Calvin’s Doctrine Of The Trinity: A Summary And Evaluation

By C. B. Holdsworth

The honor and awesome responsibility of formulating the doctrine of the Trinity is shared by few men: R. A. Finlayson cites Irenaeus and Origen as well as Tertullian, and declares that, “Under the leadership of Athanasius the doctrine was proclaimed as the faith of the church at the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325), and at the hand of Augustine a century later it received a formulation, enshrined in the so-called Athanasian Creed.” It was down to Calvin to give it “a further elucidation” before it passed into the body of the Reformed faith. [1]

B. B. Warfield sees Calvin’s contribution as being distinctly Augustinian rather than Athanasian: “That is to say, the principle of his construction of the Trinitarian distinctions is equalization rather than subordination… simplification, clarification, equalization—these three terms are the notes of Calvin’s conception of the Trinity.” [2] Warfield also speaks of “the very great service to Christian theology which Calvin rendered when he firmly asserted for the second and third persons of the Trinity their autothotes.” [3]

What Calvin did do was to bring the doctrine right into his own age and situation, and the second part of the chapter on the Trinity in his Institutes of the Christian Religion is mainly polemical, addressing itself to the particular heresies of his day. [4] This explains some of the caution which he had concerning the terminology of the creeds. We shall have occasion to notice his justification of the use of the word “person,” [5] his criticism of the repetitiveness of the clause, “God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God” in the Nicene Creed, [6] and his hesitancy to enter into speculation on the subject of the eternal generation of the Son. [7]

We begin, though, not with the Institutes, but with Calvin’s Commentary on Genesis, to give us a sense of the integrity of the man. In commenting on the use of the plural Elohim in the opening verse of Genesis 1, he refers to those who infer that the three persons of the Godhead are thus indicated. Such he cautions, as they are likely to slip into Sabellianism while asserting the deity of the Son and of the Spirit against the Arians. [8] R. L. Dabney surrenders the argument from the plural form on these grounds. [9]

And so we come to the Institutes, in which the first part of the chapter on the Trinity (chapter 13, sections 1–20) consists in a deliverance of the orthodox doctrine on the subject. After a transitional paragraph in which the spirituality, unity and immensity of God are underlined, and in which we are warned that anthropomorphisms are but God “lisping with us as nurses are wont to do with little children” [10] (“the artless art of nurses as they speak to little children” [11] ), we are brought at last to “another special mark” of God, the divine tripersonality. [12] Sections 2–6 thereafter deal with the question of this particular terminology, the word “person” and its meaning.

In the first place, the Son of God is called in Hebrews 1:3 “the exact representation of His nature,” and Calvin infers from this that the Father does have some subsistence in which He differs from the Son. “The same holds for the Holy Spirit,” but we are not burdened with further Scripture references at this point. “It follows that there are three persons (hypostases) in God.”

B. B. Warfield here declares, “It is not likely that this piece of exegesis will commend itself to us,” but he goes on to observe two facts which Calvin’s exegetical argument brings before us: first, that the doctrine of the Trinity lay so firmly entrenched in his mind that he makes it the major premise of his argument; and second, that he not only used the term “persons,” but held that it had biblical warrant. [13]

Says Calvin, the Greeks use upostasis, the Latins Persona, but “it betrays excessive fastidiousness and even perverseness to quarrel with the term.” These terms, of course, are not scriptural terms, but are terms, however, which are “kept in reverent and faithful subordination to Scripture truth.” “Such novelty … becomes most requisite, when the truth is to be maintained against calumniators who evade it by quibbling.” “But I was long ago made aware … that those who contend pertinaciously about words are tainted with some hidden poison.” [14]

There is no doubt that some of the Fathers indulged in “unwarrantable and presumptuous speculations about the relations in the Godhead; and this was carried to a far greater excess, and exhibited much more offensively, by the schoolmen.” Calvin, says William Cunningham, was disgusted with “the presumptuous speculations” of these schoolmen, and having also to compete with Sabellian and Tritheistic heresies, he did express a wish that the names usually employed in discussing this subject were buried, “and that men would be contented with believing and professing that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one God, and yet that the Son is not the Father, or the Spirit the Son, but that they are distinguished from each other by their personal properties.” [15]

In Calvin’s own words, “each has his peculiar subsistence.” And he goes on, “By person, then, I mean a subsistence in the divine essence,—a subsistence which, while related to the other two, is distinguished from them by incommunicable properties.” [16]

Louis Berkhof develops this thought:

But in God there are no three individuals alongside of, and separate from, one another, but only personal self-distinctions within the Divine essence, which is not only generically, but also numerically, one. Consequently, many preferred to speak of three hypostases in God, three different modes, not of manifestation, as Sabellius taught, but of existence or subsistence. [17]

We should not “lose sight of the fact that the self-distinctions in the Divine Being imply an ‘I’ and ‘Thou’ and ‘He,’ in the Being of God, which assume personal relations to one another.” [18]

Calvin, himself, has no objection to adopting the definition of Tertullian, properly understood, “that there is in God a certain arrangement or economy, which makes no change on the unity of essence.” [19]

Calvin next sets out to prove the deity of the Son, and as Warfield declares, “The proof of the deity of the Son is very comprehensive and detailed, and is drawn from each Testament alike.” [20] First Peter 1:11 indicates that the ancient prophets spoke by the Spirit of Christ, just as did the apostles. Hence, argues Calvin, we must conclude that the Word was begotten of the Father before all ages, and if the Spirit belongs to the Word, then the Word is truly God. Hebrews 1:2 teaches us, furthermore, that the worlds were created by the Son, that same wisdom (Son) who presided over creation in Proverbs 8:22. But supremely it is John who explains this doctrine, “for he both attributes a substantial and permanent essence to the Word, assigning to it a certain peculiarity, and distinctly showing how God spoke the world into being.” [21]

There were in Calvin’s day “certain men” who denied the eternity of the Son. These seem to have believed that the logos came into being only when the creating God spoke. But Calvin drew a very different conclusion, summed up in the words of John 17:5: “… the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.” [22] Thus, “the whole scheme of temporal prolation as applied to the Son is sharply assaulted.” [23]

Psalm 45, furthermore, enthrones Elohim, which, says Calvin, only serves to assert the divinity of Christ. Throughout the Old Testament, names which pertain to the eternal Father are applied to Christ. [24] “And then the phenomena connected with the manifestations of the angel of Jehovah are adduced in corroboration.” [25] In this context, too, Servetus is refuted: “The orthodox doctors of the church have correctly and wisely expounded, that the Word of God was the supreme angel, who then began, as it were by anticipation, to perform the office of Mediator.” [26] This angel-mediator, significantly, is worshipped by the patriarchs to whom he appeared.

Turning to the New Testament, Warfield separates Calvin’s evidence under two headings: first, that the divine names were applied to Christ by the New Testament writers (section 2), and second, that divine works and functions are assigned to him (sections 12–13). [27] The Lord “did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped” (Phil. 2:6). He is God “who was revealed in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16). He is God who purchased the church with His own blood (Acts 20:28). To Thomas, He is “my Lord and my God” (John 20:28). [28]

Further, He is the Creator and Preserver of the world, who is able to penetrate the secrets of the heart. He is able also to forgive sins, as attested in the healing of a paralytic man (Matt. 9:6). There is the testimony of miracles; the presentation of Christ as the proper object of saving faith; and the prerogative of having prayer especially addressed to Him, which all contribute to the New Testament picture of Christ as God. And Paul prays for the same blessings from the Son as from the Father. [29] Christ is God.

In his confrontation with Caroli, then, it is surprising that Calvin would not endorse the creeds of the church. But Caroli insisted that the very words of the creeds were the only fit way to express faith in the Trinity, despite his own inability to recite the Athanasian Creed. Calvin thought this quite ridiculous. The anathemas of the Athanasian symbol he saw as “unjust and uncharitable,” while the repetitiveness of “God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God” within the Nicene Creed he saw as completely unnecessary. [30] Despite all this, his writings were to display the fact that he could quite happily have signed these creeds, but his pride would not allow him to do so simply because of the pressure brought to bear by Caroli. After all, it would give the creeds an almost canonical status.

At first glance, too, it is surprising that Calvin offers no discussion of the “filioque” clause regarding the Holy Spirit.

He fell in line with the Latin church, one imagines, and the reintroduction of this matter would not have served his immediate polemical purposes. Perhaps if he had had contact with the Greek churches we would have received some satisfaction on this matter.

The deity of the Spirit is proved, as with the deity of the Son, from the Scriptures. He, too, is the Creator and Preserver of the world, shown to be equal with God the Father: “And now the Lord God has sent Me, and His Spirit” (Isa. 48:16). All the offices of deity are ascribed also to Him. [31]

And He is called God. We are the temple of God just because the Spirit of God dwells in us (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16). As Augustine says, “Were we ordered to make a temple of wood and stone to the Spirit, inasmuch as such worship is due to God alone, it would be a clear proof of the Spirit’s divinity; how much clearer a proof in that we are not to make a temple to Him, but to be ourselves that temple.” [32]

Finally, says Calvin, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not forgiven: “that majesty must certainly be divine which it is an inexpiable crime to offend or impair.” [33] As to why this should be so of the Spirit while not of the Son, he does not enter into here.

