward sign and seal of the Spirit’s inner baptismal work—is tantamount to that of Old Testament circumcision.”[40] There are Baptists who would concur. Paul King Jewett, a Reformed Baptist, agrees that “the only conclusion we can reach is that the two signs, as outward rites, symbolize the same inner reality in Paul’s thinking. Thus circumcision may fairly be said to be the Old Testament counterpart of Christian baptism. . . . In this sense baptism, to quote the Heidelberg Catechism, ‘occupies the place of circumcision in the New Testament.’”[41] Reymond’s conclusion is that baptism and circumcision are “essentially the same ... a covenantal sign of the Spirit’s act of cleansing from sin’s defilement.”[42]

The emphasis on baptism is that it is a sign of the cleansing of sin. “Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament. . . . The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water. . . . Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person. . . . Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.”[43] The background for baptism is found in the Old Testament ritual washings (Lev 8:5-6; 14:8-9; 15) and their symbolic applications (Ps 51:1-2; 7-10; Ezek 36:25-26).

The reference of baptism to cleansing (Ezek 36:25-26; John 3:5; 1 Cor 6:11; and Titus 3:5) plus the connection of baptism to circumcision in Col 2:11-12 demonstrates that “baptism signifies more specifically the cleansing or purification from sin’s defilement and guilt.”[44] Reymond’s discussion of Romans 6 completely ignores the symbolism of immersion, emphasizing instead the relational character of baptism and the symbolism of union with Christ.[45]

As to the mode, many covenant theologians argue against immersion as the only mode or even the primary mode. Reymond argues that βαπτίζω does not necessarily mean “immerse.” The reference to “much water” in John 3:23 only means that there was sufficient drinking water for the masses that came to John the Baptist. The references to going down into water and coming up out of water (Matt 3:16; Mark 1:9, 10; Acts 8:36-39) are inconclusive. The act of baptism “was a separate act that followed upon the going down into and preceded the coming up out of the water. . . . Clearly these acts in no way constituted any part of the baptismal act itself.” He believes that the Ethiopian eunuch may have been reading Isaiah 53:7-8 (“So will [my Servant] sprinkle many nations”) and that this made him think of baptism. The household baptisms of Saul, the Philippian jailor, and Cornelius could not have been immersions. He argues from Hebrews 9:10 and 21 that baptism and sprinkling are identical. Romans 6 relates baptism not just to Christ’s death, burial and resurrection, but also to his crucifixion (as does Col 2:11-12). Therefore, immersion cannot be argued as justifiable. Instead baptism simply symbolizes the union of the believer with Christ. Reymond’s conclusion is that “there is not a single recorded instance of a baptism in the entire New Testament where immersion followed by emersion is the mode of baptism. The Baptist practice of baptism by immersion is simply based upon faulty exegesis of Scripture.”[46]

Berkhof argues that “the mode is quite immaterial. . . . Jesus did not prescribe a certain mode of baptism. . . . It is not likely that the multitudes that flocked to John the Baptist, nor the three thousand converts of the day of Pentecost were baptized by immersion.”[47]

Reymond argues that infants should be baptized for three reasons. First, there is “no direct command ‘Baptize only those who themselves make a personal profession of faith.’” Second, the New Testament instances of baptism based upon a credible profession of faith cannot be made normative. Third, Biblical principles have the force of commands “by good and necessary inference,” which ultimately means that “the sacramental continuity between the testaments is so strong that not to baptize children of believers would require some explicit word of repeal.”[48] His continuity between the testaments has forced him to develop an “inference” which requires him to identify circumcision with baptism. Believing parents are “to regard their children as . . . bonafide members of both the covenant of grace and the church of God.”[49] He then concludes that the “Reformed paedobaptist position is, of course, based upon the unity of the covenant of grace and the oneness of the people of God in all ages.”[50]

Feenstra adds that the silence of the New Testament on the baptism of infants is a “thunderous affirmation that infant baptism was so taken for granted that no explicit mention of it was necessary.”[51] This is a dangerous hermeneutic, for based on this all kinds of activity could be argued.

Berkhof acknowledges, “There is no explicit command in Scripture to baptize children; nor is there a single instance in which we are plainly told that children were baptized. But this does not necessarily make infant baptism un-Biblical.”[52] He then develops arguments similar to those already noted. In his discussion of the relationship between baptism and circumcision, Berkhof, convinced of the direct connection, argues, “The exclusion of New Testament children [from baptism] would require an equivocal statement to that effect.”[53]

Reymond explains that the reason only male infants were circumcised in the Old Testament, but both male and female infants are baptized in the New Testament is that God recognized and adapted himself to patriarchal culture of the Old Testament.[54] This seems to be grasping at straws; the creation of the nation of Israel would seem to indicate that instead of bowing to the heathen culture of the day, God instead was creating a unique culture for his people.

The various arguments favoring the sprinkling of infants are not convincing. Reymond’s “good and necessary inference” seems to be merely exegesis driven by a specific theology. This writer agrees with Wayne Ward, when he concludes that the attempt to tie baptism to circumcision “is a frantic effort to preserve a baptismal practice that arose later in church history by reading into it a meaning nowhere found in the New Testament.”[55]

Significance Of Baptism

The called are gathered into communities of believers – local churches. In fact, historically most Baptists have argued that the only manifestation of the church in the world is the local church, this gathered community of believers (however they have viewed the universal church). Nevertheless, to be part of the gathered church, the believer must be baptized. Baptists hold numerous beliefs which are related to these basic concepts.

First, the authority of baptism is Christ. Our Lord commanded his disciples to baptize (immerse); no one has a right to alter his commandment. He did not tell believers to be baptized in the Jordan, or to be baptized in a river, or to be baptized inside a church building, but he did say, be baptized; therefore, Baptists do not insist on the Jordan, or a river, or any other particular circumstance, but they do insist on baptizing.[56]

Baptist ecclesiology is based on the authority of the New Testament. Baptists generally accept baptism only from those institutions they consider to be truly baptistic, not because Baptists are necessarily opposed to these institutions, but because they have no choice but to accept the authority of Scripture. Denominational names are not conclusive; a church need not have “Baptist” in the name to be Baptist, and, conversely, not every church with the name “Baptist” is truly a Baptist church. Likewise, successionism is not necessary; a direct historical connection back to Jerusalem is not required for a church to be genuinely New Testament. In addition, the decision concerning what constitutes a church cannot be delegated to a convention or association. A true church is, in and of itself, responsible to the authority of Christ and the Scriptures.

