The first thing I learned from the apostle Paul is that knowing God as Father in a deeper way, through Jesus the Messiah, requires revelation; for it involves comprehending new things about God's eternal purposes for human beings that he had kept hidden until Jesus came. So I began by praying a personalized version of the prayer that Paul prayed over the believers he was writing to in his Ephesian letter (Eph.1:17-21 GH, Med.#1), as follows:

God of our Lord Jesus Christ, glorious Father, give me the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in fully knowing you ·with the eyes of my understanding being enlightened towards knowing:

-what is the hope of your calling;

-and what are the riches of your glorious inheritance among the holy ones;

-·and what is the exceeding greatness of your power for us who believe, … ·which you exercised in the Messiah, when you raised him from the dead and seated him at your own right hand among the celestial ones, ·far above every primal chiefdom, authority, power and lordship…in this age; and also in the age to come.

Paul understood that God wants us to know ‘him’ as ‘glorious Father’. But if we depend on human understanding, based on reason and our own unconscious cultural perspectives alone, this will never happen. We need the wisdom and revelation given to us by the Holy Spirit as we read the Bible if we want to come to know God as our Father in this way. For gaining this revelation is about the hope we can have because of our Father's ‘calling’ on our lives—both for this age and for the age to come. It is also about coming to know the riches of the glorious inheritance our Father has given to all (‘the holy ones’) who have also put their faith in his Messiah. And it is about how he has become a Father to us in a new way through the power he exercised for us—by raising the Messiah from the dead and then enthroning him ‘far above every primal chiefdom, authority, power and lordship’ that we have ever lived under or will live under in this age.

One of my first discoveries in this project was how all but three of the 22 New Testament letters begin with a primary reference to God as ‘our Father’, or as ‘Father God’ [Gr. theou patros], or as ‘the Father’ [Gr. tou patros]. Only two letters (Hebrews & Revelation) begin with a primary reference to God as Jesus' Father (‘his Father)’ (Med.#9).[1] Likewise in the almost 200 direct references to God as ‘Father’ in the Gospels and Acts, he is mainly referred to, also by Jesus, as ‘the Father’—92 times. Compare this with the 50 times Jesus or someone else speaks of God as ‘Father’ to him (‘my/his Father’) and with the 41 times that God is specifically identified as our Father’ in some way.

Most of these latter references are in Matthew and Luke (37)—like where Jesus speaks to his Jewish disciples directly of God as ‘your Father’ (22x). Or when he speaks to his listeners of God as their Father indirectly in the form of a parable (12x). So the common idea that the Bible is only using the language of human metaphor when it speaks of God as ‘Father’ is also simply not true! Yes, Jesus compares God to a human father in some of his parables (see Med.#20 and Med.#21). But in the vast majority of cases where Jesus refers to God as our Father, he is speaking about who God is, not just what he is like. This is also the case throughout the whole Bible. Such metaphorical references appear in only 5 of the 19 direct references to God as ‘Father’ in the Tanakh (Old Testament),[2] and in only 16 of the 276 direct references in the New Testament. The apostle Paul even turns this common theological idea on its head by speaking of God as ‘the Father from whom all fatherhood on earth derives its name’ (Eph.3:14b-15, Med.#6). Or as one of my students summed it up: We should not say “God is Father” but rather “Father is God”!

NOTES

[1] The only NT letter that makes no direct mention of God as ‘Father’ is the one we know as 3 John (Med.#75).

[2] In at least one of these texts the emphasis is actually on how different he is from most human fathers (Ps.103:13; Med.#B)

A second discovery involves the 17 direct references to God as ‘Father’ in Matthew's account of ‘the Sermon on the Mount’ (Med.#11-16). In only one of these does Jesus refer to God as ‘my Father’, while he refers to him the other 16 times as ‘Father’ to his Jewish disciples—three additional times if you include the parallel passages in Luke's gospel. Then when I looked at the Greek pronouns connected to these references in Matthew to God as ‘your Father’, I noticed something else that is hidden in modern English translations. Mostly (10x) Jesus uses the 2^nd person plural pronoun to speak to them as a group about God as YOUR Father. But he also (5x) uses the 2^nd person singular pronoun to say that God is your Father as individuals too.[3]

Yet what surprised me most was that Jesus was not just speaking about a future relationship with the Father that his Jewish disciples would enjoy through him. For he is mostly speaking about them doing ‘acts of righteousness’ prescribed by the Torah (‘the Law’). They are to have their heavenly Father in mind when as individuals they are giving to the poor, praying or fasting (Med.#16). Also when they pray as a group (Med.#14). They are to be like their Father in the way they obey the Law's commands to love their non-Jewish neighbours as themselves (Lev.19 & Deut.10, Med.#12). And when Jesus teaches them how to pray by addressing God as ‘our Father’ (Med.#13), he is actually quoting the prophet Isaiah (63:16, Med.#C; 64:8, Med.#A).

