God's Fullness
GOD AS FATHER

Part I – The Father As God
Introduction
God will be to us either a compassionate father or a consuming fire.

Two developments in recent years have caused concern in the field of biblical studies. They frequently go hand in hand and both touch on the subject we are preparing to examine. Therefore, a few words need to be said about these developments as a preliminary to our present topic.

The first development falls within the area of biblical translation. Anyone who has attempted to do serious translation knows there is some truth in the old adage: "Every translation is an interpretation." We run into problems when we try to bring an ancient text into a modern language. For example: The English translators of the Elizabethan era felt at ease in translating ta splagchna as "the bowels." However, approximately four hundred years later, translators are convinced the translation is better served with the words "the hearts," as in Philemon, verse 7. In each case a metonymy is involved. At the time of the KJV (1611), the "bowels" were thought to be the seat of the emotions. In modern times, the "heart" seems more appropriate. In this passage, "the bowels of the saints" and "the hearts of the saints" are attempts to convey the idea of how Christians have been refreshed. We can understand and appreciate this kind of translation challenge.

However, when translators decide that "meaning" must take priority over "words," the result may easily become mere paraphrase under the guise of translation. This raises legitimate concern. For example: en de te mia ton sabbaton = "on the first [day] of the week" (Acts 20:7). This is indicated in a number of versions. However, the NEB reads "on the Saturday night . . ." The reasoning for this change is logical, but it is not at all conclusive. There is no justification for altering the plain words of the text when there are no ambiguities or variants to create textual problems.¹

The second development falls within the area of cultural influence and follows on the heels of the "open translation" practice mentioned previously. We refer to the feminist movement. As with most significant changes, the feminist movement of our time has helped to correct many inequities, giving rise to abuses as well.

In the area of biblical studies, feminism has merged with liberation theology, resulting in some amazing and disconcerting "translations" of the Bible. For example, the New Revised Standard Version is a meticulous version. It is obvious that the translators have a high view of the Bible as the Word of God, yet they consistently translate the Greek word adelphoi, which means "brethren" or "brothers," as "brothers and sisters." Since these translations are in the contexts where the generic term adelphoi includes "sisters," one may wonder wily the translators wanted to place in the text the phrase "brothers and sisters" while stating in a footnote that the Greek text means "brothers." Should not the translation of the text carry what the text says and let paraphrasing and explanation be in the footnotes? In spite of an explanatory paragraph in the preface of the NRSV, it seems to me that the translators have yielded to the climate of the times in biblical studies and have cast a shadow on what otherwise is a commendable work.

These comments have been made in order to alert the reader to the fact that "gender" has become a topic to be included in any discussion of God as Father. This has not been a pressing problem in ages past. Now that a furor has been raised by liberal theologians and the feminist movement objecting to the exclusive use of the term Father for God and other "gender" matters, it is time to examine the issue.²

With these considerations in mind, we will now look at God as "Father" and see how important it is for each of His children to embrace this relationship with Him.

How Is God Our Father?
Introduction
The very essence of God is pneuma, meaning "spirit." "Spirit" is neuter in Greek, which means that the word has neither male nor female connotations. Jesus said that we "must worship pneumati" or "in spirit" (without regard to gender) (John 4:24). This reminds us of Paul's great affirmation concerning the baptized ones: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28; emphasis mine).

It may seem a bit strange to speak of gender without including the idea of sex-that is, male and female. However, this is common in Greek and many other languages. For example: I remember my initial encounter with this linguistic trait years ago when I first started studying German. I was astounded to learn that der Loffel (masculine gender) means "spoon," die Gabel (feminine gender) means "fork," and das Messer (neuter gender) means "knife"! Of course, these are grammatical genders; they have nothing to do with maleness or femaleness. How is it, then, that we refer to God as Father? The answer lies in two directions.

An Eternal Father
We go directly to the internal relations within the Godhead. Here we find one answer to our question in the essential nature of God. He is a Triune God, Whose essence is spirit, in whom there are three Persons. The eternal God is the eternal Father, the eternal Son, and the eternal Spirit. Therefore, God is first spoken of as Father, because as Father, He is in eternal relationship with His "only begotten Son" (John 3:16). There has always been God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit. God the Son is not a created being. God the Spirit proceeds from God the Father and is sent by God the Son (John 15:26).

All of this means that there never was an occasion in eternity when God "needed" a female consort in order to "produce-create" a prodigy. Such crude concepts are rooted in paganism and mythology.³ The idol male and female gods of fertility among the Canaanites were denounced and legislated against in the Hebrew Bible.⁴

How, then, is it possible to refer to God as Father? We do so because He is eternally Father by spiritual nature in the Godhead. As in essence He is spirit, in person He is Father.

A Creative Father
The second direction we take to probe the question of the Fatherhood of God goes outside the internal nature of the Godhead. As we proceed, we must keep in mind that although the distinction of Persons is seen in the Trinity, the unity of their work is apparent in what they have done and are doing. Three examples help to clarify this point. Creation is the first example (Genesis 1:1-2; John 1:1-3; Hebrews 1:1-3a). It is the work of God in totality – the Trinity. Revelation is the second example (Galatians 1:12; Ephesians 3:2-6). It, too, is the work of God in totality – the Trinity. Atonement is the third example. The work of God in totality – the Trinity – is also seen here (Hebrews 9:14, 10:3-10).