Second, Baptists have historically insisted on immersion, primarily because the form is tied to the meaning. Much of Christendom has changed the form of baptism to pouring or sprinkling, even though most scholars agree that baptism in the New Testament was by immersion. A change in the form causes the loss of its power as a witness to the death and resurrection of Christ. Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12 use immersion to picture the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and of the believer. The Scriptures speak of being baptized into Christ’s death, being buried with him by baptism, and being planted in the likeness of his death and resurrection. Based on Romans 6, Erickson argues, “There is a strong connection between baptism and our being united with Christ in his death and resurrection.”[57] Sprinkling and pouring do not illustrate this truth in any sense. Many interpreters view Paul as referring to Spirit baptism, but whether the reference is Spirit baptism or water baptism, Paul is using the concept of immersion as a symbol for the Christian’s initial conversion experience.

The question is not what is the most appropriate manner of performing the rite of baptism, but what is the act to be performed. When someone attempts to alter the act, Baptists object. It is not merely a change in the mode of baptism to which we object. A change in the mode, we contend, is a change in the act. Sprinkling is not simply a change in the mode of baptism. Sprinkling simply is not baptism; pouring is not baptism. Immersion, and immersion alone, is baptism. Without immersion, the symbolism is not merely defective; the symbolism is nonexistent.

Third, Baptists insist on the baptism of believers. Baptists reject infant baptism. There is no direct evidence of infant baptism in the New Testament. There is significant evidence that only believers were baptized. Every one baptized in the New Testament was able to express his or her faith in Christ and willfully choose his own baptism.

Fourth, any discussions about baptism must focus on meaning. Baptism is a public declaration of the believer’s connection to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In the New Testament baptism followed salvation almost immediately (see Acts 2:38-41; 8:12; 9:17-18; 16:30-33).

Some see it as the “confession with the mouth” which, when preceded by “belief in the heart,” announces salvation (Rom 10:9).[58] Baptism “into” the name of Jesus Christ is best described as a declaration of identification with the Savior.

Historically, baptism was the way believers announced their conversion to Christianity in a variety of denominations. A question was raised in the Philadelphia Association in 1763 as to whether it was the duty of the pastor or the duty of the church “to examine the candidates, and to judge of their qualifications for Baptism.”[59] The question was not whether a person should be examined; it was only a question of whose responsibility was it. David Benedict, referring to Daniel Marshall, stated, “He became acquainted with a Baptist church, belonging to the Philadelphia Association; and as the result of a close, impartial examination of [his] faith and order, he [was] baptized by immersion, in the forty-eighth year of his life.”[60] Adoniram Judson spoke of examining and baptizing converts in Burma.[61] Benedict, in his biography of John Gano, pastor of the First Baptist Church of New York City and later Army Chaplain under George Washington, stated that one of Gano’s first duties as an ordained minister was to “examine candidates for baptism, who related what God did for their souls.”[62]

It was during the growth of the revivalist movement in the latter half of the 19th century that the public declaration by means of baptism was replaced with the altar call. Under this new approach, a person would proclaim his salvation by walking the aisle and having the pastor or evangelist announce that the person had become a believer. Baptism was optional for some of these evangelists. In many Baptist churches, baptism was pushed back until after a time of training and education.

Fifth, Baptists argue that baptism is the means of entry into a New Testament church; therefore, Baptists demand it as a precondition for membership. A few Baptists (particularly British Baptists) practice “open membership.”[63] Members are accepted upon their confession of faith, but baptism is an issue of personal conviction. Most Baptists, however, practice “closed membership.” Members are only accepted upon a confession of faith and baptism by immersion after salvation. Anything else imperils the very testimony that Baptist churches have historically held.

Baptism was designed and instituted as an initial rite. It is the first duty required of believers after repentance and faith, and is Christ’s own appointed mode of professing allegiance to him before the world. It is in its nature an initiatory badge of discipleship, required to be administered and received before admission to the church. The very first record of the progress of the gospel under the labors of the apostles, shows the order of church building in those days.[64]

Conclusion

Baptism is truly the “Water that Divides.” Baptists historically have held to the immersion of believers, upon their confession of faith, as the initiatory rite of obedience to Christ and, with rare exception, entrance into the membership of the local church. This is not merely a denominational difference. Baptists hold to their belief because it is based upon the authority of Christ and Scripture, because of the significance of the act, because of the biblical necessity of baptism only for believers, because it symbolically connects the believer to Christ, and because of its relationship to the local church. Some believe baptism creates an “unhappy division” in Christendom. Baptists argue, instead, that it creates a joyful obedience to Christ and to his commandments.