Now I had been taught that we could only approach God as Father through Jesus. Clearly, Jesus came to reveal a lot more about God as ‘Father’ through Jesus, since the New Testament contains so many more direct references to this truth (276) than can be found in the Tanakh (19). However, after meditating on the ‘Sermon on the Mount’, I realized that Jesus was affirming that Jews could already know and relate to God as ‘Father’ before he came.[4] So what had God already revealed to the people of Israel about being their Father?

NOTES

[3] Since modern English does not make this distinction, I render the 2^nd person plural pronoun as ‘YOUR’ or ‘YOU’ and as ‘you’ or ‘your’ when it is singular. In the old English of the KJV, ‘your’, ‘you’, and ‘ye’ are plural, and ‘thine’, ‘thee’ and ‘thou’ are singular.

[4] I also realized that I needed to take another look at John 14:6—‘No one comes to the Father except through me’ (see section 3.4).

As I reflected on all the ‘Father’ texts in the Tanakh (OT), I began to see the whole story of the Bible in a new way. Not primarily as a story about God, but rather as the story of humanity from God's perspective as our Father that he has progressively revealed to human beings—first through Israel, and then through Jesus. 

The first indirect and direct references to God as ‘Father’ in the Bible are found in the Torah. In all of these he identifies himself as a ‘Father’ to human beings—to Israel both as a ‘people’, and as individual ‘children’. The one direct reference appears in the ‘song’ that he told Moses to write down and teach to the Israelites (Deut.32:5-6 NRSV, Med.#A):

His degenerate children have dealt falsely with him… ·Do YOU thus repay the LORD, O foolish and senseless people? Is not he your Father, who created you, who made you and established you? 

This ‘song’ reflects on the preceding forty years, when God had been establishing them by leading and disciplining them in the desert—collectively as a ‘son’ (‘you’, singular), and individually as ‘his children’ (‘YOU’, plural, see Med.#C). God is thus a Father to the people of Israel because he ‘made’ them both as a nation and as individuals. The prophets Isaiah and Malachi not only confirm this but they also imply that people of other nations are also God's ‘children’ since he made them too (Med.#A).

As I reexamined the opening chapters of Genesis, I saw that this was not just a new revelation through the Prophets. I already knew that the Torah's Creation account speaks of God chosing to ‘make’ all human beings in his ‘image’ [Heb. tselem] and ‘likeness’ [Heb. demuth]. What I had not seen before was how the Torah gives its own commentary on the meaning of these two Hebrew words—in its introduction to the genealogy of the first man. Using the same two words it describes how Adam ‘begat’ or ‘fathered’ a son in his ‘likeness’ [Heb. demuth] and ‘image’ [Heb. tselem]—followed by a reference to how he also ‘begat’ or ‘fathered’ daughters as well as other sons (Gen.5:1-4 HCSB, Med.#A). Later, the Torah affirms that God not only ‘made’ Israel as a nation but also ‘made’ all the other nations. So the story of God's relationship to Israel as ‘Father’ is actually a revelation of himself as a Father to all people, with long-term purposes for other nations too (Med.#C).

When God first spoke to Moses about Israel being his ‘son’, he also implied that he had other nations in mind—by calling Israel his ‘firstborn’. This can also be seen in the promise he had given earlier to Abraham about blessing his descendants so that they would become a blessing to all nations. What I had not seen so clearly before was the family language both the Torah and the Prophets use when speaking of how God formed the nations—by giving each of them bounded territories as ‘an inheritance’. And saw in Isaiah how God takes Israel to task for assuming he is only their Father—because he calls them his ‘inheritance’ and because they think that only the people of Israel bear God's name (Med.#C). Through Isaiah he also rebukes them for criticizing his choice of a foreign king (Cyrus) as his ‘anointed’—saying they are questioning him concerning his other ‘children’, since he is the Creator of all mankind (Med.#E). It seems that the people of Israel didn't fully comprehend the family dimension of their role among the nations any more than I did.