So what are we to believe concerning the Trinity? First, Calvin cites Ephesians 4:5: there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” In the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19) the nations are to be taught and baptized “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”—one name, one God. [34] But this unity of three Persons in the one God also implies distinctions. Says Gregory Nanzianzen, “I cannot think of the unity without being irradiated by the Trinity. I cannot distinguish between the Trinity without being carried up to the unity.” [35]

There is distinction, not division, within the Triune God. To the Father is attributed the beginning of action, as the fountain and source of all things; to the Son, wisdom, counsel and arrangement of the things to be done; to the Spirit the energy and efficacy of action. [36] The Father is the source, the Son is the director, and the Spirit is the executor of all the divine activities. [37] The distinction in no way impedes the absolute simple unity of God. And when we profess to believe in one God, it is in God as three persons within the one simple essence. [38]

The second part of Calvin’s discussion centers on the refutation of particular heresies: Arian, Macedonian, and Antitrinitarian—and especially Servetus. One particular argument is outstanding, because it serves to challenge any form of subordination: that is Calvin’s expression of the thought contained in the Nicene Creed that “the Son is begotten of the Father … God of God, Light of Light.” Says Calvin, “the Son, regarded as God, and without reference to person, is also of Himself; though we also say that, regarded as Son, He is of the Father. Thus His essence is without beginning, while His person has its beginning in God.” [39]

Warfield disapproves of these words, but points us back to John 5:26 and Proverbs 8:24, both of which emphasize the begottenness of the Son. Nevertheless, as we have already noted, he considers it a great service on the part of Calvin that he emphasized for the second and third persons of the Trinity their autotheotes. “It has never since been possible for men to escape facing the question whether they really do justice to the true and complete deity of the Son and Spirit in their thought of the Trinitarian distinctions.” [40]

Having settled several matters in and from the fathers, Calvin concludes his discussion by dismissing vain speculations, with a sideswipe at Lombard, who discusses at length whether or not the Father always generates. “This idea of continual generation becomes an absurd fiction from the moment it is seen, that from eternity there were three persons in one God.” [41] The Westminster Confession of Faith states simply that “the Son is eternally begotten of the Father,” [42] which is taken to mean “that it is impossible to conceive of Him as not generating.” [43] However, if Calvin errs, it is on the side of caution.

About the Author

Christopher B. Holdsworth is a lay preacher who lives on the Isle of Skye (Scotland). He contributed the article “The Eschatology of Jonathan Edwards” to Reformation & Revival Journal, Volume 5, Number 3, 1996.

Notes

1. R. A. Finlayson, “Trinity,” New Bible Dictionary (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1962), 1298–1300.
2. B. B Warfield, “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Trinity,” Calvin and Augustine (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1956), 229–30.
3. Ibid., 273.
4. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1979), I:13:21–29.
5. Ibid., I:13:2-6.
6. Calvin and Augustine, 210.
7. Institutes, I:13:29.
8. John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1984), 70–71.
9. R. L. Dabney, Systematic Theology (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1985), 182.
10. Institutes, I:13:1.
11. Calvin and Augustine, 190.
12. Institutes, I:13:2.
13. Calvin and Augustine, 214–15.
14. Institutes, I:13:2–5.
15. William Cunningham, Historical Theology (Edinburgh, Scotland: 1864), I:297–98.
16. Institutes, I:13:5–6.
17. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1953), 87.
18. Ibid., 88.
19. Tertullian, Lib. Conbra Praxeam, cited in Institutes, I:13:6.
20. Calvin and Augustine, 226.
21. Institutes, I:13:7.
22. Ibid., I:13:8.
23. Calvin and Augustine, 226.
24. Institutes, I:13:9.
25. Calvin and Augustine, 226–27.
26. Institutes, I:13:10.
27. Calvin and Augustine, 227.
28. Institutes, I:13:11.
29. Ibid., I:13:12-13.
30. Calvin and Augustine, 207–11.
31. Institutes, I:13:14.
32. Augustine, Ad Maximinium, Ep. 66, cited in Institutes, I:13:15.
33. Institutes, I:13:15.
34. Ibid., I:13:16.
35. Greg Nanzianzen in Serm de Sacro Baptis, cited in Institutes, I:13:17.
36. Institutes, I:13:17–18.
37. Calvin and Augustine, 229.
38. Institutes, I:13:19.
39. Ibid., I:13:25.
40. Calvin and Augustine, 261–73.
41. Institutes, I:13:29.
42. Westminster Confession of Faith (Free Presbyterian Publications, 1976), II:3.
43. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 93.

The God Who Is! Exodus 3:14-15

By Joseph B. Flatt

In response to Israel’s plight in Egypt about halfway through the fifteenth century B.C., God prepared Moses to be the human agent in delivering His people from bondage by training him for forty years in the desert near Mount Sinai as a shepherd for his father-in-law. He learned the art of hillside shepherding so that he might be an effective shepherd of God’s sheep. Near the completion of this on-the-job-training “seminary” experience, God miraculously communicated via the famous burning bush that He wanted Moses to return to Egypt and lead in the glorious deliverance of His people.

Moses’ initial response was similar to the later replies of Samuel who finally said, “Speak, for Thy servant is listening” (1 Sam. 3:10); of Isaiah who recorded his unique encounter with the Lord, “Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?’ Then I said, ‘Here am I. Send me!’“ (Isa. 6:8); and of Saul, when journeying to Damascus to cause havoc among believers,” ...suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; and he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?’ And he said, ‘Who art Thou, Lord?’“ (Acts 9:3–5).

Unfortunately Moses backed off this bold “Here am I” response to God’s summons to a feeble “Who am I?” when he realized the specifics of God’s plan included personal adversarial appearances before Pharaoh! He wanted no part of the preposterous plan which called for him to stick his finger in the face of the despotic monarch and demand the release of the Israelites.

Appreciating Moses’ understandable fear of the fury of arrogant Egyptian Pharaohs, God reiterated His intention to keep His promises to the covenant nation and pledged His personal presence with Moses when he entered the royal court. Because Moses also doubted that the Israelites would accept his leadership without collaboration, God settled the issue by graciously identifying Himself as the singular “I Am.”

The marvelous climax of the account of this divine confrontation with Moses is recorded in Exodus 3:10–15:

Therefore, come now, and I will send you to Pharaoh, so that you may bring My people, the sons of Israel, out of Egypt. But Moses said to God, “Who am I, that I should go to Pharaoh, and that I should bring the sons of Israel out of Egypt?” And He said, “Certainly I will be with you, and this shall be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall worship God at this mountain. Then Moses said to God, “Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I shall say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you.’ Now they may say to me, ‘What is His name?’ What shall I say to them?” And God said to Moses, “I am who I am”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I Am has sent me to you.” And God, furthermore, said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations.”

Though this passage yields many truths, three didactics regarding the central fact that God is the One who is must be highlighted.

In identifying Himself as the “I Am,” God intended to encourage Moses in the assignment to lead the Israelites out of Egypt by showing him that his God, and He alone, possessed all the power and authority needed for the task.

Though we must not presume to know the mind of Moses or fully understand the intent of God, three thoughts help us sort out the opening verses of the full context (2:23–3:15).

Moses realized that he was inadequate for the task. An unbiased reading of the text leads to the simple conclusion that Moses clearly comprehended the nature of the task, reviewed his own character and abilities, and concluded that he wasn’t the man for the job. Yes, this was a backing down from his original bold let’s-get-at-it bravado. Yes, we may use Moses as a negative model of simple submission to the Lord’s wishes for believers’ lives. Yes, it may have been a lack of faith. Yes, this account may suggest classic excuses of the obstinate heart for not listening to and rendering obedience to the Father.

But I, for one, am grateful that Moses saw himself through the spectacles of humble reality. Perhaps if he were living in our current climate of marketing-based Christian enterprise things may have been different. He could have attended a seminar or read a book guaranteeing success in Pharaoh’s court. Maybe he could have researched the strategy of successful supplicants before the royal throne over the last three years. Or, better, he might have conducted a survey of the royal cabinet members, his target audience, in order to determine their preferences in religious matters of concern to the nation.

I jest of course. But indeed, the contemporary church needs more leaders who gladly and quickly humble themselves before God as they consider the awesome appointment to serve God in contemporary culture. David Wells perceptively summarizes the current plight in the evangelical church:

The fundamental problem in the evangelical world today is not inadequate technique, insufficient organization, or antiquated music, and those who want to squander the church’s resources. Bandaging these scratches will do nothing to stanch the flow of blood that is spilling from its true wounds. The fundamental problem in the evangelical world today is that God rests too inconsequentially upon the church. His truth is too distant, his grace is too ordinary, his judgment is too benign, his gospel is too easy; and his Christ is too common. [1]

Arrogance, pride, smug independence, or grandiose successism must not be tolerated among Christian leaders. All manipulative attempts to manufacture spiritual results are doomed to miserable, albeit attractive to some, failure. Give us more churchmen who confess with Paul, “Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5).

God normally uses human beings to accomplish His work. In fact, as vividly illustrated in the case of Moses, God often uses people who are acutely aware of their inadequacies. The Father is looking for humble servants who possess a high view of God as well as a realistic (low) view of self. The United States Marine Corps may be looking for a few good men, but God is looking for a few humble servants. This is good news. After all...

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not, that He might nullify the things that are, that no man should boast before God. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, that, just as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord” (1 Cor. 1:25–31).

God’s promise, “I will be with you,” is the one essential tool needed by the Christian leader. The “God who is,” coupled with an inadequate, yet willing, human being, is an unbeatable team. This formula was designed to embolden and empower God’s leaders. On fourteen occasions God promised to be with Isaac and Jacob. So the same promise is granted by Jesus Himself, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:19–20). When doing God’s bidding the people of God never go it alone.

Upon moving to a new community, my friend queried his daughter’s junior high basketball coaches regarding their credentials to coach girls basketball. He was quite unprepared for the extensive responses documenting their pedigree and experience—especially their roundabout connections to a nationally prominent college coach in the state. The lesson is remarkably simple. God did not need to recite His credentials to Moses. He merely needed to say, “I will be with you!” Moses knew, indeed he recorded, the history of God’s power and authority. The Creation, the Flood, the Exodus, and other sundry displays of God’s glory were fresh in his memory! Therefore, no discussions or explanations were necessary.

So we must just enter the fray for God. He is with us. Need we more?

In identifying Himself as the “I Am” God presented Moses with an instrument to authenticate his ministry as God’s duly appointed representative to the Egyptian taskmasters.

In anticipation of the time when Israel would question Moses about his authority, God’s instructions to Moses were simple. “And God said to Moses, ‘I Am who I Am’”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I Am has sent me to you.’“

This revelation identifies the very essence of God. Apparently God was interested that Moses focus on the main thing, which of course was His Divine Being. Two crucial notions about God are conveyed by the usage of this famous three-word description of God.