Notes

1. Dr. Larry R. Oats is the Dean and Professor of Systematic Theology at Maranatha Baptist Seminary.
2. Arthur L. Farstad, “We Believe In: Water Baptism,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 3 (Spring 1990): 3.
3. Farstad, 7-9.
4. J. I. Packer, Growing in Christ (Wheaton: Crossway, 1996), 131.
5. Didache, 7.
6. Eusebius Pamphilus, The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Caesarea, in Palestine, 6.43.
7. Cyprian, Epistle 75: To Magnus, on Baptizing the Novatians, and Those Who Obtain Grace on a Sick-Bed, 12.
8. Cyril of Jerusalem, First Catechetical Lecture, 3.12.
9. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 3. 7.
10. Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren (Paternoster Press, 1964), 173. The Waldenses themselves claimed to be direct descendants of the Apostles. See also Donald Bridge and David Phypers, The Water That Divides (Ross-Shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus, 1998), 69.
11. H. Wheeler Robinson, Baptist Principles (London: Carey Kingsgate, 1935), 59.
12. Martin Luther, “The Holy Sacrament of Baptism,” Works of Martin Luther, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann (St. Louis: Concordia, 1960), 35: 29.
13. Martin Luther, “The Babylonian Captivity,” Works of Martin Luther, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann (St. Louis: Concordia, 1960), 36: 23.
14. Martin Luther, “The Holy Sacrament of Baptism,” Works of Martin Luther, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann (St. Louis: Concordia, 1960), 30: 448.
15. Verduin, The Reformers, 198-99.
16. He was only eight years old when Luther posted his theses.
17. He married the widow of an Anabaptist preacher. While he condemned them as “frenzied spirits” and “furious madmen,” he paid them the compliment of carefully defending his system against every one of their arguments. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.16.1.
18. Calvin, Institutes, 4.16.
19. John Calvin, Commentaries, John 3:22. See also Institutes, 4.15.19.
20. Calvin, Institutes, 4.15.19.
21. Bridge and Phypers, 77.
22. Verduin, 260.
23. While there were those who held to baptistic beliefs since the first church, the modern Baptist movement began after the Reformation, when churches began to use the name “Baptist.”
24. Acts 2:37-41; 8:12-17; 8:35-38; 9:18 (and 22:16); 10:44-48; 16:13-15; 16:30-34; 18:8; 19:1-7; 1 Cor 1:14 and 1:16. Certainly more baptisms took place than were recorded. 1 Cor 1:14-16 demonstrates the normality of the baptism of believers in each church.
25. Gal 3:27; 1 Cor 1:13-17 (six references); 10:2; 12:13; 15:29 (twice); Rom 6:3-4; Eph 4:5; and Col 2:12. Some may argue that these few references would indicate the lack of importance Paul placed on baptism. Paul, however, places baptism in high esteem in Rom 6 and Eph 4. While it may be debated specifically as to which baptism Paul is referring, his readers would certainly have had immersion in water as a backdrop to each of these discussions.
26. 1 Pet 3:21.
27. Wayne Grudem, Making Sense of the Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 143.
28. See Alexander Carson, Baptism in its Mode and Subjects (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1860) for a thorough defense of baptism by immersion.
29. G. R. Beasley-Murray, “Βαπτίζω,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 1: 144.
30. James A. Brooks, Mark, The New American Commentary 23 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1991), 42-43.
31. Anglican Church Joint Committees on Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Communion, Baptism and Confirmation Today (London: SCM, 1955), 34.
32. http://www.goarch.org/chapel/liturgical_texts/baptism.
33. Although there is evidence that the Jews used immersion for ritual cleansing of proselyte Jews, there is no discussion in Scripture concerning that act.
34. Luke 7:30 indicates that the Jewish religious elite refused to be baptized by John, therefore rejecting the counsel or will of God for them.
35. Packer, 96.
36. Not one example of the baptism of someone other than a person old enough to confess their faith can be found in any of these events. Grudem, Making Sense, 146.
37. L. Berkhof, Manual of Reformed Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1933), 311-12, 320.
38. Berkhof, 321-22.
39. Y. Feenstra, “Baptism (Reformed View),” in Readings in Christian Theology, ed. Millard J. Erickson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 3: 373.
40. Ibid., 929.
41. Paul King Jewett, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 89.
42. Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 930.
43. Reymond, 923.
44. Reymond, 926.
45. Reymond, 929.
46. Reymond, 935.
47. Berkhof, 316-17.
48. Reymond, 936.
49. Reymond, 937.
50. Reymond, 937.
51. Feenstra, 374.
52. Berkhof, 319.
53. Berkhof, 320.
54. Berkhof, 320.
55. Wayne E. Ward, “The Conflict over Baptism,” Christianity Today 11 (April 1967): 11.
56. John A. Broadus, Immersion Essential to Christian Baptism (Watertown, WI: Roger Williams Heritage Archives, 1880; 2003), 5-6. This writer understands that baptize in the Great Commission is a participle, but it is used in an imperatival construction.
57. Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 1109.
58. Bridge and Phypers, 153.
59. David Spencer, Early Baptists of Philadelphia (Philadelphia: William Syckelmoore, 1877), 90.
60. David Benedict, A General History of the Baptist Denomination in America (Boston: Lincoln and Edmands, 1813), 2: 352.
61. J. Clement, Memoir of Adoniram Judson: Being a Sketch of His Life and Missionary Labors (Auburn: Derby and Miller, 1853), 214.
62. Benedict, 2: 305.
63. A common argument is that a closed approach to membership puts Baptists in danger of becoming a sect. Bridge and Phypers, 152.
64. H. L. Gear, The Relation of Baptism to the Lord’s Supper (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1880), 23.

Prayer And God’s Omniscience

By Geoffrey Stertz [1]

Does God hear and answer the prayers of his saints? Is prayer for the sake of the saint or of God or both? Does God change his plans on account of the believer’s prayer? Can God, who is immutable, change at all? Is it possible to consider him to be consistently loving in regards to answering prayer when his will has already been established? Since God already knows what is going to take place, is there any valid reason to pray?

There is one other significant question. How does prayer relate theologically to God’s omniscience? The purpose of this article is to examine this question and attempt to determine how prayer relates to the omniscience of God. The article will expand on the question of this relationship, trace the topic briefly through both the Old and New Testaments, and investigate how it has been handled throughout church history. Finally, the author will present a theological and practical conclusion on the matter.

How Prayer Relates To The Omniscience Of God

Certainly as one explores any infinite attribute of God, he is left with gaps in his theology due to the finiteness of his understanding. One should be cautious in adopting a theology of God that does not recognize the depth of God’s being. Such attempts at theology have led some to veer toward ungrounded philosophy rather than biblically-based theology. These gaps, if come to correctly, should not frustrate the Bible student but rather deepen his appreciation for the fact that God is great and his greatness can forever be explored. However, rather than simply come to an understanding that gaps exist, the goal of the theologian should be to further define where the gaps exist.

Prayer is not only personal and regular for the believer, but it also defines the believer’s relationship to God to some extent. If a believer views prayer simply as a duty, his prayer life may be consistent, but it also might be consistently dull and shallow. If another views prayer as a means merely to achieve his desired goals, he may view it similarly to this author: “What counts is knowing who you want to be and asking for it. Through a simple, believing prayer, you can change your future. You can change what happens one minute from now.”[2] It does not take long to realize how important it is for the believer to have a proper understanding of how his prayer relates to God.