I also came to see some important things I had previously missed. First, the disobedience of the first human individuals did not lead to them suddenly losing ‘the image [Heb. tselem] of God’ (Gen.9:6), Nor to them losing their connection to the living ‘breath (Spirit) of God’ (Mal.2:10,15a HCSB, Med.#A). In the story of Cain I also saw that God did not completely withdrawn himself following ‘the Fall’; for he still sought to guide Cain in dealing with evil temptations, and he returned to confront him for murdering his brother and to impose disciplinary consequences on him and his descendants. He even showed compassion by giving Cain his divine protection. So it was Cain and his offspring who choose to withdraw from God, not God from them. Further, the stories of Enoch, Noah, Abraham and Sarah demonstrate that it was still possible to walk by faith in an obedient relationship with God.

Yet it was only from the story of Israel that I gained a fuller picture of the true nature of human sinfulness in relation to God as our Father, and of the family dimension of redemption. For when God calls Israel out of Egypt as a ‘son’, the Torah says that he ‘family- redeemed’ [Heb. gaal] them from oppressive slavery (Ex.6:6). Later, this same word is used to describe the role of ‘kinsman-redeemer’ [Heb. goël]—when a close relative ‘redeems’ [Heb. gaal] a family member that has fallen on hard times,[5] especially if that one had sold himself as a slave to a foreigner (Lev.25:47-51). When ‘the days of Moses’ are recalled in Isaiah, God himself is called Israel's ‘kinsman-redeemer’ [Heb. goël], because of the way he as their ‘Father’ ‘redeemed’ [Heb. gaal] them (Isa.63:8-9,11-12,16b Med.#E). For the first time I understood that ‘redemption’ is not just about being saved from our own sinful behavior and its consequences, but also about being delivered from being sinned against! For God had led the people of Israel to go to Egypt (Gen.46:2-4). Nothing in the Torah suggests that their enslavement in Egypt was their own fault. Further, I only now saw the family dimension in God's institution of two events to help the Israelites to remember this event with the sacrifice of a lamb—at a family Passover feast once a year (Ex.12:1-14), and also to ‘redeem’ the first son born into each family (Ex.13:1-16, Med.#E).

Secondly, Israel was called out of Egypt to bear the family ‘name’. As a nation of ‘priests’ who obeyed their Father's Law and learned to walk in his ways, they were to reflect his character to all nations on earth. As their Father, God expected the Israelites to act in ways that honoured him because they bore his holy name. Yet as rebellious ‘sons’ they grieved his Holy Spirit, and their sin brought shame to his name. They even continued to dishonor his name after their sinfulness led to their being sent away from the land they had defiled (Med.#C). Hmm. Is this why Adam and Eve were sent away when they disobeyed God? Why would dishonouring their Father by siding with his enemy lead to a sentence of death? This aspect of the story of Israel reminded me of the new perspective on the family nature of human sinfulness that I had gained while seeking to share the Gospel with our Muslim friends. For in their cultures, the only really serious sins were those against the honour of the family—misdeeds for which a daughter or son could be killed, or at least would have to be sent away.[6]

With this perspective in mind, I also began to see how Israel's story offers a serious challenge to the modernist theologians of a century ago—who seemed to only emphasize the nice bits about God being a ‘Father’ without taking human sinfulness seriously. For like the presumptuous and shameless Israelites of Jeremiah's day, these theologians seemed to just want a ‘dear Lord and Father’ who is more like a long-time indulgent friend. One who isn't always getting angry with them (Jer.3:2-5). Consider also Isaiah's picture: of the Israelites actually blaming God for causing their sinfulness, and then complaining about the consequences. To them a divine Father should be just a kind, nationalistic Protector (Isa.63:15b-19 NIV, Med.#C).

Still today, many who read the Tanakh (OT) also see only an angry God, rather than the grieving but determined Father who is committed to the maturing of his sons and daughters. My final lesson from the story of Israel was that God is a Father who neither stays angry with his children nor treats them as their sins deserve. He does not give up on them, no matter what they have done to him. For even when he disciplines them (Med.#B) he does not utterly reject them. Instead he is determined to heal and restore them (Med.#C). He even plans to ‘come among them’, not in wrath’ like many human fathers, but rather to do a ‘new thing’ both for them and in them—not just for their sake, but for the sake of his ‘holy (family) name’ (Med.#E).

