| The Father-Son Relationship by Edward Byrd May 1957 |
| . |
| Introduction In speaking of God we refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- the Trinity. The word “Trinity” means “tri-unity,” three in one. It makes very poor arithmetic, hence does not appeal to men as a logical idea. For this reason many reject the so-called 'doctrine' of the Trinity of God. Jews reject “the trinity” because, as they say, ‘Shema, Yisrael, Adonai Elohenu, Adonai echad.’ “Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God, the Lord is One.” Thus they quote (Deut 6:4) and rest the force of “echad,” (one) here, not allowing the Christ to be God, not the existence of the Spirit God. It is blasphemy to ascribe Deity to Jesus. Thus the blindness of which Isaiah wrote, and to which Paul referred, is increased (Isa 29:10; Rom 11:8). They should know their own language, Hebrew, but though it is quoted and sung in their synagogues and temples every Friday evening (the Sabbath) and many other times, they still do not understand what they say. It is “vain repetition” to most of them. The first use of “echad” is (Gen 1:5), “The evening and the morning were the first day.” A plurality of parts make up this day-unit: the evening and the morning. Another example is seen in (Gen 2:24), “And they shall be one flesh.” Everyone knows that this refers to the two, the man and his wife. Note how Jesus quoted it (Mt 19:5), “They twain (two) shall be one flesh.” Another word designates the idea of a single one, but this word always has in it the primary idea of unity, harmony, agreement of parts. UNITIARIANS and similar unbelieving Christians (?) reject the teaching of ‘the Trinity’ through simple unbelief, discounting what is not logical to the natural mind, denying the infallibility of the Scriptures, setting up themselves as the judges of what shall be accepted and what shall be rejected. But most of the so-called ‘Christian world’ accepts the idea of a ‘Trinity of God,’ yet without understanding just what the distinction is which is manifested in the Personalities of the Godhead or Deity. Being quick to admit the mystery of this Truth, not able to understand the essence of God (who would want a God he could understand or know all about?), and having a Bible with facts of this Truth, let us look at it anew . . . God Represents Himself As Having Feelings Much as you or I, God speaks of being grieved, rejoicing, and doing other things involving certain emotions of which we are capable. Surely these are terms which accommodate God to our puny minds, so we can dimly conceive what He is like. Remembering that we are created in “His image” (Gen 1:26), we may understand that this means that we have certain mora1 sensibi1ities as He does, and we are able to discern, think, feel, choose, and experience fellowship. Only as these qualities in Him are given occasion to manifest themselves is He able to get most honor and glory to Himself. By creating angels who were able to appraise His holiness and understand His attributes He reaped much honor, for many of them worship Him day and night. But, since they were granted the capacity to choose, some of them chose to rebel against Him. God surely knew this would happen, but His wisdom allowed Him to go ahead with such creating anyway. Thus, with sin now entered into His realm, God may pronounce judgment, show forth [His] power, and demonstrate His Superiority. When man was created he was even more ‘like God’ than the angels [were]. He was in ‘His image.’ This enabled God to enjoy a fellowship, a communion with man, beyond that He could experience with the angels. It is a weak illustration, but you know how much more enjoyable is that communion with another human being than with a pet animal or bird. But again sin entered to mar this communion which Adam and Eve had enjoyed with their Lord. It is enough justification for the creation of man to know that God must have desired such communion. The whole bible is filled with teaching, which lets us know that He desires such communion. He WANTS to be adored, to be worshiped. And He wants to show His love, compassion, [and] His mercy. He desires to give and receive of those mutual qualities, which, apart from sin’s corrupting influence, man shares with Him. The Father-Son Relationship Illustrates Communion We love our wives, we love our neighbors, [and] we appreciate the companionship of others. But the relationship of parent and child perhaps best illustrates God’s present feelings toward certain men and they toward Him. Eventually the Husband-wife relationship shall come in for our consideration. The Old Testament introduces both these relationships but gives most prominence to the Father-Son relationship. Just what is the significance? We have already suggested the idea of fellowship, of communion, of love, etc. Other thoughts are associated with these certain words setting forth these ideas. We should not think of the comparatively negligible factor of progenitorship, or the “age” of the two, though this is prominent in human father-son relationships. This is in no wise true of God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ, though it is true that AS A MAN Jesus was begotten of the Holy Spirit and born in time. The birth-time factor is lacking, but the relationship otherwise is correct. 