First, God is the One who really is. God uses the “to be” verb to identify Himself. He is the One who “is,” who “exists,” who “comes to pass,” who “becomes.” [2] Apart from the stupendous theological concept that God simply is, there are at least three pervasive implications of this truth of the reality of God to be noted:

1) God is directly disclosing Himself to Moses by saying, “I am truly He who exists and who will be dynamically present then and there in the situation to which I am sending you.” [3] This truth is what people need! Infantrymen in foxholes need it. Children abandoned by divorcing parents need it. The spouse who loses his or her mate needs it. It is designed for every contingency of life.

2) This description of God tells us something of the suitability of the God of the Bible for all times. He is the answer for the Boomers, the Busters, and the “X” generation. Any notion of a changing message must be rejected!

3) Attempts to prove the existence of God are a fundamental waste of energy. God Himself simply states the truth without offering any explanations, both here and in passages such as Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God ....” Predictably, great debates over this issue produce much confusion and frustration with little fruit. Without apology the Christian must forthrightly and compassionately proclaim this self-existent God apart from the paraphernalia of clever human reason.

Second, God, the One who is, acts. This God does not exist in static dormancy The question “What is His name?” anticipated by Moses, was not a “Who is God?” question. Evidence from Genesis (“And He said to him, ‘I am the Lord who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to possess it’” [Gen. 15:7]) indicates that the Israelites may have already known God as Jehovah. Rather, Moses anticipates that the Israelites would want to know what the name signifies to them in their current bleak circumstances! They are asking, “What is the character or quality of God which helps us now?” [4] This is made clear on the occasion of the Lord’s subsequent instruction of Moses recorded at Exodus 6:1–7:

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh; for under compulsion he shall let them go, and under compulsion he shall drive them out of his land.” God spoke further to Moses and said to him, “I am the Lord; and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, Lord, I did not make Myself known to them. And I also established My covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land in which they sojourned. And furthermore I have heard the groaning of the sons of Israel, because the Egyptians are holding them in bondage; and I have remembered My covenant. Say, therefore, to the sons of Israel, ‘I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage. I will also redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments. Then I will take you for My people, and I will be your God; and you shall know that I am the Lord your God, who brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.’”

Additionally, and perhaps obviously in light of subsequent events, this simple declaration of the self existence of God, the God who is, was designed to paint a stark contrast to the gods of Egypt with whom Moses and the Israelites were familiar. Jehovah is real! He alone lives.

Furthermore, this God can provide consolation in the midst of trouble. He is always there. This God can be trusted. He is always loyal to His promise. There is no deception with Him. The eternal One does not change. He always was, He is, and He will be. Moses could count on Him.

Possibly the greatest significance of the “I Am” description is that it is a statement of sovereignty. A more suitable rendering of the phrase might be “I will be who I will be.” The Hebrew imperfect “expresses action or state as unaccomplished, continuing, or customary.... It corresponds generally to English present and future.” [5] It is a bombastic declaration of absolute, sovereign self-existence. The idea is that, no matter what the circumstances, God will be God. He does what He wants. He is completely independent of anything. He is in control. Moses could look at his task with an invigorating perspective. This is especially meaningful in light of the encounters with Pharaoh. He could know that it really did not make any difference what the Egyptian monarch or the Israelites did. He was dealing with the God who consults only with Himself. How the church desperately needs a renewed vision of this God!

Moreover, God gave Moses a glimpse of what He would sovereignly do:

But I know that the king of Egypt will not permit you to go, except under compulsion. So I will stretch out My hand, and strike Egypt with all My miracles which I shall do in the midst of it, and after that he will let you go. And I will grant this people favor in the sight of the Egyptians; and it shall be that when you go, you will not go empty-handed (Ex. 3:19–21).

In fact, the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart by God Himself (Ex. 4:21; 7:3, 13, 14, 22; 8:15, 19, 32; 9:7, 12, 35; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10) [6] demonstrates that Pharaoh is a mere pawn which God uses on the chessboard of history to accomplish His ends. Near the end of the plague miracles, God Himself proclaimed His awesome power and mysterious purposes to the paltry Pharaoh:

For this time I will send all My plagues on you and your servants and your people, so that you may know that there is no one like Me in all the earth. For if by now I had put forth My hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, you would then have been cut off from the earth. But, indeed, for this cause I have allowed you to remain, in order to show you My power, and in order to proclaim My name through all the earth (Ex. 9:14–16).

This great lesson must be absorbed by the contemporary church. Her God is the God of the universe. He is, and He acts. He is both the Absolute One and the Sovereign One. He did not solely plan history; He invades history!

This revelation becomes a prominent theme of Scripture. A sampling of passages demonstrates that the concept of the self-existent God was thoroughly embedded in Scripture:

Before the mountains were born, or Thou didst give birth to the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God (Ps. 90:2). 

Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and His Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me” (Isa. 44:6). 

Jesus said to them, “Truly truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am” (John 8:58). 

John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was and who is to come; and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne... “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” (Rev. 1:4, 8).

In describing Himself as the “I Am,” God identified Himself as Jehovah, the eternally existent One, who is to be acknowledged forever by His people.

Because the God of Israel was in a category by Himself, God directed Moses to urge the people to perpetual worship:

And God, furthermore, said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations” (Ex. 3:15).

God became known as the absolute, only, self-determining One who exists here and now in an eternal unchanging presence. The God of Israel is now described by the name Yahweh, which is normally rendered “Lord” in most standard translations. This name appears some 6519 times in the Old Testament. A more appropriate English rendering would be Jehovah. [7]

Though this was not a new God to Israel, this was the first time God used the standard third person form of the verb “to be” with the famous four consonants YHWH instead of the first person form as in verses 12–14. Thus the name technically denotes God as the “existing one.”

Of the three primary names for God (Elohim, God the creator; Adonai, God the master; and Jehovah, God the self-existent one), Jehovah was His personal or proper name. This name was so sacred to godly Jews that they refused to pronounce it. [8]

There are several key ideas associated with this name. First, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has a reputation as the One who fulfills His promises to His people. He is the unchanging One who remains faithful to His word. The concept is as remarkable as it is rudimentary. Because God actually is, in contrast to idol gods, myth gods, concept gods, or human gods, He is able to accomplish things. His promises are not the empty chattering of a bottom level bureaucrat who is powerless to effect change. His promises are the certain declarations of the Living King of the Universe. He makes history. It is not surprising therefore that normally Jehovah is His covenant name.

Second, this name is the redemption name of God. The connection to the name Jesus, who is called the Savior, is well documented. The recounting of the mercy of Yahweh appears often in the Pentateuch:

And He said, “I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the Lord before you and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion” (Ex. 33:19). 

And the Lord descended in the cloud and stood there with him as he called upon the name of the Lord. Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity transgression and sin” (Ex. 34:5–7a). 

The Lord is my strength and song, and He has become my salvation; this is my God, and I will praise Him; my father’s God, and I will extol Him (Ex. 15:2).

By the use of this name, God identifies Himself as the sole possessor of salvation who exercises the prerogative to dispense it at His pleasure. Both Jonah (“But I will sacrifice to Thee with the voice of thanksgiving. That which I have vowed I will pay. Salvation is from the Lord” [2:9]) and David (“Salvation belongs to the Lord; Thy blessing be upon Thy people! Selah” [Ps. 3:8]) attested to this truth.

Third, this name is designed to produce courage in the people of God for any and all circumstances no matter how bleak. Several centuries after the Exodus event another giant spokesman for God offered great words of comfort to God’s people:

When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and through the rivers, they will not overflow you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be scorched, nor will the flame burn you. For I am the Lord your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior; I have given Egypt as your ransom, Cush and Seba in your place (Isa. 43:2).

Believers may take heart, because the awesome living God is not only on their side, He actually goes with them into the fray!

God’s people came to worship God as Jehovah, the self-existent One. The significance of the name Jehovah as a lasting memorial to all generations is that it was to be used in continual praise and worship of God as well as perpetual thanksgiving for His great deeds. What child of God should not say with Zophar, “Can you discover the depths of God? Can you discover the limits of the Almighty?” (Job 11:7). Who among the redeemed would be hesitant to shout with Paul, “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!” (Rom. 11:33). The church of God is expected to heed the psalmist’s plea, “Sing to God, sing praises to His name; lift up a song for Him who rides through the deserts, whose name is the Lord, and exult before Him” (Ps. 68:4). Clearly, this memorial must never be erected in a cemetery gravestone fashion. Because God is the One who is, the memorial to Him must always be alive!

I propose that if we worship the same God as Moses, then we must know Him as the great “I Am,” the One “Who Is.” This God really is in the world: the world of creation, and also the unique personal world of individual believers.

I speak not of a mere theoretical understanding of God, but rather a theology which radically effects life. If one knows this God, then I envision a person of God for whom Jehovah invades his world and rules his life on a continuing basis. God is not merely an afterthought or a matter of personal convenience. I envision a person who enjoys life because he is assured that the only God who is the Sovereign of life is his God. Discouragement is not his constant companion. The person who knows this God “who is,” is himself alive! I envision a person who is bold in his endeavors for God because he is convinced that Jehovah is beholden to nobody.

In short, coming to honest intellectual and spiritual grips with the truth that “God is” surely will have a profound effect upon us!

About the Author

Joseph B. Flatt is pastor of First Baptist Church in Carmel, Indiana. He has previously contributed to Reformation & Revival Journal.

Notes

1. David F. Wells, God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in the World of Fading Dreams (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 30.
2. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (London, England: Oxford University Press, 1968), 224.
3. Walter C. Kaiser, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 2:321.
4. Brown, Driver, Briggs, 552, 556. See also Kaiser, 323.
5. Moshe Greenberg, Introduction to Hebrew (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1965),49.
6. See my monograph “The Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart” for a full discussion of this troubling concept of God’s active hardening of the heart of the Egyptian king of the exodus.
7. Robert Baker Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.), 35–40.
8. See Kaiser, 323–24 for a summary of the various theories regarding the source of the sacred name and argument for this etymology.