NOTES

[5] Like the story of Naomi and Ruth where Boaz, as a close relative, acts as their ‘kinsman-redeemer’ [Heb. goël] (2:19-20, etc.).

[6] See Part 2 in ‘Learning to share the Good News in a Muslim Context’.

The people of Israel could also know that this ‘new thing’ God was planning would involve a descendant of David—an ‘anointed one’ [Heb. maschiach] who would know God as ‘Father’ and whose reign would be worldwide and last forever. Yet there are several things in these texts that are often missed (Med.#D):

• The focus is on the special adult father-son relationship that God would have with this human king. Though ‘born for us’ as a ‘child’, it will be as an adult ‘Son’ that he will be ‘given to us’ as king.
• The kingdom he establishes will be his Father's  kingdom —as a royal ‘household’ for the Father's name.
• At his anointing, God will say to him, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you”[7] [or “today I have become your Father” (NIV)].
• This David-like ‘anointed’ Son will take the role of a ‘servant’ in God's household and will address him as both ‘my Father’ and ‘my God’. And he will need to trust his Father for his ‘salvation’ when he is opposed by human rulers (Med.#D). Only after this will he be appointed as the highest king and the ‘firstborn’ in the Father's new worldwide kingdom and royal household (Med.#E).

Many Jews and Christians alike have either missed or misunderstood how both his relation to God as his Father, and his relation to us, would accomplish God's eternal purposes for all human beings as our Father.

NOTES

[7] in the Gospels we see the first part of this sentence (and the word ‘today’ fulfilled (Med.#26); and also which of the three possible meanings of the Greek word for ‘begotten’ (in the Septuagint) is emphasized by John (Med.#58). See also section 3.3 below.

I had always assumed from what I was taught that Adam and Eve's bodies lost their immortality when they disobeyed God. Not so, I now realized! According to the Torah, human beings were created with mortal bodies like the animals. But through the free access to immortality they were given by continuing to eat the fruit of ‘the tree of life’—which was not forbidden—they did not need to die. Death only became part of our normal human experience when Adam and Eve lost this access to the tree of life, when they were put out of the Garden as a consequence of their disobedience. Yet immortality remained God's planned destiny for mortal, fallen humanity—as revealed in the stories of Enoch in the Torah and of Elijah in the Prophets. Each experienced this transformation without having to die because of the way they faithfully ‘walked with God’.[8]  

The Jewish writer of Hebrews (in the New Testament) recalls the glimpse of our future destiny that God gave to David in the Tanakh (Ps.8:4-6). Namely, that God had made human beings only for ‘a little while [Gr. brachu]’ lower than ‘heavenly beings’—implying a future destiny of being ‘crowned with glory and honor’ in order to rule over more than just the earth and its creatures (Heb.2:5-8, Med.#7). The Tanakh also hints that the ‘new thing’ coming for all God's ‘sons and daughters’ would involve all nations that God has made gathering to worship him and rejoice together. For as our ‘kinsman-redeemer’ [Heb. goël] he would come to defeat death in such a way that from our transformed bodies we will finally be able to see God (Med.#E).

NOTES

[8] See Enoch’s story (Gen.5:21-24, Heb.11:5) and that of Elijah (1 Kings 18-21 & 2 Kings 1:1-2:19), an ordinary man like us (Jas.5:17). 

Before beginning his teaching ministry among Jews in Galilee, Jesus speaks to a non-Jewish woman in Samaria[9] about the new thing God is about to do because of the ‘gift of God’ that he has come to give to all peoples—Samaritans as well as to Jews. This gift, the Holy Spirit, will be within each one who receives him like a spring of water welling up to eternal life (Jn.4:4-14; 7:38-39). For the ‘time’ that has come is about a new level of relationship with God as ‘Father’ by the Spirit—both for those who like the Jews already have some knowledge of him as well as for those like the Samaritans who don't yet know him (Jn.4:21-24, Med.#3).  