While more examples could be noted, these are enough to illustrate that God is "entirely" involved in all His work. God the Father is not solely involved in creation, revelation, and atonement. The distinctiveness of the roles of the Persons in these works does not nullify their unity in the works but enhances it. For example, in the overall plan of redemption, God the Father sent God the Son to die on the cross for the sins of the world. However, God the Father did not die on the cross; nor did He suffer on the cross. God the Father sent God the Son to die for us. After the Son's burial and resurrection, God the Father gave Him all authority and power, exalting Him to His right hand (Matthew 28:18; John 3:16; Acts 2:23-33).

After looking "within" at the works of the Godhead, what do we conclude about God as Father? He is eternally Father, not because of sexual orientation or masculinity but by divine nature. His work of creation is not exclusively the work of God the Father, but of God in totality. Then, by appropriation – participation – we find Him taking a unique role in the affairs and destiny of humanity.

In light of this, it is obvious that the term Father for God is not evidence that the ancients were chauvinistic.⁵ As we said earlier, idolatrous and pagan societies usually perceived their gods as males and females. Many, if not most, of their cultic practices were fertility rites. Male gods and their consorts romped about with wild abandon. These rituals were alluring to the Israelites at times, as the Old Testament repeatedly shows. After all, their God was invisible and austere compared to the vivid displays they observed among the people around them.

Therefore, it is incorrect to claim that when the Israelites called their God "Father" it somehow reflected the tenor of the times. He is the one true and living God: "Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!" (Deuteronomy 6:4). There was no polytheism, no mother god. These prohibitions were pressed upon them by law. The religious conventions of other nations called for male gods and female gods but not the revealed religion of Israel. In fact, there is not even a separate Hebrew word for "goddess" in the entire Hebrew Bible.⁶

To claim that a "patriarchal complex" caused God to end up being called Father instead of Mother cuts across the abundance of evidence, both biblical and nonbiblical. That claim also denies the accuracy of the Scriptures as a true revelation of God. When people advocate that the Lord's Prayer be discontinued on the grounds that it is addressed to "our Father" it is a sad commentary on our time, not on biblical times.

A Universal Father
We have already spoken of God as Father in the relationship of Persons in the eternal Trinity Now, as we consider God as Father, we look back upon the extensive historical revelation of God to His people – the Bible. Here we find that God is revealed as Father in three different ways. All of these are important; all are distinctive.

The first wav we note is that God is universal Father by nay of His creation. Since we have seen that all three Persons of the Trinity were engaged in creation, we are now reminded that by appropriation the Father's role in creation is stressed. (In like fashion all three Persons are engaged in the overall work of redemption, but only in His appropriation of the Redeemer role do we see God the Son paying the redemption price.) The Father relationship of God to His creation arises from His creative work. Humanity is seen as the crowning creation, because in the human race the image and likeness of God are implanted (Genesis 1:26-27).

The power displayed in God's creative work assures Him of Lordship over all of His creation. Many Bible passages reflect this combination of Creator-Father and Power-Lord. They assert a close relationship between the universal Fatherhood of God and His creation:

"Just as a father has compassion on his children so the Lord has compassion on those who fear Him, for He Himself knows our frame; He is mindful that we are but dust. . . . The Lord has established His throne in the heavens; and His sovereignty rules over all" (Psalm 103:13-14, 19).

God is Father in His compassion toward man as He rules over His creation. The universal Fatherhood of God was recognized in Paul's address to pagan philosophers at the meeting of the Areopagus in Athens. He quoted one of their own poets, who said of God, "We also are His offspring." (See Acts 17:24-29, esp. 28.) If we are the offspring of God, He is our Father. This has reference to all people. Thus, by creation, God is universal Father of everyone.

It is interesting to read of Adam's line: "In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created" (Genesis 5:1b, 2). However, in the New Testament, the language used to describe this creation is found in the final statement of Jesus' (reverse) genealogy as "the son of Adam, the son of God" (Luke 3:37d; emphasis added). God's creation of Adam (man) is seen as a "fatherly" role. As the Father of the original man, He is the Father of all mankind.

A Selective Father
God is also selective Father by way of His promise/covenant. A passage from Malachi gives us a transition of thought from God as universal Father by creation to God as selective Father by promise/covenant. God said that His covenant with His people was a covenant "of life and peace." He also said, "You have turned aside from the way . . . you are not keeping My ways." Then Malachi made a plea to the Jews based upon a universal truth: "Do we not all have one father? Has not one God created us? Why do we deal treacherously each against his brother so as to profane the covenant of our fathers?"⁷ (Malachi 2:5-10, esp. v. 10). Malachi was reasoning with the people upon the basis of two overarching principles: God is Father because He is Creator; God is Father of Israel because of His covenant with them.

God as selective Father by way of promise/covenant is a major theme of the Old Testament. We should see an important development taking place. God as universal Father by way of creation was sufficient grounds for man to have full fellowship with God so long as sin did not cause a separation from God. In his pure state Adam was, as we have seen, "a son of God." When man sinned, he was separated from God. From then on, throughout all history, God as universal Father by way of creation has not been sufficient grounds for full fellowship with God.

Through God's initiative, Abram was called to His service and encouraged by God's promises (Genesis 12:1-3) and covenant (Genesis 17:1-2). So were his son Isaac and his grandson Jacob (Israel) (Genesis 26:2-5, 35:9-12). Were these actions of God the work of God the Father? Yes indeed. Even before the Law was given to His people, beginning at Sinai, God acknowledged Israel as His first-born son (Exodus 4:22). The people called by God were aware that they were selected from among all others to be His people upon the basis of-their faithfulness to the covenant (Exodus 19:3-6).