1] The teaching of the firstborn, or firstling, and the birthright. The fact that Abel brought the first-lings” of his flock to offer to God (Gen 4:4 --the same word rendered “birthright” most of the time) shows more than his willingness to give God the first and best of what was his; he evidently understood the idea of God’s desire for communion and His prior claims on His creatures. This understanding, born of faith, is what made his offering acceptable. One does not share the first and best except out of love and faith. The “firstborn,” the “firstfruits” of crops or animals, were claimed by the Lord. Even the first son in each family was specially marked as belonging to God. It was possible to forfeit this position, as we see in the case of Cain (to Seth), Esau (to Jacob), Reuben (to Joseph and Judah), or God could transfer the position where He pleased, as when He chose the tribe of Levi for the firstborn ones of Israel (Num 8:18). This again illustrates the fact that POSITION in this relationship is not dependent merely on the element of age or the accident of birth. 2] The blessing of the birthright. This seem to have come, in addition to the fellowship features (illustrated by Isaac and Esau, Jacob and Joseph), in three aspects: (1) The inheritance of the Father’s material substance or a major portion of it; (2) the responsibility, of being the “priest” or religious leader in the family (or tribe); and, connected with this last, (3) the “covenant” responsibilities and blessing. The case of the blessing of Jacob on the sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh, emphasizes the significance of the birthright (Gen 48:14; Heb 11:21), and particularly the case of the sale of his birthright by Esau (Gen 25:31-34; 27:19, 32, 36 f). This latter case specially emphasizes the “lordship” of the firstborn over the family (See 1 Chron 26:10; Gen 49:3). This is the reason for referring to the ancient men of faith as “patriarchs” or “father-chiefs.” They were heads over their father’s family and servants, to govern, and to be priest. Furthermore, the Covenant which God originally made with Abraham was specially confirmed to the “firstborn” and its promises or blessing were his peculiar privileges and responsibilities. Thus any but “profane” men guarded it jealously (see the case of Esau, Heb 12:16, 17). The “double portion” of the inheritance is illustrated in the instruction of (Deut 21:17), speaking of the son which might be born to the less-loved wife of a man with two wives: “He shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.” The priestly responsibility of the “firstborn” is particularly illustrated in the whole tribe of Levi being made a ‘priestly tribe’ and in the bringing of the firstling of all flocks and herds for sacrifice or for redemption (cf. Neh 10:36). All the firstborn were sanctified to the Lord (Ex 13:2, 13). The Reason for Hallowing the Firstborn God does not prescribe rituals merely for the sake of testing man’s obedience, though they do that. There are practical values, real lessons. The laws of separation (Deut 22:9-12) were most valuable in instructing the people of their own POSITION before God. Israel was constantly reminded of their POSITION. They were not merely to remember that God smote the “firstborn” in Egypt when they did not let Israel go (Ex 13: 15), but they were to remember WHY He smote the firstborn of the Egyptians and DELIVERED Israe1 (Num 3:13). They were His “holy people,” His firstborn. Thus did God call the nation of Israel His “FIRST-BORN” (Ex 4:22). He wanted them to be conscious of the SPECIAL PLACE they had in His affections. They were to be given a double portion, a land, a heavenly country, a city; they were to be made lords and be a “kingdom of priests” in an age to come (Ex 19:6) –the whole nation “shall be named the Priests of the Lord” (Isa 61:6); God shall even “take of (Gentiles) for priests and for Levites” (Isa 66:21); and “He hath remembered his Covenant for ever, the word which He made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; and confirmed unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting Covenant” (Ps 105:8-10). The sanctifying of the firstborn son, the offering of the firstborn animal, the sacrificing for the firstborn of the ass, the giving of the firstfruits of the field and of all the increase were all God’s reminders that He loved Israel as HIS FIRSTBORN and would give them a double portion, make them a ruling people, and magnify His mercies to them according to His oath-bound Covenant. “YE ARE GODS” The idea of "lordship": or rulership belonging to the firstborn, as a part of his birthright, is demonstrated in the designation applied to the rulers of Israel. Jesus made such an application, as we shall see. Jesus made the claim of unity with the Father, “I and my Father are one.” Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, “Many any good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?” The Jews answered him, saying, “For a good work we stone thee not; but for blas-phemy; and because thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, I said, ‘Ye are gods’? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe that the Father is in Me and I in him. Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand” (Jn. 10:30-9). On the surface it might appear that Jesus was “begging the question” as to His claim to being the Son of God by pointing to the same designation as applying to certain men. In (Ps 82:6) it says, “I have said ye are gods,” evidently a quotation. Note, it does not say, “I say,” but “I have said.” Where was it said? Jesus said, “In your law” (Jn 10:34). “Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people” (Ex 22:28). “Rulers” is evidently an echo of “gods.” Surely, in Exodus, they were not commanded not to revile idols, false gods, because (Deut 7:25) and other passages command the false gods, be burned. Hence, we conclude that (Jn 10:31) is a quotation from (Ex 22:28), the same as (Ps 82:6). The rulers of Israel were called “gods,” because of their exalted position in receiving the word of God and administering His righteousness. This explains how God can be called “God of gods and Lord of lords” (Deut 10:17; cf. Josh 22:22; Ps 136:2; Dan 11:36). The Psalmist vowed to sing praise to the Lord “before the gods.” He did not mean the idol gods, but in the presence of the ‘rulers of God’s people.’ God Himself “judgeth among the gods,” (Ps 82:1), but He certainly does not share His rule with idol gods. God shall share His rule with those set in position as co-heirs with His “unique” Son, Jesus Christ. It may well be that Paul has this in mind (1 Cor 8:5), “As there be gods many, and lords many,” though he contrasts these with the One Father and His Son, Christ. Thus the designation “gods” is a Scriptural term applied to those who shall share the rulership (“lordship”) with God in the kingdom, Such IDENTIFICATION, such POSITION, is involved in the “Father-son” relationship. Later we shall see how this relationship is attained. Messiah is the Firstborn “He shall cry unto me, Thou art My Father, My God, and the Rock of My salvation. Also I will make Him My firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth. My mercy will keep for Him for evermore, and my Covenant ‘shall stand fast with Him” (Ps 89:26-27). In the “double language” of prophecy and covenant this language speaks of Solomon, David’s son, but it most certainly looks far beyond to David’s greater Son, the Christ. Paul quotes this passage of the Christ (Heb 1:5), at the same time calling Him the “first begotten.” Just how can Israel be God’s “firstborn” if He has “made” Christ His “Firstborn?” For those hearts willing to learn from the lord, taking His very Word at face value, here is a most beautiful truth: God avows; BOTH Christ and Israel as His Firstborn. God expected Israel to call Him "'my Father', and not turn away from Him" (Jer 3:19), but, like a treacherous wife, they did not do it. He avouched His love for them again and again. “Out of Egypt have I called my son” (Hos 11:1), the very words used of Christ when the trickery of Herod forced Joseph to flee with Mary and the Baby to Egypt (Mt 2:15). Who can escape the obvious conclusion that God intended to present an IDENTIFICATION of the Christ with Israel --of Himself with His people? “For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the Congregation (church) will I sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my trust in Him . . And again, behold I and the children which God hath given me” (Heb 2:11-13; Ps 22:22; Isa 8:17, 18). In this last reference Paul explains that those “signs and wonders” or potents which happened in Israel were all from the Lord and, in truth, pointed to Messiah. Can you imagine the Father’s love for His Son, His only Son? (Our Authorized Version calls Him the “only begotten.” The term means ‘the Unique One’). If ‘we can grasp’ this relationship, this love; if we can conceive such communion as between the one “in the bosom of the Father”; if we can appreciate that He was ‘His darling’ (Ps 22:20; 35:17); then we can appreciate -- maybe, dimly -- the willingness on His part to share His love with mere human beings, to extend such a position to men. The word rendered “darling” in (Ps 22:20; 35:17) occurs twelve times in the Old Testament, the first of which is (Gen 22:2). There it refers to Isaac and is rendered “thine only.” Can you see the precious nature of the son to the Father? The same rendering is given in (vv. 12, 16). An “only son” is especially precious to the Father. In (Judges 11:34) referring to the daughter of Jephthah, when he had vowed to offer in sacrifice the first thing of all his possessions coming to meet him on his return if God should give him the victory for Israel over their enemies, this daughter came out first to greet him. The word is rendered “only child” “When he saw her he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter!” She was his “only child” and precious to him. In (Ps 26:16) this word (the Hebrew is yachid) is rendered “desolate,” but the sense is the same; his plea was on the basis of his being precious to the Lord. The word is from a Hebrew root, yachad, meaning “united together, joined.” In (Ps 68:6) we read, “God setteth the solitary in families.” This solitary one is the only or “precious” one, the ‘unique one.’ The term describes the pilgrim, lonely, standing alone, but still precious in his pi1grimage. The meaning is, 'God settles the lonely at home, that is, He gives His precious one a happy dwelling place.' See this word again in (Prov 4:3), where it is “an only (beloved).” There the reference is to So1omon, the unique, precious son of his mother, not the only child (1 Chron 3:5). In (Jer 6:26) it is “only son,” for whom a mother would grieve in his loss. It is “only” again in (Amos 8:10) and again it shows the mourning as over the loss of an only son. The same thought is in (Zech 12:10). Oh, that Israel could now yearn for Him, as they shall when they look on the pierced hands! Just as Isaac was typical of the death of Christ, the loss of an “only son” to his father, so all these passages are designed to show the preciousness of Christ in His Sonship to the Father and also the pre-ciousness of those identified with the Christ, God’s special people. What yearning Israel shall manifest for the Christ when they “look upon Him whom they have pierced” (Zech 12:10). The New Covenant Scripture word “Only begotten” carries this sense. The emphasis’ of the Greek (monogenes) is on His being “unique,” or “the only one of His kind” (according to Moulton and Milligan, who point out that meaning as against “only begotten” which would be the rendering of another Greek word, monogennetos). The Greek word, monogenes, occurs nine times and is rendered “only begotten” only when it refers to Christ (Jn. 1:114,18; 3:16,18; 1 Jn. 14:9) or to Isaac, His type (Heb 11:17). The first references are “only” (Lk. 7:12; 8:142; 9:38) and all emphasize the dearness of that ‘only child.’ This study should help us to appreciate the Father-Son relationship. But it would be folly to imagine that any and all men could claim this position. Christ was the Father’s Chosen (Lk. 23:35; Isa. 42:1; Ps. 89:3,14; 106:5); so were Israel (Ps 105:6, 43; Isa 43:20; 45:4; 65:9, 15, 22). By similar analogy of Christ with Israel it can be shown that the nation only was God 'a son (among men) and they alone may claim the inheritance' which is likewise promised to the Christ. Other men were saved, but no others were called sons, no others were referred to as “firstborn.” But not even Israe1 grasped the spiritual significance of this Father-Son relationship. They thought of Abraham as their father (Jn 8:33, 39), though they finally claimed God as their Father (v. 41), but Jesus repudiated this and said they were children of Satan (v. 44). It was left to the Christ to unfold the true “Father-Son” relationship. Anyone reading the Gospel of John (especially), mindful, of what the New Testament says, will be profoundly impressed with the emphasis, which Jesus placed on His being the Son of the Father. This is not merely to establish His Deity, as so many erroneously claim (though He definitely was Divine), but it is to set forth this identification principle according to which God would commune with, and fellowship with men --men in flesh. Also, the term “Son of God” identifies Christ as King because of the “lordship” associated with the birthright position Christ was made in flesh, a body was prepared for Him, that it might be effectually demonstrated that flesh CAN be raised above sin and death and commune with God and honor Him. But that does not mean this “nature’ of ours, nor yet these natural bodies. We must be “like Him” before we can fully commune; though through His Spirit we now may enjoy limited communion with God. “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see him as He is” (1 Jn. 3:2). The Firstborn Today “For they are not all Israel, which are Of Israel” (Rom 9:6), and “he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly” (Rom 2:28). Only a limited part of the nation was the “election” (Rom 11:7). Others were believers (as the Ninevites), but they were not in the position of God’s son, Israel. We noted above (cf. Isa. 66:21) that it was prophesied that Gentiles should be made priests and Levites. It had also been prophesied that God would provoke (natural) Israel to jealousy through His mercies to Gentiles (Deut 32:21), that Christ would be a light to the Gentiles (Isa 142:6, 7; Acts 13:47; 26:23), that He should be preached to the Gentiles. (Ps 18:49) and they should trust, hope, and rejoice in Him (Deut 32:43; Ps 117:1; Isa 11:1, 10). These are not prophecies that Gentiles might someday be saved from hell through Christ, for that had been possible all along (as witness the Ninevites). These prophecies pointed to some thing far greater than that: “Behold, ye despisers, an wonder and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work in which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you” (Acts 13:41). This quotation from Paul’s sermon at Antioch in Pisidia, addressed to Jews, should have warned them. The, passage quoted from (Hab 1:5) contains a remarkable phrase: “Behold ye among the heathen” (Gentiles). It anticipates the dispersion of Israel while God works the work among Gentiles. Moses had prophesied this dispersion (Deut 28:64-67). That very “work” not only confounds Israel in the flesh today, it is a dark mystery to Gentiles and many believers are not able to appreciate it. IT HAS TO DO WITH THE IDENTITY OF THE FIRSTBORN. God’s mystery “which in other ages was not made known” (Eph 3:5) is now revealed: “That the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ by the Gospel” (Eph 3:6). Oh! What rich grace! That would “engraft” Gentiles into the. stock of Israel that they might become “fellow-citizens with the saints” (Eph 2:19), even “of the household of God” Thus has the blessing of Abraham come on Gentiles (Gal 3:14), that “we might receive the, promise of the Spirit” prophesied in (Isa 32:15; 61:1; Joel 2:28). This outpouring, the “promise of the Father” (cf. Acts 1:14) came upon the Lord’s church only. It is a gift which must be preceded by repentance (which is unto life) and also by baptism (Acts 2:38). This admission of Gentiles, through faith, into unity with Israel, making them “neither Jew nor Greek” (Gal 3:38) but “one new man” (Eph 2:15) --“all one in Christ” (Gal 3:28) --“In one body” (Eph 2:16), this is a great mystery. As a Jew loses his identity in reality in the Christ and a Gentile loses his the same way, they both become ‘one’ in Christ, that is, in the body. Every reference limits this “unity” the body. The body is the church (Eph 1:22, 23). Now it can be truly said that as Christ is the firstborn, those who are conformed to the image of His Son are brought to qualify as first born -“that He might be the firstborn among many brethren” Remember, He is ‘not’ ashamed to call them “brethren” in this relationship which they have (not just share) in Him with the Father (Heb 2:11). Therefore, the church is ‘called “the firstborn (ones)” (Heb 12:23). How to Obtain the Birthright Today. Only one can be “firstborn” in a family by natural generation; only one can be “only begotten” in a family precluding the idea of other children in that family. Christ is called the only begotten Son and the firstbegotten. We have avoided a difficulty, that is, how Christ can be God’s 'only begotten' Son while all believers are referred to as God’s sons, begotten of the Holy Spirit. We did it by explaining that He is the “Only begotten” in the sense of the virgin birth. But is this the proper explanation? We think not. His being the “Son,” the one “this day . . . begotten” (Ps 2:7) is not a reference to the virgin being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and bearing a Son, but it is a reference to His resurrection from the grave FIRST (Acts 13:32-33). His resurrection makes Him “the first born of every creature,” “the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things He might have the pre-eminence” (Col 1:1, 5, 18; cf. Rev 1:5). The conforming of others, according to God’s predestination purpose, to the image of Christ (in the resurrection) makes Him “the firstborn among many brethren” (Rom 8:29). He is firstborn NOW; the brethren are “firstborn” only by position, as they are reckoned “in Him.” Thus the church is called “firstborn” (Heb 12:23). But how is this position attained? Jesus is “declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” (Rom 1:4); the rest of us “wait for the manifestation of the sons of God . . . the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body” (Rom 8:19, 23). Thus the full experience of sonship must wait for the resurrection. But this adoption then realized is ours now by POSITION, that is, through God’s reckoning and by the “spirit of holiness,” who, when we have received Him, accord us that place of sonship together with the Christ: “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have RECEIVED THE SPIRIT OF ADOPTION, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of GOD and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Rom 8:14-17). This “adoption of sons” can only be received as we are “redeemed” from under law. True, Gentiles were not given the law, but many subject themselves to law and this practice deprives them of that liberty of sons. That liberty of sons enables us to experience the sonship: relation to the Father, even as the Christ did, and address Him, “Abba, Father.” A mistaken idea is that all those who "trust" God to deliver them from hell are reckoned in this position. And it is true that we “are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:26). However, this faith is, in the original text, made definite: “Through THE faith in Christ Jesus,” That faith of Christ just being mentioned as “afterwards revealed” (Gal 3:22, 23, 25). This thought is further explained by the reference to the ‘putting on’ of Christ in baptism, by the unity of the body of those in Christ, and by the reference to their being “seed of Abraham.” May we be understood, though everyone be not able to fully appreciate what we say: It is never dangerous to trust Christ. Any and all that do, we believe, are at that moment in the merciful hands of the Father and belong to Him. They are not in danger of eternal separation from God. But it is still not dangerous for them to trust Christ. They may and should go on trusting Him --practicing faith in Him. This is the faith which brings Obedience, “the obedience of faith,” one which is able to make known to anybody the mystery hidden in past ages (Rom 16:26) and now unfo1ded to the saints — the mystery of the church and the indwelling Christ (Col 1:21-2:3). Such “obedience of faith,” we believe, causes one to “come to Christ” for that rest He has promised (Mt 11:28-30) and for which we are to labor (Heb 14:11), showing reverentia1 fear lest we fall through unbelief and come short of it (Heb 14:1). Such as “come” are those who are given to the Son and whom He shall never cast out but raise up at the last day (Jn 6:37-44). We believe that before one can come he must be drawn by the Spirit (Jn 6:44), must “hear” and “learn” of the Father, and then he will come (Jn 6:45). This does not refer to lost