At the beginning of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus describes the ‘new thing’ God is doing as a different kind of kingdom than the one Jews are expecting. For while there are 9 references to this ‘kingdom of heaven’ in the so-called ‘Sermon on the Mount’ (Matthew 5-7), there are almost twice as many references to God as ‘Father’ (see section 1.2). But most significantly, in three of these texts Jesus connects this kingdom to his God as our Father (Med.#15; Med.#13)[10] or to God as his Father’ (Med.#16). Jesus also does this in two of his parables (Med.#17; Med.#21). In the first of these he describes a worldwide family kingdom in which his disciples are planted as ‘sons (and daughters)’ of ‘their Father's kingdom’, not just as mere subjects of it. By way of introducing this first parable (usually called ‘the parable of the wheat and the tares’), and several other parables, Jesus says that these concern ‘the mystery’ [Gr. to musteerion] of the kingdom’.[11] The Jewish apostle Paul (Saul) uses these same words to describe his ‘revelation’ of the new thing our Father was doing in Jesus.

NOTES

[9] The Jews at that time did not consider Samaritans to be half-Jews, but ‘foreigners’ (Lk.17:16-18 NIV), a different ethnic group [Gr. ethnos] (Acts 8:9). Notice the ‘we/YOU’ language the woman uses with Jesus (Jn.4:9,20) and he with her (Jn.4:22, Med.#3).

[10] Also three times in the two parallel passages in Luke (11:2; 12:30-32).

[11] Mark 4:11. Matthew (13:11) uses the plural form of this Greek word, musteeria (‘mysteries’). The reason I had not previously made the connection with Paul’s use of this word is because most English versions translate this word as ‘secret’ or ‘secrets’.

When Paul uses ‘to musterion’  in six of his letters, he is usually speaking about ‘the mystery’ as something that God planned for human beings, yet deliberately kept hidden for a long time. For this reason, he needed to be taught about it by revelation, and God also made it part of his calling to the nations—since it would not be  immediately obvious to anyone (Med.#6). What interested me now was how Paul connects his revelation in three of his letters with the new relationship with God as our Father that people can now have through Jesus and the Spirit (Med.#6, Med.#28, Med.#31). In his Galatians letter, Paul speaks of this new relationship with God as Father in terms of a ‘preplanned-placing’ [Gr. pro-thesmias] within a family, whereby an under-age child becomes an adult heir through the ‘placement as sons’ [Gr. huio-thesia]. For before the coming of the Messiah, both Jews (‘we’) and non-Jews (‘YOU’) had previously lived like ‘under-age children’ under ‘the elemental powers’ as guardians—the Jews under the Law as a ‘childhood tutor’ [Gr. paidagogos]. So Paul is not speaking about believers of all nations coming into this new relationship with God as ‘Abba, Father’ through an adoption from outside the family. Rather, about a family redemption of ‘lost’ sons and daughters that enables a pre-planned coming of age by the Holy Spirit (Med.#4). In this way Paul's teaching mirrors what the ‘Prodigal Son’ experienced in Jesus' well-known parable (Med.#20).

Yet this new thing that our Father is doing through Jesus and the Spirit must impact not only the way each individual believer in Christ relates to the Father, but also the way those from one ethnic group in the Church relate to those from other such groups. Through the ‘placement of sons’ [Gr. huiothesia] by the Spirit—our Father's pre-planned destiny for all human beings (Med.#8)—believers of all ethnic groups [Gr. ethne] must now treat each other as ‘co-heirs’ in this new multi-ethnic ‘household’ (Med.#6; Med.#44).

While I was incorporating these earlier discoveries into my meditations, I was also seeing new things in John's gospel and in his first letter that surprisingly confirm the revelation Jesus gave to young Saul.[12] Like many of my fellow evangelical Christians, I had assumed that in this gospel, Jesus mainly referred to God as ‘my Father’, and of himself the only way to God as his Father (Jn.14:6). What I now learned was that Jesus mostly refers to God as ‘the Father’ (82 out of 119 times), also in John's account of Jesus' Last Supper discourse (36 out of 47 times in Jn.14-16). Further, John's last two references to God as Father in his gospel point to how Jesus is about to ascend to ‘my Father and YOUR Father’ (Med.#42), and to how he is sending his disciples into the world in the same way that ‘the Father’ sent him—empowered by the Holy Spirit (Med.#57).