As time passed, the people entered Canaan. They had judges for leaders. Eventually, kingship was established. Amid the glitter, pomp, and power of the reigns of David and Solomon, God reminded them that He was their Father. God said to David concerning his son Solomon, ". . . I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me . . ." (2 Samuel 7:12-14; see 1 Chronicles 28:4-7). The psalmist sang praises to God concerning these glorious times of Davidic kingship, the covenant, and David's acknowledgment of God as His Father and recorded what God said about His relationship to David: "He will cry to Me, `Thou art my Father, my God, and the rock of my Salvation.' I also shall make him My first-born . . ." (Psalm 89:24-29).

Many of the prophets stressed the Father/children relationship of God with His chosen people. This was often done in terms of reprimand when the people were not loyal to God, the Father. Once, when they complained and questioned God's method of delivering them by using the Persian king Cyrus, His sharp reply through Isaiah was: "Woe to him who says to a father, 'What are you begetting?' or to a woman, 'To what are you giving birth?'" (Isaiah 45:9-11). (It is interesting that Paul used this Scripture for a similar reason in Romans 7:14-24.)

These passages show that the relationship of God as selective Father with His people includes Lordship on His part and servanthood on their part. This brings into sharp relief God's view of His people when they became idolatrous. It was shameful when they said to wood, "You are my father," and to stone, "You gave me birth" (Jeremiah 2:26-28). Their rebellion and unfaithfulness to His will was described as dishonoring the Lord of Hosts as Father, showing no fear to Him as Master (Malachi 1:6).

Overall, the prophets kept proclaiming that God was not only the God of their forefathers, such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but also always the Father of His chosen people, the one and only living God upon whom they can depend: "For Thou art our Father, though Abraham does not know us, and Israel does not recognize us. Thou, O Lord, art our Father, our Redeemer from of old is Thy name" (Isaiah 63:16). They also acknowledged, "But now, O Lord, Thou art our Father, we are the clay, and Thou our potter; and all of us are the work of Thy hand" (Isaiah 64:8).

In spite of the famine, pestilence, punishment, rebellion, captivity, idolatry, warfare, etc., that marked much of Israel's eventful history; God, the selective Father, always acknowledged Himself as their Father (Jeremiah 31:9d). He remained faithful to His promise/covenant and continued to hold out forgiving arms to His beloved children. One of the most poignant passages in the Old Testament describes God's unrequited love for His wayward children:

"When Israel was a youth I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son. The more they [God's prophets] called them, the more they went from them; they kept sacrificing to the Baals and burning incense to idols. Yet it is I who taught Ephraim to walk. I took them in My arms; but they did not know that I healed them. I led them with cords of a man, with bonds of love, and I became to them as one who lifts the yoke from their jaws; and I bent down and fed them" (Hosea 11:1-4).

God as Our Spiritual Father
Introduction
We have analyzed how God may be seen as eternal Father (in the Godhead), universal Father (in creation), and selective Father (in His promise/covenant). Now we will begin a study of God's work as spiritual Father.

The Problem of Separation
As universal Father, God was in full fellowship with man until sin marred that relationship. God did not act arbitrarily when He sent Adam and Eve out of the garden and away from the tree of life. This condition of separation was because of God's nature and their sinful state. God is absolutely holy; they became sinful (unholy). Once sin appeared, the separation was inevitable. It was preceded by a warning and followed by a promise (Genesis 2:17, 3:15). What we read in Genesis 3 is the way the separation was carried out by an all-wise and loving God. This separation was not automatic annihilation; it was the certain consequence of sin. Sin creates a barrier over which we cannot climb (Isaiah 59:1-2). In fact, "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23a). This principle operates through the ages as we follow the way God has dealt with the presence of sin in man.

The first era began with the creation of humans in God's image. It continued uninterrupted until they became sinful. We tend to think of the period between creation and the fall as relatively brief, perhaps because it is covered in the first three chapters of Genesis. Actually, we know no more about the length of their tenure in the garden than we do about the time of the second coming of Christ – and for the same reason: we are not told. After their expulsion from the garden, God continued to be concerned about their destiny. However, the fellowship between God and His human creation took on a different character. Before Adam and Eve sinned, it had been direct, "conversational," immediate. After they sinned, individuals began to offer sacrifices to God and call on His name (Genesis 4:3-4, 26b). In other words, sin had separated, but God had not annihilated. God continued to be the universal Father of humanity, but that relationship was not sufficient for them to have full fellowship with God because of their sinful state.

The Process of Preparation
As God began the selective process by way of His promise/covenant, this did not mean that He ceased to be universal Father. However, His continued activity shows that He did not consider His universal Fatherhood grounds for the survival of humanity. Therefore, based upon His early promise in Genesis 3:15, He began to deal with the human race through promise and covenant to Noah:

"And behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish. But I will establish MY covenant with you; and you shall enter the ark – you and your sons and your wife, and your sons' wives with you" (6:17-18).

"Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the Lord smelled the soothing aroma; and the Lord said to Himself, "I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done" (8:20-21).

"Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saving, 'Now behold, I Myself do establish My covenant with you, and with your descendants after you; and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you; of all that comes out of the ark, even every beast of the earth. And I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the mater of a flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth.' And God said, 'This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all successive generations; I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth'" (9:8-13).

The import of this promise/covenant was that God would never again destroy humankind as He had done in the flood. Therefore, it is obvious that this benefit from God to His creation had reference to the physical life of humans. It was a grand and gracious commitment by the universal God. It was good news; it was unconditional. It is "everlasting." Today we may rest assured that as long as the Earth lasts God will not sweep us away in such a wholesale fashion as He did in the deluge catastrophe. Although the physical survival of humanity is not the ultimate survival, it did set the historical stage upon which God would launch His majestic role as selective Father.