sinners “hearing” the “plan of salvation,” but applies to awakened men, believers who belong to the Father, coming to the Christ. These men are “taught of God just as the prophecy of the New Covenant predicted (Isa 54:13 with Jer 31:34). Paul makes this prophecy applicable to Gentiles by engrafting (Rom 11) and says it applies to this age (Heb 8:7-13). This “obedience of faith” reflects no merit on the part of the man, but does reflect “the faith of the Son of God” in the individual. This “faith of Christ” is at work here. “So, my dearly loved friends, as you have always been obedient, so now with reverence and awe keep on working clear down to the finishing point of your salvation, not only as though I were with you but much mere because I am away; for it is God Himself who is at work in you to help you desire it as well as do it” (Phil 2:12-13, Williams’ Trans.). This “obedience of faith” we believe is the product of the Holy Spirit in the life of Christ indwelling the individual. Many individual believers do not obey; they do not come to Christ; they do not keep His word; they do not follow Him. He said that His sheep would follow; He said that those who love Him will keep His word. There is a distinction, It seems certain that those who trust Him and continue in their trusting, obeying through the presence and power of the “spirit of holiness” in them --not through any merit in themselves, these, having come to Him, having put Him on in baptism, and thus IDENTIFIED with Him, are the ones ADOPTED, set as sons; these are one with Him. This cannot be said of all who respond to preaching and profess faith in Him. We cannot say they did not have any faith, and we surely see many who “go back and walk no more with Him,” but we cannot say they were completely wrong. In fact, we remember that some fail to “add” to their faith, or supply in their faith, certain “graces,” and because of it they become barren in their knowledge, need to be taught to know the lord (which none in the New Covenant need, Jn 6:45; Heb 8:11; 10:16; 1 Jn 2:21, 27), and forget that they were purged once (2 Pet 1:5-9). None are purged who were never saved from hell by faith, so these are “the Father’s.” Hence, we all need to “give diligence to make (our) calling and election sure.” We would emphasize, then, that before one is ADOPTED, set as a son, in the position of the heir, the firstborn, he must be so identified with Christ as to reflect His indwelling through the Spirit. We believe that today this “mystery.” is wrought only in the [local –jw] ‘body of Christ,’ in those who have “put on Christ” in baptism. (Space here forbids further proof). Still we would note that distinction between the mere believer once trusting, who doubtless belongs to the Father, and that one who ‘walks by faith’ and has come to the Son. There is too much evidence that such a distinction exists for us to believe that all shall hold the same position, or even the, same position with different rewards, in the age to come. The Meaning of Sonship Again 1] It is a POSITION of IDENTIFICATION with God. 2] It procures the rights of the Firstborn. a. A double portion of the inheritance. b. Priestly rule, or lordship c. Covenant privileges and blessings. 3] It aims at a reciprocal love, fellowship, and blessedness between God and those “in His image,” meaning that that image must be restored before such can be finally and. fully enjoyed. It shall be more than restored, for men of faith shall be exalted to share His very Deity (2 Pet 1:4) or nature. Careful study will show that these shall be granted co-rule with Him --as gods. Since these observations have carried us beyond the ordinary thinking about 'all believers' being 'children of God,' may we make a few more observations? Of Whom Is God Not the Father? 1] He is not the Father of angels: “For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee?” (Heb 1:5). 2] He is not the Father of infants: “. . .We all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others” (Eph 2:3). By nature we were all children of wrath, not ‘children of God.’ By this I would not infer that the infant is, at first, in danger of perishing in perdition, but the passage means that such is his nature and will be his ultimate end apart from God’s grace. Babies who die are not lost forever, for a man of God may expect to go where his departed son has gone (2 Sam 12:23). But he is by nature a child of wrath, a “son of death” (Margin, 2 Sam 32:5), that is, headed for certain death, “a son of perdition” (Jn 17:12; 2 Thes 2:3), that is, one who belongs to perdition, sure for perdition. Thus it is seen that one may escape wrath through Christ whose sacrifice is “for sins of ignorance” (Lev 4:27 f.; Num 15:24, 25), as a child’s sins are all in ignorance. But such one is not a ‘son of the Father,’ never having met the necessary conditions. 3] God is not the Father of Abraham’s natural seed --that is, all of them individual1y, though Israel was His “son” (Ex 4:22), “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children:, but in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are ‘the children of the flesh,’ these are not ‘the children of God’: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed” (Rom 9:6-8). Jesus even taught that though the unbelieving Jews were “Abraham’s seed,” that is, “children of the flesh,” they are not “Abraham’s children” (Jn 8:37, 39), but that ‘the devil’ was their father (Jn 8:38, 44). Remember -- the father-son relationship is not a matter of progenitor-ship but a matter of communion or fellowship. 