God’s Fatherhood And Prayer

By Tom Wells

A moment’s thought will show that God’s nature—what He is like—plays a major role in prayer. There are two reasons for this. First, everything we do, everything we think, and our very existence depend on God. Were He a different God, we would be different people, or no people at all! Second, prayer is directed to God, not to others. When we pray, God is not a third party looking on, but the One who receives our prayers and deals with them as He sees fit. What He is like means everything.

Is He, for example, powerful? If not, our prayers are in vain. Theoretically no Christian can deny the power of God, but there is often just enough that is unique about our present circumstances to make us practically doubtful about His power to meet our specific need. That is why, in dealing with the Roman centurion whose servant was ill, Jesus treated belief in His power to heal as faith indeed (Matt. 8:5–10). When the centurion showed faith in Jesus’ authority over sickness (or the forces necessary to eradicate it), Jesus “marveled, and said …, ‘I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel’“ Faith in God, like faith in Jesus, is in part faith in His ability, His power. You will see immediately that other attributes of God must also come into play in trusting Him, such things as His good will toward you and His attention to your prayers (in theological terms, His omniscience). He must be a prayer-hearing God to be a prayer-answering God. One would be useless to prayer without the other. Yet the Bible shows that prayer, whether or not we grasp how it works, is anything but useless. Tennyson was on biblical ground when he wrote, “More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of.” Is there a word that captures this relation of God to the prayers of His people? There is: the word Father. The word Father is too rich to confine to His relation to our prayers, of course. That is clear. Like all but the most technical terms it means different things in different contexts. For example, it refers to the eternal relation between the Son as the second person of the Trinity and the Father as the first person. It has other uses as well.

The way the Lord Jesus treated His relation to His Father during His earthly ministry, however, offers us a model for our own thoughts of God’s fatherhood, and nowhere is this more applicable than in our prayers. Our sonship to God is built on the analogy of His own sonship. He is “the Firstborn among many brethren” (Rom. 8:29). The firstborn in Israel was the chief heir, but his heirship did not exclude inheritance for other sons. Christ’s people, then, are “children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ” (Rom. 8:16–17). We are children by adoption into God’s family and “have received a spirit of adoption as sons [and daughters] by which we cry out, ‘Abba! Father!’“ (Rom. 8:15; cf. Gal. 4:5–7).

Among other things, this will mean that our prayers, especially in the way we address God, will be modeled on Jesus’ own prayers. Jesus used the name Father repeatedly in His own prayers (Matt. 26:39, 42, 44; John 17:1, 5, 11, 21, 24, 25) and we are to do the same. The cry, “Father!” (“Abba” in His native Aramaic) must arise from our lips as from His. How do we know this? He told us so when He instructed His followers in prayer: “Pray, then, in this way: ‘Our Father …’“ (Matt 6:9. Cf. 7:7–11; Luke 11:2; John 15:16; 16:23).

Left to itself, of course, this is a merely formal and relatively unimportant point. Men often use the right turn of phrase when it means little or nothing to them inwardly. Society oils the friction in human relations with formal language that may signify nothing. Think of the word “dear” in the phrase “Dear-John letter,” a letter intended to say that John is not as “dear” as he once was! But very often formal language points beyond itself to heartfelt truth. Among those whose hearts have been changed by the Spirit of God, that is the case with Father.

A man, even an ungodly man, may certainly train himself to address God as Father. Theological talk earlier in the century spoke of the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man, thus encouraging this very thing. But to return to Paul in Romans 8, his point is more subtle. His view is that God has placed the impulse to call God “Father” in all who have been born again, as a cornerstone of our assurance that we are His. Suppose you are uncertain about your own salvation. The prayer, “Father, I don’t know if I am a Christian or not! “ may show the reality of your relation to God. (Again, that will depend on whether you have taught yourself to say this, or whether “Father” arises as the natural impulse of your heart. No one should rest the weight of his or her assurance on using the right formal language.) How does the name “Father” bear on prayer?

In seed form, Jesus answers that question in His prelude to the Lord’s Prayer: “And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition, as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. Therefore do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need, before you ask Him” (Matt. 6:7–8). Why did Jesus say this? Let’s see if we can tease out the truths that cluster around the word “Father” here. (Note that fatherhood in the teaching of Jesus assumes the ideal that exists in God Himself. Many earthly fathers have fallen so far short of this that “father” may have no pleasant associations for their children. But we must not let this put us off.)

To begin with, your Father listens to the cries of His children. Jesus makes this point in two ways. First, He tells you that you need not try to get God’s attention. You may take “meaningless repetition” to stand for any technique to make the Father hear you: loud cries, pious looks, or “holy” postures. All are unnecessary! More than that, His “hearing” preceded your cry. He already knows your need.

This second detail, God’s knowledge, deserves a closer look. Jesus’ point is not academic; it is a word of encouragement. He does not mean to tell us that whether God helps us or not, He is well able to count up our needs. Not at all! We need no assurance that God is a good mathematician! The whole point is to say that the God who knows is the Father who provides. Take heart, Jesus says.

Let’s look at the implications of this. First, it assures us of God’s good will toward His people, His continuing love for us. Those who have faith in Christ are reconciled to God. That means that God and His people are friends. His friends and His children are one and the same. God acts toward His children as one ought to act toward friends. Let this idea soak into your mind! Because children receive discipline they may think that parents have, temporarily at least, become their enemies. But to say, “This man is my friend,” leaves the whole idea of ill will far behind. The Lord loves His people more than we love our own children.

In telling you that “your Father knows what you need, before you ask Him,” Jesus assumes God’s ability, that He is well able to supply your need. This is an advance on the faith of the centurion of which I spoke earlier. Jesus had exhaustive knowledge of the Father (Matt. 11:27). He spoke not by faith but by sight. Three critical things meet in these words of the Lord: God’s knowledge (He knows your need), God’s good will (He loves His own) and God’s power (He is well able to supply your need). You are to think of these things as you use the word “Father” in prayer. Because He is your Father, you will receive what you need.

Another thing comes into play here in connection with God as Father—His wisdom. Think again of the words, “Your Father knows what you need, before you ask Him.” When children ask for things, they often ask amiss. That’s true of us, as well. What you need and what you ask for, may be two different things. Often you do not remember that as you ask, but your Father does. This is a chief source of what we call “unanswered prayers,” prayers to which the answer is “No.” Why does our Father not give us all we ask for? Because He is too wise to do so.

To sum up the points we have already made, God’s fatherhood includes His knowledge, good will, power and wisdom. Here is another point that bears on prayer. God’s fatherhood includes His authority over us as we pray. When Christ prayed to His Father in Gethsemane He made this point repeatedly, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as Thou wilt” (Matt. 26:39. Cf. vv. 42, 44). He did not have to say, “as Thou wilt.” It was already implied in the words, “if it is possible,” but He made it explicit because He felt the need to openly recognize His Father’s authority. “[N]ot My will, but Thine be done” (Luke 22:42).

There is an important lesson here for us. We may feel an intense emotional attachment to the idea that God is our Father because of the rich gifts we expect Him to send us as His children. And there is nothing wrong with that. He has rich gifts; He does give them to us; they are a cause for rejoicing. Strong positive emotions, good feelings, both in anticipating what He will do for us and in enjoying what we have already received, are themselves gifts of God, not to be despised.

The word Father, however, must always carry with it the idea of His lordship over us. We may not use the sweet associations of the Father’s love for us to aid us in disowning His rulership. He retains the right to thwart our desires for reasons that may utterly escape us. He may send us pain and circumstances that frustrate us. We must not act as spoiled children when this occurs. Instead we must seek to praise Him for His sovereignty over us, while we rest in His wisdom and good will. Yes, we are His children, but we are children under discipline. “[I]f you are without discipline … then you are illegitimate children and not sons” (Heb. 12:8).

For they [our fathers] disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, that we may share His holiness. All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness (Heb. 12:10–11).

Once more, then, let me sum up: God’s fatherhood, as it bears on prayer, includes His knowledge, good will, power, wisdom and authority.

There is another way to approach the subject of God as Father, however, besides listing His attributes. We may ask, “What person is it whom we address as ‘Our Father’?” The obvious answer is the first person of the Trinity, the One we speak of when we distinguish Father, Son and Spirit. But is that answer correct?

At first this may seem a strange question indeed. To whom else could we be speaking? If you put yourself in the place of the disciples to whom Jesus gave instruction on prayer, you may readily see another possibility: God the Trinity. Distinctions that jump into our minds between the persons of the Trinity would have been lost on these men during Jesus’ earthly ministry. When He said, “Our Father,” they could have thought of no one except God without any further analysis. To them, His words meant, “Call God ‘Our Father.’” Some theologians have thought that is what we do also. We call the entire Trinity “Our Father.” That raises the far-reaching question, to what extent may further revelation and the tide of history alter the meaning of a text? At that time, Trinitarian distinctions were unknown to them. Church councils that would adopt the word “Trinity” lay hundreds of years in the future. So what else could “Our Father” mean? Perhaps a small discussion of the process of interpreting Scripture will help here.

For the purpose of this study let’s think of any text as containing three components: first, what the listener might reasonably have understood by it; second, what the inspired human speaker or writer meant by it; third, what God meant in giving it. Aren’t all these things the same? The answer is “Yes” and “No.” Acts of judgment aside (Isa. 6:9–10; Matt. 13:10–15), we may assume that God intends for men to understand what He says (2 Cor. 1:13). That means that “what the listener might reasonably have understood by it” falls within God’s intention. Further, what the inspired speaker or writer meant also falls within God’s intention. The intention of God, however, may be larger than the understanding of either the listener or the inspired writer or speaker. Nothing can change the intention of God, but later revelation and centuries of reflection on what God has said may broaden and deepen our understanding. What we now understand may be both true and fragmentary. Our present understanding may not exhaust the intention of God.

When Jesus used the words “Our Father,” the disciples could not have understood a reference to anyone but God, without the distinctions of persons. Clearly, this was suitable to the intention of Jesus, or He would not have given this instruction, whether we think of Him as speaking purely from His humanity, or whether we think of Him as speaking as God. But God’s revelation on this point was not yet complete. The materials in the New Testament demand differentiation of the persons, as later centuries defined them. The result is this: Intelligent Christians today, when they reflect on how they use “Our Father” in prayer, almost always refer to the first person of the Trinity. So which is it? Should we address the Father, as distinct from the Son and Spirit, when we say, “Our Father,” or should we simply address God?