A specific aspect of this understanding is how one views his prayer in relation to God’s omniscience. Christ states in Matthew 6:8 that God knows the things the believer needs before he asks God for them. In 6:32, Christ similarly says that the believer need not be anxious about his needs because God knows them before the believer even asks. Not only does this raise the question as to the point of asking God for one’s needs (since he already knows), but it also questions the reason to anticipate getting what one asks for (since God’s foreknowledge already establishes the future). Without a proper understanding of how prayer relates to God’s omniscience, a believer may come to the conclusion that his relationship to God is of little meaning because what he prays for is not going to make a difference. Commenting on the teachings of Augustine, R.C. Sproul summarizes the dilemma in these two sentences: “If God is sovereign over the actions and intents of men, why pray at all? A secondary concern revolves around the question, ‘Does prayer really change anything?’”[3]

A Biblical Discussion Of The Relationship Between Prayer And God’s Omniscience

When coming to the Bible to answer this question, the primary goal of the believer should not be to search for relevance in his prayer life with God. Instead, one should first search for a biblical understanding of prayer and then determine how God’s people have related to him through prayer.

Old Testament

After the Fall, Scripture records very little of man praying to God until the time of the patriarchs. Cain cried out to God for mercy to be delivered from his situation and God answered his prayer (Gen 4:13-15, 24-25). Besides this, however, little exists regarding prayer before the flood. L. Paul Moore gives the example of Noah:

It is noticeable, in the matter of prayer or intercession, that after the Lord had revealed to Noah His purpose of destroying the whole earth with a flood, Noah does not attempt to plead with God, or to intercede for the ungodly. We are well aware that he was “a preacher of righteousness” (2 Pet 2:5) and that his preparing an ark was in itself a bold testimony to the revelation he had received from God. But Noah attempted no intercession God-ward![4]

When Abraham is introduced, however, the communion between God and man is much different. Moore says,

“With Abraham . . . begins this intimate converse, this free response of an obedient heart.”[5] With the rest of the patriarchs, this type of communion is similar. In Gen 25:21 Isaac prays for Rebekah to have a child and the text says, “The LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.” Bruce Waltke explains the use of the niphal verb for the entreating of Yahweh:

The tolerative Niphal often involves the element of efficacy: what the subject allows to happen can indeed be carried through. Thus Paul Joüon glosses נִדְרַשׁ as “‘to let oneself be questioned,’ and that efficaciously so that it practically means ‘to answer’ (when speaking of God); נִזְהַר, ‘to let oneself be warned’ and that efficaciously and so practically ‘to bear in mind the warning’; נוֹסַר, ‘to let oneself be corrected, to be corrected’; נִעְתַּר, ‘to let oneself be entreated (efficaciously), to grant.’” The tolerative is often used of the deity.[6]

Jacob, even with his scheming, prayed to the Lord for a blessing as well as deliverance from his brother Esau and received both. It appears, at least from the surface, that God graciously answered the prayers of the patriarchs.

The manner in which the patriarchs spoke to God is notable as well. Moore notes that the tone of communion between God and man in the Pentateuch in general is quite remarkable:

As one reads the opening books of the Old Testament, he is profoundly struck with the seeming ease with which God, the Holy One, approaches man, either to command him or to converse with him. One is just as profoundly struck with the freedom, sometimes verging even upon impudence, with which man replies to God. And, in fact, it is the very freedom of intercourse which, for the reader of Scripture, makes it sometimes difficult to distinguish prayer from intimate conversation.[7]

Moses certainly exemplifies this type of communion from his first conversation at the burning bush to his speaking to God face to face in the tabernacle. Particularly interesting in Moses’ prayers is his intercession for Israel. While Abraham had an intercessory role with Sodom, Moses even more clearly stood in the way of God’s wrath to plead for his mercy on Israel. Victor Hamilton writes: “In language almost without equal for boldness in the Old or New Testaments, he urges God not to follow through on his intentions to wipe out his people (32:12).”[8]

Interestingly, within the same story, Moses records that God “repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people” (Ex 32:14). Hamilton investigates the idea of God’s repentance:

The Old Testament uses the verb nāham (repent? relent? change one’s mind?) thirty-four times with God as subject. Two texts (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29) teach that God, unlike human beings, never needs to repent of sin. And he never repents of his choice of David (Ps. 110:4). But in the other thirty-plus passages that speak of God repenting/relenting, many times God is said to repent of “evil” (not sin!), which in a version such as the NIV is rendered as “calamity” or “disaster.” . . . In ch. 32 God’s words to Moses about Israel’s future are couched more in the form of threatened judgment than decree, and as such they invite and stimulate a prophetic intercessory response from Moses. Thus what God does in Exodus 32 is best characterized by mercy, than by change of mind.[9]

Moving from the Pentateuch into the monarchy, one observes similarly that God’s plans do not change. In 1 Sam 15:29, Samuel told Saul that God “will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret.” Yet, only six verses later, 1 Samuel recorded that God “regretted that he had made Saul over Israel.”

The regret or seeming change in God’s mind exists as somewhat of a mystery, but Robert Chisholm Jr. asserts that “not all statements of [God’s] intention are the same.”[10] Chisholm contrasts “divine decrees” with “announcements” or “conditional statements” and concludes:

If He has decreed a certain course of action or outcome, then He will not retract a statement or relent from a declared course of action. . . . Statements about God not changing His mind serve to mark specific declarations as decrees. They should not be used as proof texts of God’s immutability, nor should they be applied generally to every divine forward-looking statement. If God has not decreed a course of action, then He may very well retract an announcement of blessing or judgment. In these cases the human response to His announcement determines what He will do. Passages declaring that God typically changes His mind as an expression of His love and mercy demonstrate that statements describing God as relenting should not be dismissed as anthropomorphic.[11]

A parallel passage to the request made by Isaac in Gen 25:23 is found in 2 Chron 33:13, where Manasseh humbled himself before Yahweh after he had been captured by the Assyrians. In Manasseh’s prayer to Yahweh, the same tolerative niphal was used as in Gen 25:23. In both cases (Genesis and 2 Chronicles), the character prays, God “is intreated” (ESV “moved by his entreaty”), and God positively answers the prayer.