Yet my most important discovery came from meditating how John uses the Greek word gennao (‘begotten’ KJV) at the beginning of his gospel. He uses it first to speak of how all believers are ‘begotten out of God’ by being given ‘authority’ to become sons and daughters of God. And he contrasts this with three different ways a son or daughter is ‘begotten’ by his or her parents (Jn.1:12-13 GH, Med.#58). The first two ways describe the family connection of a child to both human parents: by genetics (‘out of blood’) and by the conception that resulted from their sexual intercourse (‘out of the desire of the flesh’). Now while both of these are birth related images, the third way—being begotten out of ‘a man's will’ [Gr. theleematos andros]—is not. In John's day, no man could simply will to have a child just by having sexual intercourse with his wife. So this third aspect of being ‘begotten’ is rather about a father designating one or more of his children as his heir.[13]

 Then I discovered that John was probably using the Greek word mono-gennes in this same text in the same way—when speaking about Jesus as ‘an only-begotten’, or as ‘the only-begotten’ (Jn.1:14,18). While this word can refer to an ‘only’ son or ‘only’ daughter (Lk.7:12; 9:38; 8:42), the Jewish author of Hebrews—who knew the Scriptures well—uses the word mono-gennes to refer to Isaac's unique relationship to his father, Abraham (Heb.11:17). Yet according to the Torah, Isaac was not as Abraham's only son (Gen.16:15, etc.), though he was the only son identified as Abraham's heir (Gen.21:12; 25:5). Interestingly, this same Jewish author opens his letter by describing Jesus as ‘a son’ whom God ‘appointed’ as the ‘heir of all things’, so that as the ‘firstborn’ (1:2,6) he might bring ‘many sons (and daughters) to glory’ (2:10-11, Med.#7)! 

Likewise, John first applies the title ‘Son of God’ to Jesus in his gospel in the context of John the Baptist suddenly recognizing his cousin,[14] Jesus—after seeing the Spirit descend on him—as the One who will also pour out the Spirit on all who believe in him (Jn.1:32-34, Med.#26). Shortly thereafter, John uses the word gennao a second time in Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus. Now I suddenly noticed that it is Nicodemus who thinks Jesus is speaking about a kind of ‘second’ birth. Jesus, on the other hand, associate being ‘begotten from above’ [Gr. gennethe anothen]—in order to see and enter the new kingdom—with ‘having been begotten [Gr. gennao] out of the Spirit’. For believers who receive the Spirit, Jesus says, experience this more like the way they experience the wind than like a childbirth (Jn.3:3-8, Med.#58). Notice also how in his first letter John uses the phrase, ‘begotten [gennao] out of God’ to refer to both Jesus and each one who believes in him (1 Jn.5:18, Med.#53). Since Jesus did not need to be ‘born again’—having always existed and never sinned—and since we receive the Spirit after Jesus did so first, John is echoing what Paul said: that by ‘the Spirit of placement as sons’ our Father is declaring us to be his ‘heirs’ as ‘co-heirs with Christ’ (Med.#5).

John also proved the be the source of the relational picture of the Trinity that I had discovered in the writings of St. Irenaeus of Lyon (130-202 AD)—of Jesus (the Word) and the Spirit acting down through the history of human beings as the two ‘hands’ of the Father. Or in John's words: as the two Advocates sent to us by the Father—with one now at the Father's side in heaven on our behalf (Med.#52), and another still with us here on earth (Med.#51).

NOTES

[12] Paul was still using his Jewish name when he shared his revelation with the elders in Jerusalem (Med.#28).

[13] Usually this was the firstborn son, but sometimes both sons and daughters were declared to be heirs (e.g. Jb.42:15).

[14] According to Luke, the mother of John the Baptist (Elizabeth) and the mother of Jesus (Mary) were’ cousins’ (Lk.1:36 KJV).

According to John, the whole purpose of Jesus' life here on earth—as ‘the Word (who) became flesh’, from his birth to his ascension as ‘God the only-begotten [Gr. mono-gennes]’—was not to make himself known, but to make ‘the Father’ known to us (Jn.1:18)! For John remembers Jesus saying that eternal life is for those who not only believe in him, but who also ‘believe in the One who sent me’ (Med.#43)—i.e. the Father, since ‘the Father is greater than I’ (Med.#51). I now saw that when Jesus said, ‘no one comes to the Father except through me’ (Jn.14:6), he was not contradicting the Scriptures by telling his Jewish disciples that no relationship with the Father had been possible before he came. Instead, he was saying that no one (including Jews) could come of age in the Father's new kingdom ‘household’ [Gr. oikia] without first being ‘begotten from above by the Spirit’ through him w—so we too can walk in fellowship with the Father like he did (Med.#52). For only through Jesus' revelation of him to human beings could even the Jews begin to more 'thoroughly know' him (Med.#82). What John and his fellow apostles had observed in Jesus was not just ‘the way’, but also ‘the life’ that both models and unveils  ‘the truth’[15] concerning this new level of relationship with the Father that is also for us (Med.#2).