In the light of the rest of the New Testament we may answer by noting that prayer is usually addressed to the Father as distinct from the Son and the Spirit. That suggests that we should follow suit, keeping the distinct persons in mind. (Compare this from the Westminster Larger Catechism where “God” appears to mean the first person of the Trinity: “Prayer is an offering up of our desires unto God, in the name of Christ, by the help of the Spirit …. “) Though prayer is directed to the Father primarily, we must not think that crying out to Christ or the Spirit is forbidden. Each of the persons has the knowledge, good will, power and wisdom to answer us and each exercises authority over us before, during and after prayer. (See the instances of prayer to the Lord Jesus in 1 Cor. 16:22 and Rev. 22:20.)

We may fittingly close with these words from the Heidelberg Catechism, Question 120:

Why hath Christ commanded us to address God thus, “Our Father”? 

Answer: That immediately in the very beginning of our prayer, he might excite in us a childlike reverence for, and confidence in God, which are the foundations of our prayer; namely, that God is become our father in Christ, and will much less deny us what we ask of him in faith, than our parents refuse us earthly things.

To Him be the glory!

About the Author

Rev. Tom Wells is pastor of King’s Chapel, West Chester, Ohio. He is author of numerous books and a frequent contributor to Reformation & Revival Journal.

The Christlikeness Of God

By James E. McGoldrick

The apostle John recorded these words of Jesus:

“Let not your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also. And you know the way where I am going.” Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?” Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.” Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, ‘Show us the Father?’ Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; otherwise believe on account of the works themselves. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go to the Father. And whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you, and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. After a little while the world will behold Me no more; but you will behold Me; because I live, you shall live also. In that day you shall know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him, and will disclose Myself to him” (John 14:1–21).

Perhaps the most fundamental question that ought to occupy our attention is: Who, or what, is God? Quickly a host of other questions arises: What is God like? How can I know God for certain? What does God expect of me? Is God actually interested in me? These ought to be the foremost questions of our concern. The greatest minds of humanity across the centuries have tried to provide answers to these questions, and the variety of opinions about them is almost without limit. There is much confusion of thinking about fundamental matters. There are people who believe that God and nature are one and the same. There is no independent God, but God is the sum total of material reality; therefore, God is not a person. God cannot be sympathetic. Human beings cannot approach Him. They cannot reach Him. He is not responsive to their needs. Naturalism as a philosophy appears in summary in a statement from the poet James Thompson: “No one can pierce that black veil uncertain because there is no light beyond the curtain. All is vanity and nothingness.” This is the logical conclusion of a naturalist worldview. All is vanity. All is nothingness. There are no answers to the most urgent concerns.

Those dissatisfied with the naturalist view have often turned to humanism. In humanism, man becomes his own God. Man’s beliefs about God are but projections of his aspirations for himself. Reality once again is found in material things. A German philosopher summarized it well when he said, “Man is what he eats.” Humanism, therefore, provides no satisfying answer to the human quest.

In the eighteenth century deism became popular. Voltaire, a bitter enemy of Christianity, insisted, nevertheless, on the necessity in believing in a god. In fact, Voltaire said, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.” Human life without some concept of a supernatural being is intolerable and absurd. Eighteenth-century deists likened God to a clock maker. The existence of the clock demands the existence of a clock maker. Somebody designed it, created the parts, put them in proper ratio to one another, and infused them with energy. That’s the way it is with the world. Someone or something created it all, but the deists did not know who that someone was. They did not believe it was possible to maintain vital contact with the designer and architect of the universe. Deism also left the human heart and the human mind in a quagmire of confusion and uncertainty.

There is an alternative to these points of view. It is called theism, which is belief in a personal God who is ethical in character and spiritual in nature. He is a God who is separate from the creation but ever present within it. He is an intelligent being who has revealed Himself and made it possible for His creatures to know Him. Theism is therefore the superior teaching. Without it humans have no hope whatever of knowing God, and failure to know God leads also to terrible confusion regarding oneself. When John Calvin produced the famous Institutes of the Christian Religion, he began with the assertion that humans have Holy Scripture for two primary reasons: to convey (1) the proper knowledge of God, and (2) the proper knowledge of themselves—to know God and to know themselves. Without such knowledge, life becomes a tragedy in which people are the victims. There is no rhyme; there is no reason. There can be no certainty and no satisfaction. To say that there is a God whom people may know is not necessarily satisfying either. It still does not identify that God. It still does not relate what that God is like. Often religious conceptions of God are unsatisfying. They do not provide a clear and sure understanding of who God is and what God expects of His creatures. The God who made heaven and earth has, however, kindly chosen to reveal Himself. This is the message of biblical theism.

Jesus said, “God is spirit and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24). God is spiritual in character. The Bible declares that when God created human beings, He endowed them with a spiritual reality. God breathed into man the breath of life, and man became a living being (Gen. 2:7). God designed human beings so they can enjoy correspondence and fellowship with their Creator. By means of that correspondence and fellowship, human beings can acquire the proper knowledge of God and the proper knowledge of themselves.

In the seventeenth century, the Puritans met in London to draft documents of faith in order to publish their understanding of biblical theism. Those statements are the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Westminster Catechisms. Question 4 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism is, “What is God?” The answer is, “God is a spirit; infinite, eternal, unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.” That is a magnificent summary of biblical teaching regarding the person and character of God. It begins as Jesus did with the affirmation that God’s nature is inherently spiritual. “God is spirit.” This presents some outstanding information about the nature of God. It begins, however, with a statement that constitutes what might be an insurmountable problem. It begins as Jesus did by affirming “God is spirit.”

What’s the difficulty? A spirit by its very nature is invisible to the human eye. How can humans know a God who is a perfect spirit in His being? How can they know a God when they have no ability whatever to see Him?

• He is infinite, but they are finite.
• He is eternal, but they are temporal.
• He is unchangeable, but they are constantly changing.
• He is wisdom, but they are foolishness.
• He is power, but they are weakness.
• He is goodness, but they are evil.
• He is holiness, but they are perversity.
• He is justice, but they are injustice.

The knowledge of God acquired from Scripture can be and has to be a distressing experience because it sets in sharp contrast the utter discrepancy between the Creator and the creatures. God and His creatures are far apart, not only different in being but separated, alienated because of sin. What is God like? God is perfect spirit. It is, of course, impossible to define God. God is beyond human ability to comprehend Him. People may know only as much about God as He has chosen to reveal. How will they know what God is like? If they cannot see a spirit, is there someplace where they may have a tangible portrait of God? Where may they see the attributes of God displayed? How may they know God actually and personally? They may know God actually and personally because God has reproduced Himself pictorially in the Bible. The Bible is God’s self-portrait. This is the place where God has chosen to describe Himself for the benefit of His creatures.

A portrait, however, does not tell everything about a person. It gives but limited knowledge of that person. Likewise, the Bible as God’s self-portrait provides us with an incomplete model of God. The Bible is perfect as far as it goes, absolutely reliable, thoroughly truthful in every question it addresses. Nevertheless, the Bible conveys an incomplete knowledge of God. The human being will always remain a human being. The infinite distinction between Creator and creatures is permanent. That will never change. In eternity, when God has removed all the consequences of sin, humans will no longer be fettered by the immorality of their condition but will obtain a vastly improved knowledge of God. That knowledge will, nevertheless, remain partial and imperfect. The creatures will never comprehend the Creator, but through God’s self-portrait in the Bible, He has conveyed enough information so that people may know Him personally and redemptively. The attributes of perfection of God are all displayed in a person, and that person is Jesus Christ, our Lord.

Philip petitioned Jesus, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus answered, “Don’t you know Me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’”? Jesus claimed unequivocally that He had the right to speak as God and man, and that people who had the privilege of seeing Him were, in fact, seeing God. To see Jesus Christ is the exact equivalent of seeing God the Father. For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fulness to dwell in Him (Col. 1:19).

The apostle Paul wrote, “God, who said, ‘Light shall shine out of darkness,’ is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6). If people want to see God, they must look at Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the perfect image of God, the glory of God. Incarnate goodness radiates from the countenance of Jesus Christ. The book of Hebrews, in a magnificent declaration, affirms this truth:

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high (Heb. 1:1–3).

Notice the emphasis—in these last days—the entire period between the first and second advents of Christ. “In these last days God has spoken to us in His Son.” This Son is “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His being.” What is God like? God is like Jesus Christ. God is exactly like Jesus Christ. For Jesus Christ is the perfect portrait of God. Perfect to the extent that Jesus said unabashedly, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). He is the express image of God’s being. With confidence, then, people may look to Jesus Christ in order to obtain the proper knowledge of God. To know who God is and what God is like and what God requires, they must look at Jesus Christ.

Jesus said, “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him” (John 14:7). Notice this sweeping claim to deity. It distinguishes Christ from other significant religious teachers. In Asia, hundreds of millions of people worship at the shrines of Buddha. Buddha, however, made no claim to deity. In China, millions of people follow the teachings of Confucius. Confucius, however, never claimed to be God. The claim of Jesus Christ is clear, uncompromising, and unequivocal. Jesus claimed absolute equality with His Father and His Holy Spirit. People cannot know God if they ignore Jesus Christ. For Jesus Christ is not only the Son of God, He is also God the Son. The Son of God and God the Son.

Thomas, after the Savior’s resurrection, demanded evidence that Christ was alive, and when Christ appeared to him in His resurrected glory, Thomas fell at the Savior’s feet and hailed Him, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28). That is the correct posture for every human being—to fall at the feet of the Savior and to hail Him, “My Lord and my God!” To see Jesus Christ is to see the perfect revelation of God. To worship Jesus Christ is to worship the triune Godhead. Through Jesus Christ people enjoy the proper knowledge of God and the proper knowledge of themselves. To see what God is like, look at Christ. For Christ is the personal demonstration of biblical theism, which is belief in God, centered in Christ as the perfect revealer of God in His own person.