Most of the remaining notable passages in the Old Testament dealing with God’s omniscience and prayer deal more with the extent of his understanding rather than his response to prayer. Two passages in Psalm show the limitlessness of God’s knowledge.

In Psalm 139 David declares that God knows everything about him—specifically connecting God’s omniscience to man. In vs. 4 especially, David makes a remarkable statement regarding God’s knowledge. S. Edward Tesh translates the verse, “Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O Lord.”12 He goes on to say, “This is the height of God’s omniscience as it relates to the human being. God is able to read the very thoughts of an individual before those thoughts can be expressed in audible words (‏מִלָּה‎, millāh, ‘word’).”[13]

After declaring that God has a name for every star, the psalmist states in Psalm 147:5 that God is great and of great power and then asserts: “his understanding is infinite.” As an example of his infinite knowledge, God chose and named Cyrus to be his instrument in Isaiah 45 more than a century before his birth.

A final Old Testament passage which is especially instructive regarding prayer and God’s response to it is Daniel’s prayer in Daniel 10. In this chapter, Daniel received a burdensome message that set his heart to pray. Three weeks later, after being in spiritual and physical distress, an angel came and spoke with Daniel and told him that his words were heard three weeks earlier. However, due to “the prince of the kingdom of Persia,” the messenger was not able to come. Nevertheless, what the angel told Daniel was that he came because of (NAS – “in response to”) Daniel’s words. Roger Peterson comments about this story:

This should be a lesson to all who pray. When a child of God has humbled his heart and prayed, his prayer has been heard, even though the answer may be delayed. So one should be encouraged by Daniel’s experience to keep on praying until the answer comes and the victory is won. Persistence in prayer pays.[14]

New Testament

The New Testament provides many additional instructions and insights regarding God’s knowledge and man’s prayer. However, many of the passages have at least some correlation to an already revealed truth in the Old Testament.

In the gospels, Christ states in both Matthew 12 and Luke 6 that God already knows what the believer needs before he asks for it. The believer is to seek the kingdom of God. The question raised here is, “If God already knows what a believer needs, what is the point in asking?” This question will be addressed later.

Also, in Matthew 11:21 when Jesus is pronouncing the “woes” on the unrepentant cities where he had done his mightiest works, he says that if Tyre and Sidon would have seen the works which he did in Chorazin and Bethsaida, they would have repented in sackcloth and ashes. This statement demonstrates not only that God knows what will happen, but the possibilities of what could have happened or would have happened based on different contingencies.

Finally in Matthew, Jesus makes an astounding statement in his teaching to the disciples about the withered fig tree. He told his disciples in 21:22 that whatever they ask in prayer they would receive if they have faith. Larry Chouinard remarks:

It follows that Jesus is not suggesting that faith guarantees the reception of anything one may desire. The promise necessarily assumes a commitment to the will of God, and a willingness to forgo individual rights for the sake of the purposes of God. Jesus is the paradigm par excellence of what it means to “have faith and not doubt.”[15]

In John 21:17, Peter responds similarly to David’s statements in Psalm 139. After Christ repeatedly asks Peter if he really loves him, Peter says, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.”

Paul declared in Romans 8:26 that the Holy Spirit provides intercessory help for the believers in their weakness. Paul’s reason is that the believer does not know what to pray for as he should. It is interesting to think the Holy Spirit “cleans up” the prayers of the saints so that they are appropriate requests before God. Douglas Moo writes: “The wording of the clause indicates that it is not the manner, or style, of prayer that Paul has in view but the content, or object, of prayer – what we are to pray for.”[16] He continues:

This inability to know what to pray for cannot be overcome in this life, for it is part of “our weakness,” the inescapable condition imposed on us by our place in salvation history. Therefore, Paul does not command us to eradicate this ignorance by diligent searching for God’s will or by special revelation. Instead, Paul points us to the Spirit of God, who overcomes this weakness by his own intercession.[17]

Both Hebrews 4:12-13 and 1 John 3:20 indicate that God knows the thoughts of man’s heart.

Of all the New Testament books that stress the importance of prayer on the part of man, however, James is probably the most explicit. In the beginning of his letter, James urges the scattered saints to ask God for wisdom as they deal with their trials. However, he instructs them in 1:6 to ask in faith “with no doubting” and says that the person who doubts should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. Basically, if the believer does not expect that his prayer can be answered, he should not expect to have his prayer answered. Peter Davids writes:

The author, then, concludes his description of this doubter with a strong condemnation: his divided mind, when it comes to trusting God, indicates a basic disloyalty toward God. Rather than being a single-minded lover of God, he is one whose character and conduct is unstable, even hypocritical. No wonder he should expect nothing from God! He is not in the posture of the trusting child at all. For James there is no middle ground between faith and no faith; such a one, he will later argue (4:8), needs to repent.[18]

Later James says in 4:2-3 that the believer does not get the things he wants either because he does not ask for them, or because he asks for selfish reasons. Certainly God will not answer such prayers. James instead instructs the believer to humble himself; he goes on to promise that if the believer draws near to God, then God will draw near to him. From this passage it appears that God is ready and eager to respond and meet the believer’s needs, but chooses not to when the believer either does not ask or asks with selfish reasons.

Lastly, James focuses on prayer again in chapter 5, by addressing the problem of what to do when a believer is sick.[19] After he instructs his readers to have the elders to pray over and anoint the sick individual with oil in the Lord’s name, he says that “the prayer of faith shall save” him and then “the Lord shall raise him up.” These phrases together are remarkable in that one says that the prayer saves the sick and the other says that the Lord saves the sick. This demonstrates a compatibilistic understanding of how God relates to the believer, specifically in prayer. John MacArthur calls the prayers “a channel for God’s power.”[20] Throughout this passage, the focus seems to be on the prayer of faith that is effective. Certainly the glory goes to God, but the language used here puts a great amount of weight on the prayer.