We see how God's providence unfolded as He chose a particular people through whom He would proceed with His historical saga of retrieving sinful mankind. This process started with Abram, the Hebrew.⁸ God promised Abraham His blessing, a great name, and land. God also promised that through him all nations would be blessed or bless themselves. This great multiple promise was sealed by covenant. Abraham received all these favors with complete trust in God, and God viewed Abraham's faith as righteousness. It should be emphasized that it was God's plan that eventually, through Abraham's seed, all nations would be blessed.

After the descendants of Abraham had reached millions in number, they were given a law. God's chosen people were called Israelites by the time they received the Law at Sinai. Jacob, Abraham's grandson, had his name changed to Israel. His descendants who received the Law at Sinai were called the twelve tribes of Israel, or Israelites. The law God gave to the Israelites through Moses, beginning at Sinai, was specifically for them. This was another step in the work of the selective Father. They were His chosen people; the law of Moses was God's law for them. God did not choose them because they were "special" people among the peoples of the Earth. Rather, it was God's selection of them that made them His chosen ones through whom He would fulfill the promise made to their forefathers – Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Deuteronomy 9:4-5).

Again, we stress the overlapping feature of His unfolding plan. Although He is now seen as selective Father, He reveals Himself as being concerned for everyone. This concern for all, even while God is carrying out His selective process through one nation, may be illustrated from three major areas.

The first major area is that of law. Three examples will suffice. The first example falls in the area of legal ethics. The Israelites were not to oppress or mistreat the resident aliens among them (Exodus 22:21, 23:9; Leviticus 19:33). The second example has to do with benevolence. At harvest time they were to leave some grapes on the vines and all that fell to the ground for the poor and the aliens to gather (Leviticus 19:10). The third example shows that God was indeed concerned for all people and that He required reverence from everyone:

". . . the one who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him. The alien as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death. . . . There shall be one standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the Lord your God" (Leviticus 24:16, 22).

The second major area in which we see God's concern for all people is history. Every Bible reader is familiar with the story of Jonah. Even before we could read, most of us had heard about Jonah and the big fish that swallowed him. He lived in a village near Nazareth during the eighth century b.c. At that time, Jeroboam II was king of Israel. Jonah was sent by God to Nineveh, the capital of the Assyrian Empire, to preach a message of destruction because the people were so wicked. Although he was reluctant to go, he eventually yielded to God's commission and preached in the city: The implied condition of repentance to escape God's wrath was sensed by the Ninevites. They repented and prayed to God; therefore, they were spared.

The first area shows how God provided for the welfare of people who were not of God's chosen nation. They could voluntarily place themselves under the Law, observe its precepts, and receive its benefits. By doing this they were expressing their belief in the God of Israel-Yahweh.

The second area shows that God even provided a message of hope to those who were not under the Law as Israelites or as resident aliens. The Assyrians were spared because they believed God and responded to His proclaimed Word (Jonah 3:5, 10). It is easy to forget that a large majority of the Earth's population that existed throughout the ages we have been studying were in the same category as the Assyrians. They had to answer to God upon the basis of what they knew. In other words, these large numbers of people were part of the Gentile world spoken of by Paul:

"For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus" (Romans 2:14-16; for the larger context, read Romans 1:18-2:16).

God does, indeed, love his human family as universal Father, while at the same time being the selective Father of the Hebrews through whom He performed His wondrous work.

The third major area in which we see God's concern for all people is prophecy. As God led His chosen people, He began to open their eyes slowly to the future through His Word. He had faithfully kept the promises He had made to His people at the time He chose them. These promises, formalized by covenant, were largely temporal and conditional in nature. Most of them were not designed to be eternal or irrevocable. For example, God chose Abraham to be the "father of the Hebrew nation." God's choice was expressed by promise (Genesis 12:1-3). However, conditions were attached; there was a covenant to keep. "God said further to Abraham, `Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations"' (Genesis 17:9; emphasis added). Circumcision was the sign of the covenant. Abraham trusted God completely. When Abraham had stood the testing of his faith, God said to him, "In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice" (Genesis 22:18; emphasis mine).

The law of Moses was part of God's promise/covenant relationship with His people, beginning at Sinai. Even though it was in the form of law, it, too, contained promises. These promises to God's chosen people were not designed to be eternal or unconditional. For example, one of the commandments carried this earthly promise: "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the Lord your God gives you" (Exodus 20:12; emphasis mine). Many examples could be added. For the sake of vividness and clarity, let us refer to the great covenant presentation scenes found in Deuteronomy 26:16-30:20. Here we see the full relationship of promise/covenant/law on God's part and trust/obedience on the part of His people. We also see the utter devastation of those who fail to keep this relationship. Again, this emphasizes the material nature of most of the blessings that accrued to the Israelites.

All of the preceding ideas do not imply that God's people were totally unaware of life beyond the grave or of blessings God could bestow that would extend into the "afterlife." Still, it is surprising to find how rarely these concepts were expressed, especially if one does not turn to the words of the prophets.

We find King David praying for his sick child born to Bathsheba. After the child died, David expressed a desire to worship. His attendants were astonished. His explanation to them was, ". . . now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me" (2 Samuel 12:23; emphasis mine). Although this is not an irrefutable example of a belief in life after death, it is assumed to be by various commentators.⁹ However, many interpreters doubt that David expected to join his child in a living state.¹⁰ So, at best, this is an ambiguous example of belief in life after death, especially since no idea of resurrection is expressed.