Jesus Christ is the revelation of the attributes and perfections of God’s being. One of God’s characteristics is His fatherhood. Christians rejoice to pray, “Our Father who art in heaven.” They delight to know that God relates to them in fatherly kindness and loves them as His chosen children. They glory in the fatherhood of God, and the clearest demonstration of God’s fatherhood is in Jesus Christ. Jesus said, “He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him, and will disclose Myself to him” (John 14:21). Jesus Christ is the clearest demonstration of the fatherhood of God. How do believers know that God, their Father, loves them? They know He loves them because He sent to them His only begotten Son. He loved the world in such a manner that He gave the world His Son, Jesus Christ. Christ is the clearest of all evidences that God is the Father who loves His children sacrificially.

Jesus said with much boldness, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me” (John 14:6). It is therefore impossible to appreciate adequately the fatherhood of God unless one comes to the Father through Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is entitled to claim to be the exclusive means of access to the Father, because in Jesus Christ God literally became man. As the ancient Creed of Nicaea says so well, “Christ became man for us men and for our salvation.” He “came down from heaven; was made flesh and was made man.” Jesus Christ perfectly reveals the fatherhood of God.

Likewise, the other attributes of God are flawlessly displayed in the person and work of Jesus Christ. God is powerful, the omnipotent ruler of heaven and earth. Jesus Christ demonstrated the omnipotence of God. He rebuked the wind and the waves, and they became still. He multiplied loaves and fishes to feed throngs of 4,000 and 5,000. He brought the dead back to life. He gave sight to the blind, speech to the dumb, and hearing to the deaf. He rose triumphant out of His own grave. The power of God is displayed magnificently in Jesus Christ.

The eternity of God’s nature is revealed in Jesus Christ as well. Jesus said to His Father, “I glorified Thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which Thou hast given Me to do. And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was” (John 17:4–5). In Jesus Christ the timeless God entered time. The timeless Author of time entered the dimension of His own creation. As God, He was never young; as God, He can never be old. He is above the dimension of time, but He became man for us men and for our salvation, thereby accepting the limitations of time and space. Jesus Christ is the eternal Word of God. He was with God and was God and is God. The eternity of God’s being is revealed in Jesus Christ. God is invisible. He is unchangeable. It is no coincidence that Scripture proclaims Jesus Christ is “the same yesterday and today, yes and forever” (Heb. 13:8). So the attribute of God’s immutability appears in Jesus Christ our Lord. All the characteristics of God are present in perfect combination in Christ, for Christ is the Son of God and God the Son. People must see God in Jesus Christ, or they will never see Him at all.

That, of course, is the message for which Christians can make no concessions and grant no compromises. Humanity, if it is to ever know God, to enjoy the proper knowledge of God and the proper knowledge of self, must enjoy that in Jesus Christ or not at all. Jesus Christ reveals all the characteristics of God’s being. Jesus Christ reveals God’s plan of redemption. Redemption is “through His blood” by which believers obtain “the forgiveness of sins” (Eph. 1:7). The plan of redemption God had conceived in eternity past was executed by Jesus Christ in time.

What is God like? God is like Jesus Christ—exactly like Him. Therefore, to be without Christ is to be without God. To reject Christ is to reject God. Those who do not know Christ on the Day of Judgment will hear Him say: “I never knew you; depart from Me” (Matt. 7:23). There can be no doubt: God’s self-disclosure makes it crystal clear. What is God like? God is like Jesus Christ—exactly like Him. That is the message Christians must proclaim to humanity: “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (2 Cor. 5:19). There is but one way and access to God in heaven, and that is through Jesus Christ, the God-Man, who came down to earth to save sinners. Behold then the Christlikeness of God. God is like Jesus Christ, and the world urgently and desperately needs to know that truth. For in Christ people see what God is like. They behold the Christlikeness of God.

About the Author

James E. McGoldrick is professor of history at Cedarville College, Cedarville, Ohio. He has previously contributed several articles to Reformation & Revival Journal.

The Father’s Faithful Nurture Of Sons

By Michael L. Andrakowicz

There seems to be no end to the books being written in our generation on the subject of parenting. From the scholarly tomes to the simple “how-to” handbooks, whether Christian or secular, liberal or conservative, everyone seems to have something to say on the matter of raising children. Yet, how often is it the case that one good example is better than many books. Especially when it comes to training and nurturing children, we have no better paradigm than that of the quintessential parent Himself, God the Father.

The subject of the fatherhood of God is appropriately divided into four distinct aspects: (1) Creative, (2) Trinitarian, (3) Christological and (4) Redemptive. [1] However, it is within the context of God’s redemptive activity in Christ that His fatherly nature is most clearly depicted to us as His children.

Fundamental to the New Testament is the fact of the Father’s begetting of His children. John is careful to emphasize this in the opening lines of his Gospel (John 1:13). Furthermore, because Jesus is God’s Son, union with Him through faith results not only in a new existence through regeneration, but a new relationship to God as sons through adoption (Gal. 3:26). So central is this theme to the Father’s eternal plan, that Paul depicts our adoption as sons as the very goal of God’s electing grace (Eph. 1:5). So powerful is it that John states its present ethical implications in the starkest of terms, “No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin because he is born of God” (1 John 3:9). So permanent is it that the age to come will forever confirm our status before the whole universe, as sons of the Father (Rom. 8:19, 23).

Just as relevant to the theme of the fatherhood of God in redemption is His relationship to His children, not merely as begetter, but as nurturer. How important it is to a consistent theology of the fatherhood of God, to understand that He has not sired children and simply wandered away, leaving them to raise themselves. Our heavenly Father must not be perceived as the ungodly fathers of the world, who so often ignore their little ones once they have begotten them, often abandoning them altogether. Yet, the manner and method of God’s fatherly nurture of His children is not always clearly perceived, nor does this writer lay claim to giving exhaustive treatment to the subject at present. Nonetheless, we may have the confidence that the same Father of our Lord Jesus who so faithfully nurtured Him in His days on the earth, continues this same work in His children today.

The purpose of this article is to consider briefly God’s fatherly nurture and development of His children in bringing them to filial maturity in Christ. Two different theological aspects of this theme will be explored, each from pertinent New Testament texts. First, we will consider God’s fatherly nurture of His people on the individual and personal level (Heb. 12:4–12), and second, on a wider scale, God’s nurture of His people on the redemptive and historical plane (Gal. 3:23–4:11).

Individual—Personal: Hebrews 12:4-12

God is a faithful Father. This fact provides the basis for the admonitions recorded in Hebrews 12. God’s faithful discipline of His children is one of the hallmarks of Christian sonship. So important is it that those lacking such training have good reason to doubt whether they are truly God’s children (12:7–8). The quotation in verses 5 and 6 is taken from the LXX version of Proverbs 3:11–12 and is intended to remind the Hebrews that such discipline is not indicative of the Father’s rejection. On the contrary, “the one whom the Lord loves He disciplines, and He scourges every son He receives.” [2] God’s discipline of His sons is grounded in a heart overflowing with tender, principled love for His children. Indeed, such love is the very well-spring of His paternal discipline. This was an essential truth for the Hebrews to grasp in the midst of their trials, lest they fail to respond in faith to the motives and the methods of the Father. Without a doubt, these things are still essential for sons to understand today.

Careful analysis of these verses provides us with a proper understanding of the nature of the Father’s discipline. Far too often, this passage is misunderstood as teaching simply that God “scourges” or spanks His erring children. While correction for sin is an important facet of the Father’s activity, examination of the terminology in the text yields a fuller picture.

Four relevant words or word groups referring to the Father’s child-rearing activity occur in these verses. The first word-group predominates in the context and is built upon the paid-stem. [3] The meaning associated with these words is obviously multi-faceted, but basically concerns matters of education, [4] training and character-formation of children. [5] The second word, elencho (12:5), means to reprove or correct. Third, mastigoo (12:6), refers to corrective chastisement by whipping or flogging. The fourth word, gymnazo (12:11), alludes to the rigors often associated with athletic training (used figuratively here). From this information and the manner in which these words are used in chapter 12, it is apparent that the Father’s discipline of His sons has two aspects: corrective and formative.

Corrective Discipline

Of course, corrective discipline is the duty of any faithful father. It was a foundational element to God’s covenant promise to David and his descendants. [6] God used it in its most severe form with some of the erring Corinthians. [7] It is especially regarding God’s corrective discipline that the writer to the Hebrews pastorally warns his readers from Proverbs 3:11–12. There are dangers for sons in how they respond to the Father’s correction for sin. They are parallel to the same dangers that confront our own earthly children when we correct them.

The first pitfall is the tendency of sons to “think lightly” [8] of the Father’s discipline (12:5b). Because God’s chastisement is for our good (12:10) and geared toward our maturation, disregard for it is always to our own hurt. Sons who continually despise God’s correction stunt their Christian growth. We have all seen earthly sons who have habitually spurned their fathers’ reproofs, resulting in their being tragically and irreversibly flawed in character, in mind and in spirit. These dangers are just as real for God’s children when they refuse to submit to His correction. How many Christians render themselves virtually useless in the Father’s household simply because they reject His discipline? In the same way, how many have significantly compromised their testimony before the world? Finally, how many have fallen under God’s ultimate discipline of sickness or even death? [9]

There is need for caution at this point. The interpretation of providence, be it good or bad, is always tenuous business. God has given no one an infallible explanation for the specific events of His or anyone else’s life. He has, however, given us an infallible Bible that warns us that He does indeed discipline erring sons. Such warnings should be sufficient enough for the wise to walk carefully and obediently in the light of the Father’s counsel.