Discussions Of Prayer And God’s Omniscience Throughout Church History

While the topic of prayer and God’s omniscience can be found throughout church history, much of what has been written regarding prayer is more on the devotional or pastoral level. Nonetheless, notable men in church history provide valuable insight into the discussion and also show how their theology of God’s sovereignty works itself out practically in the matter of prayer.

Augustine recognized the seeming contradiction of praying for something of which God already knows we have the need. He writes:

What is the use of prayer at all, if “our Father knoweth” already “what things we have need of”? . . . If so, Lord, why should I so much as pray at all? Thou wouldest not that I should use long prayers, yea rather Thou dost even bid me to use near none at all. . . . He would have thee ask that thou mayest receive, and seek that thou mayest find, and knock that thou mayest enter in. Seeing then that our Father knoweth already what is needful for us, how and why do we ask? why seek? why knock? why weary ourselves in asking, and seeking, and knocking, to instruct Him who knoweth already?[21]

Augustine obviously acknowledged to some extent the omniscience of God, especially as it relates to prayer. However, he left these questions unresolved. Using the imagery of the door on which the believer knocks, he wrote that the believer may not always get what he asks for. This he attributes to the benevolent sovereignty of God toward the one praying:

For this cause is it closed, not to shut thee out, but to exercise thee. Therefore, brethren, ought we to exhort to prayer, both ourselves and you. For other hope have we none amid the manifold evils of this present world, than to knock in prayer, to believe and to maintain the belief firm in the heart, that thy Father only doth not give thee what He knoweth is not expedient for thee. For thou knowest what thou dost desire; He knoweth what is good for thee. . . . Do not then hesitate to ask; ask, hesitate not; but if thou receive not, do not take it to heart.[22]

However, Augustine did not simply view prayer as an exercise without any effect. He concluded in a sermon on Matthew 17:19: “Whilst we live pour out our groans before the Lord our God, and endure the evils, that we may attain to the things that are good.”[23]

Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, has much to say about prayer. He writes:

To prayer, then, are we indebted for penetrating to those riches which are treasured up for us with our heavenly Father. For there is a kind of intercourse between God and men, by which, having entered the upper sanctuary, they appear before Him and appeal to his promises, that when necessity requires they may learn by experiences that what they believed merely on the authority of his word was not in vain.[24]

Calvin, while without a doubt believing in the absolute sovereignty of God, did not see a conflict between God’s sovereignty and the ability of man to have a meaningful part in God’s plans. He even said that believers, through prayer,

invoke the presence of his [God’s] providence to watch over our interests, of his power to sustain us when weak and almost fainting, of his goodness to receive us into favour, though miserably loaded with sin; in fine, call upon him to manifest himself to us in all his perfections.[25]

However, Calvin also raised the question about the use of prayer since God is omniscient. He wrote:

But some one will say, Does he not know without a monitor both what our difficulties are, and what is meet for our interest, so that it seems in some measure superfluous to solicit him by our prayers, as if he were winking, or even sleeping, until aroused by the sound of our voice?[26]

Calvin responded to this by stating that prayer is not so much for the sake of God as it is for the sake of man. He said that asking God is beneficial for the believer because (1) it causes him to seek God passionately, (2) it keeps him seeking the right things, and (3) it prepares his heart to receive God’s benefits with thanksgiving.[27] He then concludes that once the believer receives the request for which he petitioned the Lord, his faith is strengthened and he is incited all the more “to long more earnestly for his [God’s] favour.” He concluded:

It is very absurd, therefore, to dissuade men from prayer, by pretending that Divine Providence . . . is in vain importuned by our supplications, when, on the contrary, the Lord himself declares, that he is “nigh unto all that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth” (Ps. 145:18). No better is the frivolous allegation of others, that it is superfluous to pray for things which the Lord is ready of his own accord to bestow; since it is his pleasure that those very things which flow from his spontaneous liberality should be acknowledged as conceded to our prayers. This is testified by that memorable sentence in the psalms to which many others corresponds: “The eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry,” (Ps. 34:15).[28]

Commenting on the effectiveness of prayer as displayed in James 5, Calvin writes: “Again, since God so often declares that he will give to every man according to his faith he intimates that we cannot obtain any thing without faith. In short, it is faith which obtains every thing that is granted to prayer.”[29]

In summary, while Calvin believes that prayer is primarily for the believer, he certainly does not assert that prayer does not in any way move God to respond.

Glenn Kreider surveyed Jonathan Edward’s theology of prayer. He shows that Edwards believed in the effectiveness of prayer both in his theology and in his practice, and that Edwards made prayer an integral part of his revivalistic work. After surveying his theology and practice of prayer, Kreider concludes:

Jonathan Edwards was convinced that God hears and answers prayer. He prayed as if he believed God would answer. He encouraged others to pray as if human prayers impacted the Sovereign of the universe. The reason for this practice seems clearly to be that Edwards’ view of God’s providence was that prayer was an essential means by which God’s purposes are accomplished in this world.[30]

Augustus Strong observed various leaders throughout recent church history and commented as to their views of the effectiveness of prayer. “Prayer presupposes a God who hears and answers. It will not be offered, unless it is believed to accomplish objective as well as subjective results.”[31] He was critical of those who treat prayer like “mere spiritual gymnastics,” because they do not expect God to hear and answer. He remarked that “Horace Bushnell called this perversion of prayer a ‘mere dumb-bell exercise.’”[32] He also commented on William Hyde who wrote: “Prayer is not the reflex action of my will upon itself, but rather the communion of two wills, in which the finite comes into connection with the Infinite, and, like the trolley, appropriates its purpose and power.”[33] He said that liberals like Harnack and Schleiermacher limited prayer to “general petitions which receive only a subjective answer.”[34]

As for Strong himself, he especially investigated how or if prayer fits into the natural laws of the universe. He concluded:

When we remember that there is no true prayer which God does not inspire; that every true prayer is part of the plan of the universe linked in with all the rest and provided for at the beginning; that God is in nature and in mind, supervising all their movements and making all fulfill his will and reveal his personal care; that God can adjust the forces of nature to each other far more skilfully than can man when man produces effects which nature of herself could never accomplish; that God is not confined to nature or her forces, but can work by his creative and omnipotent will where other means are not sufficient,—we need have no fear, either that natural law will bar God’s answers to prayer, or that these answers will cause a shock or jar in the system of the universe.[35]

Overall, Strong views the universe as designed by a moral God for moral creatures and finds no problem with God changing the laws of nature to answer the request of His own. He, like Calvin, sees the tension between God’s sovereignty and man’s prayer but does not find them incompatible. Prayer, for Strong, does not lose its genuine relational quality simply because God knows what the believer needs.