There are other statements outside the prophetic writings that are often viewed as life after death affirmations. However, most of them are debated among exegetical scholars. One such text is Psalm 16:9-11.¹¹ Another is Psalm 73:24-26.¹² Also, Job 14:7-14 is considered by many to be evidence of Job's belief in life after death. This passage, too, is contested among the interpreters.¹³

However, there is clear-cut teaching found in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) nonprophetic writings asserting afterlife. For example: "God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol; for He will receive me" (Psalm 49:15).¹

As we turn to the prophetic writings, two statements will be emphasized. The first one is: "Your dead will live; their corpses will rise. You who lie in the dust, awake and shout for joy For your dew is as the dew of the dawn, and the earth will give birth to the departed spirits" (Isaiah 26:19). This verse is in a context that deals with the deliverance of the Jews from Babylonian Captivity and their return to their homeland. For them, this implied a new setting, life, freedom, and a fresh relationship with their God in His temple. This wonderful news was presented by analogy of a bodily resurrection. We realize that Isaiah's analogy of resurrection to describe the overall revival of God's people would be meaningless at best and misunderstood or misleading at worst, if his readers either had no concept of resurrection or did not believe in resurrection. Thus we have here, by analogy, a belief in bodily resurrection so strong that hope may be based upon that faith.

The second reference is: "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. And those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever" (Daniel 12:2, 3). This passage emphasizes four major teachings:

1. For many, the resurrection will result in everlasting life.

2. For others, it will bring shame and eternal contempt.

3. The wise ones will "stand out" in the heavenly realm.

4. The evangelistic ones will survive forever and ever, along with those whom they have led to righteousness.

Conservative biblical scholarship holds that Isaiah was written during the late eighth and early seventh centuries b.c. and Daniel was written in the sixth century b.c. At a relatively late date, measured from the time of Abraham's call, God began to speak prophetically about a bodily resurrection of the dead that would be a great blessing to many. As this grand vista opened up, the time came for God to fulfill His role as spiritual Father.

The Progress of Revelation
We have looked at God as eternal Father (in the Godhead), universal Father (in creation), and selective Father (in promise/covenant). We have seen how His role of universal Father overlapped His role of selective Father, and we briefly mentioned how His role of spiritual Father overlapped that of selective Father. We now turn to a more detailed study of God as spiritual Father.

Although God's plan unfolded in historical epochs with some overlapping, it is, in fact, one great plan presented on the stage of history. A relay race provides a good illustration. While a relay race is actually one race, there is some "overlapping" in each segment as one runner passes the baton to the next team member. Even so, God, in His three Persons, is involved in all phases of His great plan. We have been emphasizing the central role that God the Father has in the plan, but this emphasis is not to minimize the work of God in His totality.

We are aided immeasurably in our study by what we call God's progressive revelation. This has already come before us in our tracing of the subject of resurrection. Apparently, in its early development, the idea of life after death did not necessarily involve a bodily resurrection. This seems to be the case from the ambiguity that surrounds the use of the word Sheol in the Hebrew Bible.¹⁵ However, as we have seen in the prophetic books of Isaiah and Daniel, straightforward statements affirmed a bodily resurrection of the dead. This growing awareness was not the result of a superior intellect on the part of either Isaiah or Daniel. As God's prophets, they received God's revelation.

God's progressive revelation occurs in another wav that is pertinent to our study. Notice the reference to "a prophet" as Moses spoke to the people God's words:

"The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him. . . .I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And it shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him" (Deuteronomy 18:15-19).

In its context, this passage likely referred to the authoritative voice of God spoken by His servants, the prophets, that would ring across the centuries through men like Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Amos. However, by God's progressive revelation we find in the New Testament that embedded in this prophecy was an additional meaning that would emerge at the proper time. Peter explained to a crowd composed of "men of Israel" that Moses had also spoken of Jesus, the Messiah, as the authoritative prophet who would be raised up.¹⁶

The import of these two examples of progressive revelation found in the Bible has a direct bearing on our study. First, we see that God had an overall plan for us all along. It was not a piecemeal, crisis-centered, decision-making operation on God's part. Second, we are grateful that we are able to observe the marvelous unfolding of God's plan in its fullness as it has been made apparent to us in His Word.

The coming of Jesus the Messiah into the world had ample publicity Moses made reference to Him as the authoritative One. Messianic passages appear often in the Hebrew Bible.¹⁷ The word Messiah (Hebrew: mashiah; Greek: Christos) means "anointed".¹⁸

The psalmist spoke of God's anointing the king of Israel with the "oil of joy":

Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Thy kingdom.
Thou has loved righteousness, and hated wickedness;
Therefore God, Thy God, has anointed Thee
With the oil of joy above Thy fellows. (Psalm 45:6-7)

By the phenomenon of progressive revelation we find that this passage is used to indicate God's selection of His Son as the Messiah (Hebrews 1:8-9).

Exactly what did the Father select or "anoint" His Son to do? The answer to that question is one of the most significant statements ever made. In John 3:16-17, we find the answer stated: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him." In 1 Timothy 1:15 Paul gave us this truth with "a trustworthy statement deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all."

Have you ever thought about the complexity of God's plan of redemption? Have you wondered why He did not just wipe man out of existence when he sinned – or why He did not go ahead and save man and have it done? Why has His plan been in effect from ages past? It seems almost ridiculous to suggest that the difficulties suggested by these questions arise because of the very nature of God and humankind – but it is true.