4] Then, God is not the Father of those who deny the Christ: “And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins” (Jn 8:23-24). 5] God is not the Father of those practicing unrighteousness and not loving their brothers: This is the way to distinguish God’s children from the devil’s children. "No one who fails to do right is God’s child, and no one who fails to love his brother" (1 Jn 3:10, Williams’ Trans.). OF WHOM IS GOD THE FATHER? 1. ISRAEL -- God to Moses: “And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, ‘Thus saith the Lord, Israel is; My son, even My firstborn: and I say unto thee, Let My son go, that he may serve Me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn” (Ex 22, 23). God to Israel: “Behold, I will bring them . . .thither. They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a Father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn” (Jer 31:8, 9).* *It is common in the ancient Hebrew language to change the name rather than use repetition as in 'Israel' and 'Ephraim.' Moses to Israel: “Ye are the children of the Lord your God: . . thou art an holy people . . . the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto Himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth” (Deut 14:1-2; cf. 26:18). Messiah was prophesied to be raised up “of thy brethren” (that is, Israel) who would be like Moses (Deut 18:15-19). This was fulfilled in Jesus, as Jesus told the “men of Israel” (Acts 3:12, 22, 23). Those of them who were “sanctified” were “one” with Him so that “He was not ashamed to call them brethren” (Heb 2:11; cf. Ps 22:22). Moses to Israel: “They have dealt corruptly with Him, they are not His children, it is their blemish; they are a perverse and crooked generation. Do ye thus requite Jehovah, O foolish people and unwise? Is not He thy Father that hath bought thee?” (Deut 32:5, 6). The Lord to Judah: “But I said, How shall I put thee among the children” (that is, “I thought how I would put you among My sons”). “Thou shalt call Me, My Father; and shalt not turn away from Me” (Jer 3:19). 2. OTHER NATIONS -- The intimacy of the Father-son relationship belonged originally (as far as men in the flesh are concerned) to Israel alone. But according to the mystery hidden in ages past (cf. Eph 3:3-10) God has now, “by the blood” of Christ, “made nigh” them “who sometimes were far off” (Eph 2:13) “For He is our peace who hath made both (be1ieving Jews and believing Gentiles) one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make IN HIMSELF of twain one new man, so making peace” (Eph 2:14-15). This language does not apply to the world at large, for it clearly limits the unity of the two-made-one to that sphere described as “in Himself.” The next verse further marks this sphere: “And that he might reconcile both unto God IN ONE BODY by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.” Most careful Bible scholars recognize the “one body” as the church, though few men recognize the church for what it is: a local organization, and not made up of ‘all the saved.’ The whole context of this passage, as well as the whole New Testament, sets the sphere of the church as being a limited number of those truly saved who have covenanted themselves together in one body and are identified with the Christ as “one” body, “one” with Him. The terms marking the “local,” as against a “mythical universal,” church in this context are these: a. “One body,” (v. 16). b. “One new man,” (v. 15). c. “Fe1low-citizens with the saints,” (v. 19), of the “commonwealth of Israel” in (v. 12). d. “Household of God,” (v. 19). The word “household” means that which is particularly one’s own, belonging to one ‘a home.’ “Household of faith” (Gal 6:10) means those belonging to “the faith” See (1 Tim 5:8) for the other of the three uses. e. “The foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone,” (v. 20). Of what is Christ the foundation, the Rock, the chief cornerstone? Is it not the church? (1 Cor 3:11; Mt 16:18; 1 Pet 2:5, 6). Both the “household” and the “foundation” represent ideas which are impossible except “locally.” f. “The building,” (v. 21). This is analogous with the language of a foundation. Whether “the whole building,” “all the building,” or “every (or each) several building,” be considered the correct rendering, it is nevertheless a building. No building is anything but local. And it must be organized, properly fitted together -“fitly framed together.” A building with parts scattered all over the earth would be an impossibility. g. “An holy temple,” (v. 21). This is just another expression analogous to “foundation” and “building.” h. “An habitation of God through the Spirit,” (v. 22). This “dwelling place” corresponds exactly to the sphere of the indwelling Spirit, or the indwelling Christ. This indwelling is conditional, and not universal. Even for the Ephesians Paul prayed that Christ might “dwell” (3:17) in them. This illustrates that the sphere of the indwelling is not universal, neither to all ‘the world, or to all who have once believed.’ The prophetic Word had anticipated that Gentiles should be admitted to the intimacy of the special people in the Father-son relationship: “And many nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day, and shall be My people” (Zech 2:11). Surely this is not intended to teach that many nations (Gentiles) should be saved from hell who could not then, for Gentiles could always be saved. It was nothing new for Gentiles to trust God, but it was a “new thing” (Isa 43:19; Jer 31:22; Mt 13:52) for Gentiles to be received into the intimacy of the Father-son relationship. Paul explains (Hos 1:9-10) in (Rom 9:24-26) to mean that Gentiles should become His “people”, “Even us, whom He hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles; as he saith also in Hosea, I will call them My people, which were not My people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, ye are not My people; there shall they be called ‘children of the living God.” Note the word “children” in this connection. Addressing a church of saved men and women, by Paul, God said, “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my Sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty” (2 Cor. 6:17-18). By “receive you” and “be a Father to you” we can but understand an invitation to saved people to come into that intimacy of the Father-son relationship. We are further taught in this passage that a mere outward connection with a church, even though the individual be “saved,” just as being a member in the flesh of the nation of Israel, was not sufficient, but there must be a separation from the world and its lusts. Summarizing the conditions which “nations” must meet, and which Israel in the flesh must meet, in order to be “sons of God”: a. They must be believers, (Gal 3:26). b. They must be redeemed from bondage to law, (Gal 4:4-7). c. They must be adopted, (Gal 4:4-5; Rom 8:15) d. They must be led by the Spirit, (Rom 8:14). Not all are “led” who are convicted; one must “follow” to be led. e. They must have received Him, (Jn 1:12; 1 Jn 5:1). f. They must be separate from the world, (2 Cor 6: 17, 18). g. They must be doers of good, (Lk 6:35; 1 Jn 3:10; cf. Lk 20: 34-36; spec. Mt 5:44-45). h. They must endure chastening, (Heb 12:5-8). But some who may have had faith he lets alone, (Rom 1:28; Heb 6:4-6; 10:25 f.). i. They must overcome the world by faith, (Rev 21:7; cf. 1 n 5:4). j. They must work out their salvation (in the Bible sense), (Phil 2:12-16). k. They must be obedient, (1 Pet 1:14; 3:5-6). We fail to find any passage which clearly says that one is a ‘child of God’ at the moment of first faith, [though I do not question that this is possible]. But I would suggest that IF IT BE TRUE, and for those of whom it is true, it must be on the basis of God’s foreknowledge of a subsequent obedience of faith in them. After all, election is “from the foundation of the world,” and God’s choice is of His “children.” The Status of Others Not Children This poses ‘a great question: What is the position of those who are not “children” or “special people.” It is noteworthy to observe that the ‘Bible concerns itself with those who ARE special people. Any others mentioned or dealt with are incidental to God’s dealings with His elect. Apart from Abraham, mention of Terah would be lacking. Even Esau, apart from his original birthright position, would find little place in the Bible. Apart from God’s prophet Jonah the Ninevites would be left out of the Bible. Apart from Lot and Abraham there would be no mention of Sodom and Gomorrah. We become curious over the lot of those who are “not in the Bride,” or not allowed to the marriage. True, some dispose of this dilemma by denying it exists, claiming only a “difference in rewards” but that all will be glorified alike. The Word challenges us to the Father-son relationship and our willingness to take “second best” betrays an inclination toward that which disqualifies us for the ‘best.” Since FELLOWSHIP WITH HIM is the supreme object of the mature believer; such worship and communion is the goal which God has set, those who would fall short are disqualified to be “His people.” We do not believe this means eternal separation from God in hell. We have indicated that we believe that such ones, in some way, belong to God. But their lot is among the nations in the Kingdom as against that “holy nation” which shows forth the praises of Him who has called them out of darkness into His marvelous light (1 Pet 2:9). The only reasons these warnings, consequences, or portion of these less faithful is mentioned at all is to challenge us to faithfulness. Oh, that all men might praise Him. He is altogether lovely, completely worthy, and delightfully true. Making a “decision” may be all right, as far as it goes, but our appeal is that one surrender his life to the lord, not just “make a decision.” The will is involved, but the whole man must be conformed to His image. It is most important to trust him now, today, tomorrow, the next day, next week, next year, always. It is most important that one be properly IDENTIFIED with Him. “Settling the matter” is hardly possible, as some might indicate, though there must be a beginning. It is a continuing which counts and which is constantly enjoined. It does make a difference which church one belongs to --what nation he is a part of: that Holy Nation, Peculiar People (1 Pet 2:9). No other, though saved, will do. “Many are called, but few are chosen.” |