The second hazard is just as dangerous as the first: “nor faint when you are reproved by Him.” While the tendency of the strong-willed son is to disregard his Father’s discipline, the inclination of the weak-willed child is to lose courage and give up. There are several ways this trait manifests itself. Self-pity is probably the most common. Despair and unbelief are more advanced symptoms; and the greatest threat is that of apostasy itself. It is sometimes the case that disgruntled sons, disillusioned under a father’s correction, have abandoned the household altogether. This was a temptation for the Hebrew Christians to whom this epistle was addressed. Their failure to understand the Father’s purposes in their discipline prompted them to think harsh thoughts of him. Likewise, how often have we erroneously concluded while under the “smarting rod” of our Father, that He no longer cared for us, or had abandoned us altogether. At such times, the Christian must cling to these words, “those whom the Lord loves, He disciplines.”

Formative Discipline

There is good warrant to regard much of the discipline to which Hebrews 12:4–12 refers, as concerned with the more positive elements of training and character formation. This is evident not only in the wording of the text, [10] but in the author’s appeal for his readers to consider Jesus as their example of how to endure (12:2–3). Just as earthly sons stand in need of the nurture and training of a loving father (12:9–10), so do heavenly sons. Foundational to our thesis is the assumption that God the Father does not nurture His adopted sons in a qualitatively different way than He did the Son of God Himself. In other words, God’s discipline of Jesus provides us with the pattern of what every son may expect within the Father’s household. While our Lord was never the object of His corrective discipline, He was always the object of the Father’s formative discipline. It is within the context of Jesus’ development as the fully human Son of God, that a paradigm for character training in other sons may be found. [11]

An illuminating commentary upon this theme is found in Hebrews 5:8–9. It should be observed that the dignity of Jesus’ divine Sonship did not exempt Him from such processes. The concession of verse 8, “Although He was a Son,” makes it clear that just the opposite was true. Of necessity, He would be brought to filial maturity through the normal avenues of human experience and development. [12] Throughout His life, the God-man continued to increase in “wisdom and stature and in favor with God and men.” [13] Likewise, He matured, both in His comprehension of the will of His Father and in His ability to perform the same with sinless obedience. At the foundation of this process stands a proper biblical theology of God’s testing of sons. In the context of the training of His thoroughly human capacities of emotion, mind and volition, Jesus the Son learned the discipline of bending His own sinless will to conform to that of His Father. Through the adversity of daily life in a fallen world coupled with the wisdom provided by Torah, the Father carefully molded and shaped the disposition of His dear Son. There His character was honed and refined in the crucible of human experience and suffering. As He grew, the Son of God and High Priest of His people obtained an ever-expanding comprehension of the Father’s will and an increasing ability to execute that will with alacrity.

Because He was the Second Adam, Jesus stood in need of testing and proving, both as the Son of God and the representative of the new humanity. It was nothing less than Gethsemane itself that proved to be His ultimate test of filial loyalty. [14] For one brief moment of time, the dissonance of the wills between Father and Son were displayed in profound contradiction: “Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me, yet not My will, but Thine be done.” [15] There the sum total of thirty-three years of moral preparation were focused upon that one decision. With unflinching submission, a lifetime of studied obedience provided the strength of character by which the Son skillfully and powerfully brought His own sinless will into conformity to His Father’s. In so doing, He accomplished that in which the first Adam so miserably failed. It was as the tested and proven Son of God that Jesus accomplished redemption and thus could be presented to the Hebrews as their great exemplar of perseverance.

It is particularly at Gethsemane and Calvary that we learn vital lessons regarding the Father’s discipline of us. Our heavenly Father never intended for us to live our lives in ease and comfort, void of adversity or trial. His purposes, in fact, are exactly the opposite. Like our Lord and Elder Brother before us, our lot is to learn obedience from the things which we suffer. The Father’s design is to train every son in the context of the deepest woes of human experience. The comfort and affluence of our modern, western culture so often blind us to this fact. In an earlier day, Spurgeon said it well:

Now, if God saves us, it will be a trying matter. All the way to heaven, we shall only get there by the skin of our teeth. We shall not go to heaven sailing along with white wings, but we shall proceed full, often with sails rent to ribbons, with masts creaking, and the ship’s pumps at work both by night and day. We shall reach the city at the shutting of the gate, but not an hour before. O believer, thy Lord will bring thee safe to the end of thy pilgrimage; but mark, thou wilt never have one particle of strength to waste in wantonness upon the road. [16]

Our present calling as sons is unto suffering with endurance, [17] but not because our Father is of a stern and harsh disposition. The truth is quite to the contrary. Though character training of children is fraught with many unpleasantries and much sorrow (12:11), such discipline is the insignia of the Father’s love (12:6). It is what some have called “tough love.” We must never forget that the Father has designs for His sons in the age to come that far transcend even the most horrifying of present sufferings, just as far as Jesus’ glory now transcends the horror of His sufferings on the cross. Our future glory actually necessitates our present trials. [18]

As a faithful Father, God is preparing us for an eternity of useful service as adult members of His household. One day, we will reign with Christ the Son in the new heavens and new earth. Whatever the nature of that reigning, we can be sure that the Father is not about to give such privilege and authority to immature or disobedient sons who have not demonstrated absolute allegiance to Him. His desire is not merely that His children obey. His goal is that we do so because as proven sons we have freely embraced His will as our will. This is the holiness and righteousness to which the writer to the Hebrews refers as the goal of the Father’s discipline (12:10–11). This is true, filial maturity, when in the crucible of the most intense suffering human autonomy and divine imperative become one.

Redemptive—Historical: Galatians 3:23-4:11

God’s fatherly nurture of His children has implications that go beyond mere personal and individual experience. This must be fully appreciated with reference to our place in redemptive history as members of the new covenant. Our relationship to the Father under this new economy is that of mature sons in Christ, not as immature children under Moses. How God has accomplished this transition is a testimony not only to His infinite wisdom in the execution of His plan of salvation, but to His paternal expertise.

There is no more important statement of this fact than that of Galatians 3:23–4:11. The apostle’s exhortations in this text are grounded, not merely upon the abrogation of the former temporary arrangement, but upon a momentous change in relationship that has transpired between God and His children (3:26; 4:6–7). The law of Moses is no longer binding, not only because Jesus has superseded it (3:22, 25–26), but because it is no longer an appropriate or sufficient expression of the will of the Father for sons who have been brought to redemptive maturity in Christ. [19] Those under the law related to the Father as slaves (4:7) and immature children (4:1, 3). Sons by faith in Christ relate to the Father as full-grown and mature adults. [20]

It is in this light that the import of the relevant terms “sons,” “sons of God,” and “adoption as sons” (3:26; 4:5–7) must not be missed. The antithesis within the context is not between “sons of God” and “sons of the Devil,” but between mature sons in Christ and immature children (nepioi, 4:1, 3) under the law. In other words, under the new covenant, the phrases “sons of God” and “under the law” are mutually exclusive concepts in God’s scheme of redemption. While it is true on rare occasions in the Old Testament that the term “sons” is used with reference to Israel, [21] yet it is precisely in the Pauline sense that the title huioi theou (sons of God) could never have been applied even to the greatest of saints who lived under Moses. In Paul’s nomenclature, “sons” is not just a general synonym for the people of God. It is an appellation specifically adapted by the apostle to distinguish between mature sons under the new covenant, and little children under the law. An accurate paraphrase of the Pauline concept of “the sons of God” would be “covenant children who have grown up.” [22]

The immediate relevance of this terminology to the knotty subject of the relationship of the sons of God to the law of Moses is clear. Such sons are no longer in need of a redemptive “nanny,” which is essentially Paul’s term for the law (3:24–25). [23] It should be carefully observed that the emphasis of verse 24 is not upon the place of the law as an educator but as a temporary guardian of minors. As such, the primary function of the “pedagogue” was to provide necessary restraint upon the wills of underage children until such time as they reached maturity and could be trusted to the responsible use of their liberty. [24]

In this sense, the wisdom of the outworking of God’s plan of salvation is powerfully illustrated for us in the realm of everyday family life. God’s faithful fathering of His sons in Christ under the new covenant has moved us one giant, eschatological step closer to the full realization of our privileges and responsibilities as filial heirs to the kingdom (4:7). [25] Thus, the fascinating thing about this text is that the apostle describes the fruits of Christ’s redemptive work, not in terms of His people’s salvation from sin and death, but in terms of their release from Mosaic custody, passage into redemptive maturity and adoption by the Father as sons who have come of age (4:5).

By way of implication, this exposes the inadequacy of any theological emphasis or system that has as its focus the law of Moses. By its very nature, the pedagogical character of the law precludes its continuation as a custodial overseer of sons who have reached maturity. To place the sons of God back under any facet of the law as a covenantal arrangement is comparable to an earthly father requiring his twenty-one-year-old to be subject to his former, child-hood baby-sitter.

To be sure, in no wise is this meant to denigrate the character of the pedagogue. We maintain with the apostle that “the Law is ... holy, and righteous and good.” [26] During the time of immaturity, the law performed its purpose flawlessly. It is just to say that the Father’s chief concern has always been for the maturity of the heirs of His household (4:1, 7), not for the perpetual employment of the nanny under whose discipline some of the children formerly existed. Once the goal has been reached, the nanny is dismissed as a faithful former employee whose time of service has ended.

Of course, the hallmark of this transition from immature to adult sons is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (4:6). Of all the blessings of the new covenant, He is the crowning gift of the Father to His newly adopted children. While the fullest internalization of the mind and will of the Father belongs to the age to come, yet with the Spirit’s indwelling of the hearts (i.e., minds) of God’s sons now, comes nothing less than the initial installment [27] of this eschatological dynamic.

This is why external laws written upon tables of stone and intended for immature children could never suffice for full-grown sons. The Father’s plan in glory is that they render perfect (if not intuitive) obedience to His will. Such submission could never be effected on the basis of an externalized law that gave no power for obedience to those who possessed it. With the gift of the Spirit comes not only this principle of internalization [28] but the proleptic ability by which sinless perfection shall one day be accomplished.