Let us notice some major developments in the relationship between God and humanity. God is loving, holy, just, gracious, and forgiving. His human creation was created pure and holy – like God. God's creation of man and woman was a love act, and love always seeks response – not out of obligatory love but out of reciprocal love. For human beings' response of love for God to be real, they had to have an option. They had to be able to choose to love and gladly yield to God's will; otherwise, their relationship could not have been a loving or godly one. They made the wrong choice when they decided to satisfy themselves instead of God. This caused a breach between God and humans because of the very nature of God's holiness and their sinfulness.

In His loving nature, God reached out to the "separated ones" to bring them back to a mutually loving relationship. However, this had complicating elements. God could not receive them back in their sinful state, because He is absolutely pure. Absolute purity cannot mix with impurity. God could not simply forgive their sins, because He is absolutely just. Sin has its price. Justice demands it.

The wisdom of the omniscient God is seen in His solution to this seemingly insurmountable dilemma. It unfolds in the pages of the Bible and spreads over thousands of years. As we have studied, we have seen Him calling a special people through whom all nations would be blessed. We have marveled as we watched how those people turned to idolatry, tested His love, violated His laws. We have been amazed at His extensive patience and longsuffering. He kept calling them back through His prophets. Through them He kept reminding the people of the coming Messiah, Who would bring blessings to all people.

God was preparing the way for the Ultimate Solution. It was not an easy solution, but it was the only solution that would not violate any of the attributes of an absolutely pure, just, loving God. His solution was the only solution that would permit humans to be reconciled to Him in a pure state.

We have noted that as selective Father God gave precious promises of many blessings to His chosen people. He spoke prophetically of a Messiah who would eventually come through the seed of Abraham and through whom all nations would be blessed. Therefore, it is obvious that God had planned another role for Himself in His effort to reconcile the human race to Him. We know that God's role as universal Father in creation was not sufficient for salvation, because He became selective Father of a people to prepare the way for a time when His blessings of salvation would be available to all humankind. Therefore, neither His works as universal Father nor His works as selective Father were meant by Him to be the ultimate solution.

The Plan of Redemption
God's ultimate solution became a historical reality when He, as spiritual Father, offered His Son on the cross as a pure, priceless, perfect sacrifice for the sins of all humanity. This sacrifice is difficult to discuss. It has features that we can state but cannot comprehend. It shows a love with dimensions we cannot grasp. It illustrates the power and horror of sin as God sees it, in contrast to the human view that sees sin as a personality defect. It impresses us with the grim realism of God's determination to be faithful to His promises. It shatters our egotistical inclination to work our way out of our sin somehow. It makes us stand in wonder at the integrity of a Father Who offers His Son as a sacrifice so He may remain pure and just and still forgive the sins of those who accept and submit themselves to that Son.

This close affinity of the spiritual Father with His Son is spelled out in great detail in Scripture. We read that "when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons" (Galatians 4:4-5). The incredible virgin birth of Jesus to Mary was the way God's Son was "born of a woman." Mary was told by the angel, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35).¹⁹

Jesus not only was born during the time the law of Moses was in effect but also lived His life under that law. However, with His sacrificial death He "canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross" (Colossians 2:14; see Hebrews 10:5-10).

Not only was the sacrifice of Christ the fulfillment of the old law, but it was also the means of redemption for those who had lived faithfully under it. We read: "And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance" (Hebrews 9:15). Also, this offering was made "that we might receive the full rights of sons" (Hebrews 12:7-11).

As we study the earthly life of Jesus, we are impressed with His close relationship with His heavenly Father. Even as a child, Jesus was aware that He must be engaged in His Father's work (Luke 2:29). At the inauguration of Jesus into His personal ministry at His baptism, His Father was very attentive. He announced His love for His Son and His pleasure in Him (Matthew 3:17). At the transfiguration of Jesus, the voice of His Father again stressed His love for and pleasure in His son – with the added emphasis: "Listen to Him!" (Matthew 17:5).

Jesus' prayers reveal to us the close bond He had with His Father. Jesus' most extensive recorded prayer shows His glorious presence with the Father before creation and how He had glorified the Father on the Earth. He spoke of the eternal love His Father has for Him and of His desire for that love to be also in His followers (John 17, note vv. 5, 24, 26). Jesus prayed that His Father's will be done even in His most intensive experiences. As He approached His death on the cross, He prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as Thou wilt" (Matthew 26:39). While hanging on the cross, He prayed, "Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing." Then, as He died, His final words were: "Father, into Thy hands I commit My spirit" (Luke 23:34, 46). We learn that God was indeed the spiritual Father of Jesus Christ.

Although Jesus fulfilled the old covenant (law) of Moses and established a new testament by His death, He lived and died under the old covenant. This means that as a Jew of the human kingly lineage of David (Luke 3:23-31), who "was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24), He was teaching and preaching to His own people who were under the law of Moses. (Occasionally Jesus responded when Gentiles approached Him [e.g., Matthew 15:21-28].) Much of His teaching about the Father, therefore, was to a people who knew God as selective Father. He often spoke to them about God as "your Father" (Matthew 5:16, 45, 48, 10:29).

As we have seen, God was opening up a far more comprehensive era in His dealings with sinful humanity. The time had "fully come" for everyone to have the opportunity to ,know God as spiritual Father through His Son, Jesus Christ. Therefore, it is not surprising to find that Jesus spoke to His disciples about His Father's will for them and the importance of observing that will (Matthew 7:21). He stressed this obedience to the Father as basic to the family relationship with God as Father and Himself as Brother (Matthew 12:48-50). The Father will not allow this family circle to be broken by intruders (Matthew 15:13).