Current Issues Pertaining To Prayer And God’s Omniscience

The major issue currently relating to prayer and God’s omniscience is open theism. C. Fred Smith says that the basic idea of open theism is that “God’s being is analogous to that of humans, and so God experiences reality in ways similar to the experiences of human beings.”[36] How that relates to prayer concerns God’s ability to know and, consequently, affect the future. As well, the open theist denies the immutability of God believing that in order for God to respond to humans, he must change in some way.

Clark Pinnock states that “the very concept of an act involves change.”[37]

Part of the discussion, then, centers on one’s definition of “change” as it relates to God. Some go so far to say that God does not truly have emotions because emotion causes some sort of change within God. It also might suggest that God is somehow persuaded by the things men do because he has an emotional experience from them. Thus, some on the classical side have shied away from the idea of God emoting altogether.

When it comes to prayer, open theism argues that God, in the classical theistic view, cannot truly respond to the believer’s prayer because this, again, would cause God to change. This would also mean that he is ignoring his omniscience when he answers the prayer, because in order to truly “respond” he could not foreknow his response. Thus, Richard Rice (an open theist) concludes that classical theists “have truncated the understanding of God’s love and have given the world a concept of God that makes prayer incoherent and that stifles the possibility of a rich and dynamic relationship with God.”[38]

Rice’s understanding, along with other open theists, does not correspond with classical theists, however. “Classical orthodox theology has always recognized that transcendence and immanence are both aspects of God’s being and of His relationship to creation.”[39] Believers can have a real, dynamic relationship with God, even with his transcendence. Part of this relationship is God responding to human beings, including answering their prayers.[40]

A Theology Of Prayer And God’s Omniscience

From Scripture it is quite clear that God has no limit to his knowledge, including his knowledge of the future. In Isaiah 46:10, after declaring that there is none like him, God says that he is the One who declares “the end from the beginning, from ancient times things that are not yet done.” He is able to predict the future and bring specific things to pass.

However, as to how man relates to God through prayer, the believer must have some sense of understanding as to how his petitions and supplications are received by God. Does his prayer matter if God knows all and will bring it to pass? Does prayer affect God at all?

Some would argue that prayer is strictly for the one who is praying. Scripture is clear that God does not need the assistance of man as if he has some sort of deficiency of ability or opportunity. He is the I AM who self-exists. Thus, to some, the idea of God acting on the basis of a person’s prayer is inconsistent with his omniscience and self-sufficiency. John D. Hannah concludes in his discussion exploring prayer and God’s sovereignty:

Thus prayer is understood as primarily a means of grace, a vehicle of progressive sanctification. Prayer is essentially an act of worship wherein homage is given to God alone through praise, adoration, confession, or request. The purpose of prayer, while it points alone to God as the source of all benevolences, is a help for the saint to strengthen Christian experience.[41]

Yet, to boil prayer down to simply an exercise of dependence for the believer does not reconcile with the overall teaching of Scripture. Nor does prayer appear to be simply a means to put one in a position of blessing. Rather,nScripture presents prayer as a means of relationship with God. God is certainly a God of relationships. Abraham is called a “friend of God” (James 2:23). Because he is thus, he desires the communion of his children. Proverbs 15:8 says that “the prayer of the upright is his delight.”

Not only this, but Scripture demonstrates God responding to prayer, at times as though the prayer “caused” or “allowed” God to act. Yet, when God acts, it is never against his will. James presents the fervent prayers of Elijah as the reason for the drought and the rain in his day. He even boldly asserts in 5:15 that “the prayer of faith shall save the sick.” As discussed above, God “changed” his plans for Israel as Moses interceded on their behalf. Hannah writes that prayer is a means (though not the only means) appointed by God for attaining one’s ends.[42] One might add to that the ends of others as well as the ends of God, since the believer is called to pray for others and to pray that God’s will be done. Pascal wrote, “God instituted prayer to lend his creatures the dignity of causality.”[43]

God sometimes accomplishes His sovereign purpose through the prayers of His people (Eze 36:36, 37; Jas 5:17, 18). Often what God does when a believer prays is bring that person into conformity with his will.[44] To say, therefore, that prayer changes the one who prays to God is obvious. One would learn to trust in him to supply his needs. It is certainly true that the one praying experiences a change in his mindset and, perhaps, actions. However, that does not necessarily mean that the One being prayed to does not change his disposition.

Is it possible that when one uses the word “change” in relation to human thinking that he attaches with it the idea of development? Suppose a ruler was implored to act on behalf of one of his subjects or a father to respond to one of his children. One might think that if the ruler or father decides to act after being implored that something was added to his thinking that was not there before that caused him to act. That is, his thinking changed because he understood further the situation or was persuaded to act because further understanding was brought to light, influencing him to act. This implies that his thinking developed, thus changing his actions. This type of change is more along the lines in which open theists think.

However, this development is not necessarily the case in every situation. Suppose a child asks his benevolent father for nourishment and the father desires for his child to say “please” before the child receives it. The father’s desire is to give the child nourishment regardless of his asking or saying “please,” yet this is the father’s modus operandi. The father has chosen not to give to the child until he asks for it. Once the child says “please,” the father changes his actions toward the child and gives him what he asks. This type of change is not based on a development in thinking, nor does it require the father’s nature to change. He is perfectly consistent throughout the exchange.

This is very similar to Christ’s parable of the unjust judge, yet in a negative sense. Nothing that the woman said convinced the unjust judge to act, nor did the unjust judge develop in his thinking or nature. Rather, it was simply the persistent asking that caused the judge to act.