For his first thirty years, Jesus was ‘made like us in every way’, so that his life initially paralleled  the first stage of human life as God planned it for all of us from the beginning—living for ‘a little while’ in a position ‘lower than the angels’ (Med.#7). Thus he was born of a woman—after spending nine months in his mother's womb, with a human genealogy. As an under-age child he spent two decades in subjection to parents, mostly growing up in the low status region of Galilee. He also lived in subjection to the divine Law of the Jewish nation, learning from human religious teachers and working in the family business (Med.#25; Gal.4:4, Med.#4). A few of his earliest years were spent living with his family as strangers in Judea, even as refugees in Egypt.

But then, in keeping with the Father’s plan for us, Jesus was given power and authority as an adult Son by the Spirit to work in partnership with our Father God (Med.#26; Med.#63). Thus for three years he became the ‘Pioneer and Maturer of our faith’ (Med.#33) so that with the coming of the Spirit we too could come into the next stage in our Father’s original plan for us—with authority to do the same things by faith that he did, and even greater things (Med.#51) . This is why Paul applies the Messianic ‘Father’ promises not only to Jesus (Ps.2:7; Act.13:33), but also to us (1 Chr.17:13, Med.#D; 2 Cor.6:18, Med.#32). Yet he adds a caveat; we become ‘heirs of God and co-heirs with Jesus’, IF we also ‘suffer-together’ (with him, and with each other). For Jesus too had to be ‘made mature’ [Gr. teleiotheis] through suffering (Med.#33).

Thus when Jesus was suffering physically, mentally or emotionally—through going without sleep, food or shelter, through being beaten, exposed, misunderstood, reviled, rejected, or condemned to death—he was giving each of us an example of how to face such things like he did, as an adult heir of the Father (Med.#91; Med.#23; 1 Pet.2:20-24). Yes, there is a unique dimension to Jesus' suffering and death on the cross our behalf (section 3.5). Yet he was also demonstrating how we too can know the Father's presence at such times. For when he quotes Psalm 22, he is not doing so because he thinks God has actually abandoned him, but rather to overcome very real feelings of abandonment (Med.#41). So that in the darkest hour, when we face sin and evil powers like he did, we too can expect that he and the Father will stay with us by the Spirit (Med.#87; Med.#83).

NOTE

[15] The Greek word for ‘truth’ in this verse, a-leethia, literally means ‘not-hidden’ (Jn.14:6, Med.#2)

When I saw how Paul—at the beginning of his letters to the Colossians and the Ephesians—speaks about both the inheritance (placement as sons) and the redemption (deliverance from darkness and forgiveness of sins) that we have received in Christ, I noticed two things. First, Paul offers praise (Ephesians) and thanks (Colossians) to the Father as being the gracious source of both ‘blessings’ (Med.#8; Med.#80). Then I saw how in both cases he places the inheritance theme of the gospel first and the redemption theme second. In his Ephesian letter he even describes the placement of sons theme—though accomplished in Christ—as the Father's ‘grace’ in choosing us for this before he even created us—thus, before sin entered the world. And then he describes our redemption in Christ as deriving from (‘in accordance with’) the richness of the Father's grace. In both letters he then goes on to exhort his readers to thank the Father for everything we are able now to do or say through Christ (Med.#81)—since it is our Father's character that we are mainly called to imitate in our life in Christ (Med.#79)—since our Father God is the One who (‘in Christ’) will continue to lavish on us ‘the exceeding riches of his grace’ in the ages to come (Med.#44; see also Med.#50 and Med.#46). Jesus himself said much the same thing (Med.#12), since it is actually the Father who draws people to Jesus (Med.#61).