Jesus often spoke of God as His Father. He stressed this to His followers with a specific possessive pronoun: "My Father!" (Matthew 18:35, 20:23; emphasis added). He even taught them: "Everyone therefore who shall confess Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 10:32-33). Teachings like these – and there were many – should have alerted His disciples, and especially His apostles, that there was something unique in the way He referred to God as His Father.

Early on, Mary, the mother of Jesus, knew "the secret." She was aware of His divine origin. She certainly knew the factual nature of His miraculous birth. Joseph, her husband, being a righteous man, was very discreet about Mary's pregnancy. Also, when Jesus was of tender age she heard Him speak of His Father without reference to Joseph. "And His mother treasured all these things in her heart" (Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-38; 2:41-52).

Perhaps Jesus' followers did sense a unique relationship between Him and His Father. However, the awareness seems to have been slow in coming. After all, did they not also have God as their Father? Had not God called Israel His Son? (Jeremiah 31:9). Could they not address God as "Our Father" just as Jesus had taught? (Matthew 6:9ff.). Yes, they could, and they did.

We have studied the Hebrew Bible concerning the Israelites' view of God as their Father. We also know that the Judaism of Jesus' day reflected an intimate concept of God as Father. For example, included in their daily prayers was the plea:

"Forgive us, O Father, for we have sinned against Thee, wipe out and remove our iniquities from before Thine eves, for great is Thy mercy, Blessed be Thou, O God, Who forgivest abundantly."²⁰

However, the full impact of Jesus' unique Father/Son relationship with God was difficult for the Jews to grasp. How were they to know that Jesus, as the Son of God, was any different from others who were called sons of God? Hadn't great leaders before Jesus been called God's sons? (2 Samuel 7:14; Psalm 89:26-27). Yes. We should not be surprised, then, to learn that it took a revelation from God the spiritual Father for them to learn the "full truth."

The angelic messenger from God had told Joseph that the Virgin Mary would bear a child: "For that which has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins" (Matthew 1:20b-21). Thus the secondary fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy occurred: "The virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which translated means, "God with us" (Matthew 1:22-23; Isaiah 7:14). Jesus experienced a miraculous birth into the world and was to receive legitimate recognition as God! As we have said, at that time Mary kept many things in her heart.

If we take all of this as seriously as it is presented, we will realize how stupendous it is. The history of the world was veering off its expected course. Times were changing. A new and glorious epoch was in the making. It is difficult for mere mortals to relate to events of such magnitude. It is no small wonder that Jesus' entrance into history needed a divine explanation. Even that was slow to be recognized. After all, the people who struggled with the identity of Jesus while He was here on His great mission did not have the privilege, as we do, of opening the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to discern these magnificent truths.

We, however, can read that the Father persisted in unfolding the true nature of His Son. For example, there is truth in describing Jesus in the words of Nathanael: "Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel" (John 1:49). Jesus commended his sincerity – but do his words not smack of the old nationalism imbedded in the Jewish mindset of the times? Was Nathanael free from such influences?

The Jews yearned for a national revival and the glorious reign of a king whom they could look to as God's anointed, chosen Son, as their forefathers had enjoyed during the reigns of David and Solomon. The Jewish multitudes yearned for Jesus to be king (John 6:15).

On one occasion Jesus' power over death led the observers to a remarkable conviction. “A great prophet has arisen among us!” they said. “God has visited His people” (Luke 7:16). This was a great declaration made while they were filled with awe, but did this praise acknowledge Jesus as God? We must remember that the Israelites had seen God's visitation among them occurring in His words or His works, without implying the incarnation of God Himself.²¹ When Jesus forthrightly affirmed His deity, it elicited ridicule, contempt, and persecution from the religious leaders (John 8:42-59).

Nicodemus, a learned man, certainly spoke admiringly of Jesus when he said, "Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher, for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him" (John 3:2). As one "teacher" to another "Teacher," Nicodemus saw in the "signs" Jesus performed evidence of God's power and blessing. Did Nicodemus see more? Not necessarily. We know, however, that God was building up to revealing the true nature of His Son. The progressive revelation of God continued.

In response to Jesus' query, Peter made the notable confession: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16). Was this confession more significant than those already mentioned? We know that it was pivotal. First, it was in direct response to Jesus' inquiry. Second, we are told that Peter was able to make the confession because it came as a revelation from Jesus' heavenly Father (Matthew 16:17). The truth of Jesus' full identity was latent in this confession.

We have some reasons for assuming that Peter himself was unaware of the full implications of the confession. Shortly after the confession we find him rebuking Jesus for teaching about His death and being sharply reprimanded! (Matthew 16:21-23). We also know it was not out of the question for Peter to make statements, even by inspiration, the significance of which he did not fully understand (Acts 2:39, 10:28-34). We know that Peter could speak rashly in times of excitement (Matthew 17:4-5; Mark 9:5-6; Luke 9:33). Even in a time of deep loyalty for his Master, Peter could utter a heartfelt conviction that would not stand up under stress (Matthew 26:33-35, 69-75). We conclude, therefore, that Peter probably did not realize the full significance of his true confession that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God.

Perhaps we should not be surprised that it was not until after the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus that human lips declared Him to be Immanuel. How ironic that this earthshaking truth was uttered by the very person who had been skeptical! Thomas had seen the power of Jesus. He had heard His unparalleled teachings. Thomas had enjoyed the privilege of observing His perfect, righteous living. He had seen His deep compassion for those in distress. Perhaps he had even heard Jesus Himself say that He was "I AM" (John 8:58).