It is important to bear in mind that the believer’s prayers do not “control” or “manipulate” God. It is often the cry of the Reformed scholars that belief in the “power” of prayer or the “effectiveness” of prayer will lead one to think that God is on puppet strings and a believer can pull his strings to get what he wants. In light of Scripture, understanding God this way is certainly an erroneous view of the sovereign God. “To desire that God would answer all our prayers is to desire omnipotence without omniscience.”[45]

Believing that God responds to the prayers of his saints not only does not violate his sovereignty, but it is also directly in line with Scripture. Prayer does not only involve petitions and intercessions but also confessions and praises. John promises that if the believer confesses his sins, God is “faithful and just to forgive” him and “cleanse him from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). One would not argue that God’s granting forgiveness upon the believer’s confession is his manipulating God. Rather, God has so chosen to condescend to men in this manner. Similarly, Proverbs 15:8 declares that God’s delight is in the prayer of the righteous. This is not manipulation or “string pulling” to bring God delight through our prayers. While the thought of one’s prayers making the holy and immutable God happy seems impossible, it, nonetheless, is the way in which Scripture presents God operating.

As another scriptural example which often involves prayer, James promises that if believers “draw nigh to God,” he will “draw nigh” to them. This promise does not mean that one is pulling God’s strings when one’s actions “cause” God to draw near to himself. Rather, God has chosen to operate within the promises and conditions that he has given.

Conclusion

The tension seems to be of an unlimited God who limits himself. He is not limited by time and space, but when he became a man, he limited himself to these parameters for the sake of man. When he condescends to hear and answer one’s prayers, he is not limited by the content of our prayers nor by the time in which we pray them; he chooses, rather, to operate to some extent on these grounds for the good of man and ultimately for his own glory.

None of these, however, demands essential change in the Divine. Instead, he is unchanging in essence and character but chooses at points of time and in various ways to interact with limited creatures. Christ made himself in the likeness of men for the sake of men. It is not, as the open theist would like to claim, that God is somehow essentially like that of humans, because the whole revelation of God proclaims otherwise. However, he, at times, operates on what seems to humanity to be a finite level as he interacts with finite beings.

Leaders throughout church history have recognized the sovereignty of God in relation to prayer, but have equally recognized that prayer consists of a real relationship between God and man. God does not need man. However, man needs God. Thus, men pray. God affords the believer the privilege of seeing him respond to those requests he makes in time of need. The Lord, indeed, is nigh unto all that call upon him.

It is important that as one develops his theology of prayer that he does so based on both the precepts as well as the examples of Scripture. Attempting to develop a theology of prayer beginning from one’s theological framework and then moving to Scripture will not allow one to see prayer in a truly biblical light. Since theological battles exist relating to the topic, one must be sensitive to allow Scripture to shape his thinking. Some have strayed to one side or the other as they have tried to protect God’s sovereignty or defend man’s relationship with God. However, Scripture presents a balance and does not see either as incompatible.

Overall, it is a comfort to know that the omniscient and omnipotent God relates to man in an intimate way, as a good father does his child. As Mary exclaimed in Luke 1:48, God regards the “low estate” of his servants. Because of this blessed attention God gives to man, the believer can be confident that his prayers matter to God, that God’s Spirit helps the believer in his requests to God, and that God, in his time and in his way, will respond to those requests in love.

Notes

1. Geoffrey Stertz is a student at Maranatha Baptist Seminary. The editor plans to include one article from a college or seminary student in each issue of the Journal as examples of the research and writing capabilities of our students.
2. Bruce Wilkinson and David Kopp, The Prayer of Jabez: Breaking Through to the Blessed Life (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2000).
3. R.C. Sproul. Does Prayer Change Things? (Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust, 2009), 8.
4. L. Paul Moore Jr., “Prayer in the Pentateuch Part 1,” Bibliotheca Sacra 98 (July 1941): 335.
5. Ibid., 334.
6. Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 385-90.
7. Moore, “Prayer in the Pentateuch Part 1,” 334.
8. Victor P. Hamilton, Handbook on the Pentateuch: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 223.
9. Ibid.
10. Robert B. Chisholm Jr., “Does God ‘Change His Mind’?” Bibliotheca Sacra 152 (October 1995): 389.
11. Ibid., 399.
12. S. Edward Tesh and Walter D. Zorn, Psalms (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2004), 479.
13. Ibid.
14. Roger L. Peterson, “A Study of Daniel’s Prayer Life in the Book of Daniel,” Central Bible Quarterly 21 (Spring 1978): 30.
15. Larry Chouinard, Matthew (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1997), 373.
16. Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 523.
17. Ibid., 524.
18. Peter Davids, The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 75.
19. Whether the individual is physically sick or spiritually sick is debatable. See John MacArthur, James (Chicago: Moody, 1998), 276-79.
20. Ibid., 278.
21. Augustine, Sermon XXX, On the words of the Gospel, Matt. xvii. 19, “Why could not we cast it out”? etc., and on prayer.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid.
24. John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2002), 524.
25. Ibid., 525.
26. Ibid., 524
27. Ibid., 524-25.
28. Ibid., 525.
29. Ibid., 531.
30. Glenn R. Kreider, “Jonathan Edwards’ Theology of Prayer,” Bibliotheca Sacra 160 (July 1941): 454.
31. Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Valley Forge: Judson, 1963), 216.
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid., 217.
36. C. Fred Smith, “Does Classical Theism Deny God’s Immanence?” Bibliotheca Sacra 160 (2003): 23.
37. Clark H. Pinnock and John Sanders, The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994), 36.
38. Smith, “Does Classical Theism Deny God’s Immanence?” 25.
39. Ibid.
40. Ibid., 33.
41. John D. Hannah, “Prayer and the Sovereignty of God,” Bibliotheca Sacra 136 (1979): 352.
42. Ibid.
43. Hamilton, Handbook on the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 223.
44. D. Edmond Hiebert, Working With God Through Intercessory Prayer (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones, 1992), 1-3.
45. Strong, Systematic Theology, 216.