The attending verbal confirmation of sonship, “Abba! Father!” (4:6), is also of great significance. It should be noted that personal reference to God in such intimate terms was by no means novel within the Judaism of the time of Jesus and the apostles. Dalman gives examples from both the Apocrypha as well as rabbinical literature of the first and second centuries A. D. where individual reference is made to God as “Father.” [29] Yet the eschatological significance of the phrase “Abba! Father!” must not be underestimated. The popular notion that this is the cry of immature babes calling for their “daddy” misses entirely the continuity of the apostle’s thought. “Abba, Father” is typically the entreaty of adult sons who now relate to their Father on the most intimate and mature of terms. This is precisely Paul’s conclusion in Galatians 4:7. The presence of the Holy Spirit and the accompanying cry of intimate dependence (4:6) are indications of the most eschatologically mature relationship to God possible this side of glory.

Well did Paul express shock and dismay that some would turn back to the law of Moses (4:9). Indeed, well should we all. Nothing could be more antithetical to the Father’s plan and purpose for His sons than for them to prefer childhood to adulthood. Nothing could be more detrimental to filial intimacy with the Father than preference by the sons for the pedagogue. In Christ, the Father has nurtured His sons to an unprecedented, redemptive-historical intimacy with Himself, not the law. When Christians lose sight of this, or worse, fail to realize it altogether, they are not merely in danger of losing a few of the blessings and benefits offered in Christ. They are in danger of losing the privilege of sonship itself. Here is the reason for the many sober warnings and exhortations given to the Galatians and the Hebrews in their respective epistles. In this new covenant epoch, sons cannot be slaves to the law and slaves cannot be sons (Gal. 4:7).

Incredible as it may seem, by the Spirit, those who are in Christ participate in this mature sonship with a filial status and intimacy approaching that of Jesus Himself. [30] Such a statement warrants careful qualification. [3]1 Jesus’ place as the Son of God is absolutely incomparable. [32] Yet it remains that the aforementioned status marks a monumental advance in both privilege and experience belonging exclusively to participants of the new covenant. On the redemptive-historical level, God’s people now stand on the brink of the reception of their full eschatological inheritance as mature sons. [33] This is a reality to which no participant of the Mosaic economy could ever lay claim. Through God’s masterful, fatherly tutelage, our superior status and privilege in Christ as adult sons stands confirmed.

Conclusion

As long as the Father is engaged in begetting children, He will likewise be about the very serious business of nurturing them to redemptive maturity. For individual sons, this means one thing: suffering. This process by which God raises His children is nothing short of excruciating. If there be any doubt about the accuracy of this statement one need only consider the Father’s dealings with His own dear Son. If this be true with regard to Him who was “holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners,” how much more for the reborn descendants of Adam.

Believers today stand very much in need of a sense of holy realism regarding the nature of the Christian life. God, with no less love and tenderness, has purposed to perfect us as His sons through our sufferings. This may not be a popular thought, and certainly it is not a pleasant thought, yet it is the truth. If the Father’s ultimate concern had been merely for the immediate comfort and happiness of His Son Jesus, then Gethsemane today would be just a garden outside Jerusalem, and Golgatha just another hill in Palestine. God’s discipline emanates from the loving heart of an all-wise Father who knows exactly how to prepare His children for adulthood. His plan is for the holiness of His sons, indeed an obedience that is absolutely consistent with the liberty of free moral beings. We are being trained in the gymnasium of this age (Heb. 12:11b) that we might show forth the holiness of our Father in the age to come. There is where we will find our greatest happiness.

Furthermore, God has demonstrated His method of rearing children in the course of redemptive history, as He has progressively brought them from immaturity under Moses to adulthood in Christ. As this means total liberty from the childhood pedagogue (Moses), it also means greater expectations and greater accountability (the new covenant). With this higher standard comes a more certain empowerment (the Holy Spirit) by which mature sons show forth the character of their Father. Finally, the Father’s laws and principles have been internalized by the Spirit as they have been woven into the fabric of the character of each son. In God’s scheme of redemption, all that remains is the eschatological perfecting of the heirs to the kingdom. This tension between the already and not yet—between our present suffering and our coming perfection—becomes the identifying experience of every son (Rom. 8:17). Our present inward groaning is the very precursor of this eschatological adoption (Rom. 8:23). Likewise, such groanings Paul attributes to the whole of creation (Rom. 8:19–22) as the entire cosmos eagerly anticipates the Father’s revelation of the sons whom He has so carefully and lovingly nurtured.

About the Author

Michael L. Andrakowicz is pastor of Berean Baptist Church in Sacramento, California. This is his first contribution to Reformation & Revival Journal.

Notes

1. These are essentially the classifications given the theme in Geerhardus Vos, The Self-Disclosure of Jesus (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1954), 141ff.
2. In the context, the verb paradechomai indicates far more than mere apathetic reception. It could be accurately translated here, “He scourges every son He lovingly receives.” See W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich and F. W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1979), 614.
3. Paideutes, a noun referring to a teacher of children (v. 9); paideia, a noun which pertains to the training and instruction of children (vv. 5, 7, 8, 11); and paideuo, a verb meaning to “bring up, instruct, train, or educate” (vv. 6–7, 10). Also, the latter two sometimes have reference to corrective discipline of punishment (cf. Luke 23:16, 22; 1 Cor. 11:32; Rev. 3:19).
4. Cf. Acts 22:3.
5. Cf. Ephesians 6:4; 2 Timothy 3:16.
6. See 2 Samuel 7:12–15.
7. See 1 Corinthians 11:30.
8. The verb in the Hebrew text of Proverbs 3:11 is ma’as: “to reject, refuse, despise.”
9. Cf. 1 Corinthians 11:30.
10. See note 3.
11. On the subject of Jesus’ human development, B. B. Warfield has written some of the most thought-provoking material I have ever read. See B. B. Warfield, “The Emotional Life of Our Lord,” in The Person and Work of Christ (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1970), 91–145; and “The Human Development of Jesus,” in Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield, 2 vols., ed. John E. Meeter (Nutley, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1970), 1:158–66.
12. While teleiotheis (Heb. 5:9, “having been made perfect”) has primary reference to the culmination of Jesus’ high priestly work on the cross, yet the clear implication of verse 8 is that a whole lifetime of growth and maturation through suffering was the necessary means by which He was prepared for this ultimate test of obedience to the Father.
13. Luke 2:52.
14. Marshall observes, “Jesus, facing the temptation to avoid the path of suffering appointed by God, nevertheless accepts the will of God despite His own desire that it might be otherwise. He does not seek to disobey the will of God, but longs that God’s will might be different. But even this is to be regarded as temptation, and it is overcome by Jesus.” See I. Howard Marshall, Commentary on Luke, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1992), 831.
15. Luke 22:42.
16. C. H. Spurgeon, “The Inexhaustible Barrel,” in The New Park Street Pulpit, 6 vols. (Pasadena, Texas: Pilgrim Publications, 1981), 6:37.
17. See 1 Peter 2:20–21.
18. This is precisely the meaning of the hina (purpose) clause of Romans 8:17; “if indeed we suffer with Him in order that we may also be glorified with Him.” Without the sufferings of this age, there can be no glorification in the next.
19. The strictly temporary nature of the law is a major theme throughout the larger context (cf. 3:19, 23, 24; 4:2–4, 7). On the temporal nature of the phrase in verse 24, eis Christon (“until [the time of] Christ”), cf. Philippians 1:10; 2 Timothy 1:12; see W. Bauer, et al., A Greek-English Lexicon, 228.
20. This transition is also at the heart of Paul’s language in Romans 8:14–17.
21. E.g., Exodus 4:22–23; Deuteronomy 14:1.
22. A very edifying expansion of this idea may be found in John Brown, Exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians (Reprint; Evansville, Indiana: The Sovereign Grace Book Club, 1957), 170–202.
23. The rendering of paidagogos by some translations (“schoolmaster” in the KJV and “tutor” in the NKJV and ASV) is unfortunate. Had Paul meant to refer to the law as a teacher, other words would have expressed the thought more unambiguously (e.g., didaskalos or paideutes). As it stands, the reference (paidagogos) is to the law, not as a tutor or schoolmaster but as a custodial overseer of underage children (cf. Gal. 3:23; 4:2). This indeed is both the historical and lexical meaning of the term. See D. Furst, paideuo (paidagogos), in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 4 vols., ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1986), 3:779; and W. Bauer, et. al., A Greek-English Lexicon, 603.
24. See F. F. Bruce, Commentary on Galatians, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1992), 182–83. A paraphrase of verses 24–26 might read as follows: “When we were children, our Father gave us the law of Moses to function as our legal guardian until the time of maturity in Christ should come, to the great end that we might be justified by faith. And now that this time has arrived and we are grown-up sons, we no longer need our former child-guardian who has served his purpose well. For now both Jews and Gentiles have reached redemptive maturity through faith in Christ Jesus.”
25. For further development of the relationship between the fatherhood of God and the Christian’s inheritance of the eschatological kingdom, see George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, revised edition (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1993), 82–85.
26. Romans 7:12.
27. See Ephesians 1:13–14.
28. “This is the covenant that I will make with them ... I will put my laws upon their heart, and upon their mind I will write them’ (Heb. 10:16).
29. See Gustaf Dalman, “The Father in Heaven,” in The Words of Jesus (Reprint; Minneapolis, Minnesota: Klock & Klock, 1981), 184–89, However, Dalman goes too far when he states that use of the term “Father” was a matter of “popular usage” within the Judaism of Jesus’ time; ibid., 188.
30. See Mark 14:36.
31. Marshall points out that no saying of Jesus’ has been preserved in which He links His disciples with Himself in a mutual confession of “our Father.” He concludes that this silence should be interpreted as a deliberate distinction made by our Lord between His unique status before the Father, and that of His disciples. See I. Howard Marshall, “The Divine Sonship of Jesus,” in Jesus the Saviour (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity, 1990), 136.
32. Dalman gives helpful clarification to the distinction: “[T]he heir to the throne after coming into possession, may well enough entrust to others the authority of government ... but they do not thereby become what He is. Their dignity remains ever dependent upon His.” See Gustaf Dalman, “The Son of God,” in The Words of Jesus (Reprint; Minneapolis, Minnesota: Klock & Klock, 1981), 282.
33. This in turn involves the tension between the already-not yet as it relates to the consummation of our filial privileges within the age to come (cf. Rom. 8:10–25 and 1 John 3:1–2).