It is probable that all of this came into focus in the mind of Thomas as he stood before the resurrected Jesus. What he saw was no longer framed in a statement, doctrine, or propositional truth for his consideration. He saw the crucifixion scars on the body of Jesus. He knew that he was looking at resurrection – and he knew that no one has power over death but God. Therefore, "Thomas answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and my God!"' (John 20:28; emphasis mine).

At last God, the spiritual Father, had made it clear. Jesus of Nazareth is His spiritual Son – Deity, in the flesh!

Footnotes:
¹ Cf. F.F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of the Acts (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1954), 407-8 plus notes, where we find: "The statement that at Troas the travelers and their fellow Christians dwelling in that part met together for the breaking of the bread `upon the first day of the week' is the earliest unambiguous evidence we have for the Christian practice of gathering for worship on that day. . . . This Sunday fell almost at the end of the travelers' week in Troas . . . They met in the evening. . . . [o]n Sunday evening, not Saturday evening."
<sup>2</sup> If one doubts the seriousness of this issue, he needs to read Barry Hoberman, "Translating the Bible," Atlantic Monthly (February 1985): 43-48, esp. 56-58.
<sup>3</sup> Will Durant, Our Oriental Heritage New York: Simon and Schuster, 1954), 60ff.; Edith Hamilton, Mythology (New York: New American Library of World Literature (Mentor Book], 1959), 24-28.
<sup>4</sup> Exodus 20:1-6; Deuteronomy 23:17; Judges 10:6-10; 1 Kings 11:4-5, 33; 2 Kings 21:3, 23:13. The Ashtoreth were often considered the female consorts of the Baals.
<sup>5</sup> That is, the reference to God as "Father" had no basis in a prejudicial belief that males were superior to females.
<sup>6</sup> English translations carry the term goddess at 1 Kings 11:5, 33, but this is by context identification, since Ashtoreth was the female god (goddess) of the Sidonians. The Hebrew at this point simply has 'elohe, which means "god(s) of," in identifying Ashtoreth, as it does when referring to the God of the Hebrews, for example, Genesis 26:24.
<sup>7</sup> For further comments, see Robert C. Dentan, "Malachi," in The Interpreter's Bible, vol. 6, ed. George Arthur Buttrick (Nashville: Abingdon, 1956), 1134.
<sup>8</sup> See Genesis 12:1-3, 13:14-17, 14:13, 15:1-6, 13-16, 17:1-4.
<sup>9</sup> John Peter Lange, "Samuel," in Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical Doctrinal and Homiletical, trans. and ed. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, n.d.), 475.
<sup>10</sup> E.g., John T. Willis, "First and Second Samuel," in The Living Word Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 6, ed. John T. Willis (Austin, TX: Sweet, 1982), 354. Also, Adam Clarke, "Joshua" and "Esther," in Clarke's Commentary, vol. 2. (New York-Nashville: Abingdon, n.d.), 339-40.
<sup>11</sup> William R. Taylor, exegete, and J. R. P. Sclater, expositor, "Psalms-Proverbs," in The Interpreter's Bible, vol. 4, George Arthur Buttrick, comm. ed. (New York-Nashville: Abingdon, 1955), 85-86.
<sup>12</sup> Anthony L. Ash, "Psalms," in The Living Word Commentary, vol. 10, ed. John T. Willis (Austin, TX: Sweet, 1980), 247-48. Here Ash brings out that the Hebrew word the psalmist uses to express his confidence that God will "receive" him with honor, or glory; is the same word used to describe the earthly departure of Enoch and Elijah (Genesis 5:24; 2 Kings 2:9). The word is laqach ("took").
<sup>13</sup> Clarke, "Job," in Clarke's Commentary: "Here is no doubt, but a strong persuasion, or the certainty of the general resurrection" 73. Cf. contra, Edwin M. Good, "Job," in Harper's Bible Commentary, James L. Mays, gen. ed. (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988), 415.
<sup>14</sup> "That is, by the plainest construction, I shall have a resurrection from the dead, and an entrance into his glory, and death shall have no dominion over me" (Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible With a Commentary and Critical Notes, vol. 3; Psalms [Nashville: Abingdon, n.d.], 377).
<sup>15</sup> She'ol is the "realm of the dead" (Merrill E. Unger and William White, Jr., eds., Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985), s.v. "death."
<sup>16</sup> Acts 3:17-23. Cf. Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, n.d.), 176-77.
<sup>17</sup> We have not mentioned many chapters in which Messianic references may be found. A few are listed here for further study: Psalms 2,16, 22, 110; Isaiah 2,7, 9, 40, 53; Jeremiah 23; Malachi 3, 4.
<sup>18</sup> The significance of the anointing process is seen when we read of the ancient practice of selecting kings. For example, Samuel indicated God's selection of Saul to be king over Israel when he "took the flask of oil, poured it on his head, kissed him and said, `Has not the Lord anointed you a ruler over His inheritance?"' (1 Samuel 10:1). Thus when we read of God's "anointed," we read of God's "selected" one.
¹⁹ Read Luke 1:26-37 for the full context.
²⁰ A. Hamman, Prayer: The New Testament, trans. Paul J. Oligny, based on the Palestinian version of "The Eighteen Benedictions" (Chicago: Franciscan Herald, 1971), 67-69.
²¹ 1 Kings 17:22-24; 2 Kings 4:32-36; Jeremiah 29:10. Also, concerning Luke 7:16, see H. Leo Boles, A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1940; reprint, 1959), 151. Boles said: "They at once recalled Elijah and Elisha and declared that a great prophet like these had arisen `among us,' and that God had visited his people again with a prophet."