Why then do so many Christians mainly focus their praise and thanks on Jesus, for all he did for us, rather than on the Father who was behind everything Jesus said and did? One reason might be that they only see Jesus through a human cultural perspective as a kind of superhero-savior. Yet through these meditations, I have come to see Jesus mainly as our Eldest Brother (‘firstborn’) and family-redeemer [Heb. goēl] for all nations (including Israel) who was sent by our Father. Jesus' role as family-redeemer also explains why the New Testament in general sees the cross as much more than just an atonement for sin.[16] It also explains better the new position we enjoy together in our Father's household and family kingdom—especially in relation to social powers (section 3.7). Further, the NT presents the cross also as a model for how we are to behave in a humble way in relation to one another on a daily basis (Med.#56; Med.#84). Further, the cross is not the culmination of Jesus' life on earth. For his resurrection and ascension represent more than simply a victory over death. These events also point to what has always been our Father's envisioned future for human beings.

NOTE

[16] Perhaps this is why God arranged for Jesus to die for us at Passover as ‘the Lamb of God’ (see section 2.3, par.2), rather than on the Day of ‘Atonement’, when the ‘sin offering’ did not involve a lamb.

Following Jesus' death, resurrection and ascension, we now see him ‘crowned with glory and honor’, even though we don't yet see everything put under either his feet or our feet. According to the author of Hebrews, Jesus passed through these planned stages for humanity (Psalm 8:4-6, see section 2.5) so that he might bring ‘many sons (and daughters) to glory’, since we are ‘of the same family’ with him (Med.#7). The apostle Paul also knew this text from the Psalms, for he cites it twice. First to speak of how the story of humanity in the Bible will reach its climax when Jesus returns (1 Cor.15:25, see section IV). But (in his Ephesian letter) he also applies it to Jesus and to us—to speak of how our Father's power is ‘for us’ because of how he ‘raised’ [Gr. egeiras] Jesus from the dead and then ‘seated [Gr. kathisas] him…among the celestial ones’ with a position ‘far above every primal chiefdom, authority, power and lordship and every name that is named…in this age… for the church’—for us as members of ‘his body’. And he underlines this a few verses later by using the same Greek words to describe how ‘in Christ Jesus’ we too have already been ‘raised-together’ [Gr. sun-eegeiren] and ‘seated together’ [Gr. sun-ekathisen] among the celestial ones’ (Med.#44). What then does this mean for us today?

According to Paul in his Ephesian letter, all believers—regardless of ethnicity, sex or social class (section 3.2, par.3)—have equal access to the Father, through one Lord and one Spirit (Med.#44). Therefore, there is now only one Father over all of us who are members of Christ's body (Med.#50). Jesus said the same thing. Under his Lordship and under the Father, all believers must primarily relate to one another as ‘brothers and sisters’ (Med.#68). At the Last Supper, Jesus told his disciples that the only position that counts for believers now is an equal place at his table. The new authority he gives to each of us as adult sons and daughters comes solely from our relationship with him and with the Father, and no longer from holding a position of social power in the church. For this is an important way that the Father's new family kingdom is totally unlike any earthly kingdom. When Jesus washed his disciples feet, he was not giving an example of so-called ‘servant-leadership’. Instead, as our only ‘Teacher and Lord’ he was instead modeling servant-everybody (Med.#67)![17]

All this is because Jesus' death on the cross breaks the automatic presumptiveness of any who occupy positions of social power anywhere. Yes, even though we are now co-heirs with Jesus, we must still submit to ‘primal chiefs’ [Gr. arkhee] and other legitimate ‘authorities’ [Gr. exousia] in society (Tit.3:1; Rom.13:1ff). Yet at the cross, Jesus disarmed these social powers by exposing their weaknesses (Med.#31; Med.#23). Even so, it is our Father's intention that the church will also make known ‘the many and varied wisdom of God’ to these social powers (Med.#6) by the way we all ‘line up’ [Gr. stoikhomen] together under the Spirit (Med.#30)—under Christ as our only true Head in our Father's new multi-ethnic family kingdom. Since God's fullness dwelt bodily in him, we too have received ‘fullness’ in him because of his new eternal position as the supreme ‘head’ over the ‘primal chiefs and authorities’ in every human society (Med#81).

What then about the ‘elemental powers’ [Gr. stoikheia], especially those of our own culture? In Christ we have died to the power these used to exercise over us—through human traditions and rules about food and festivals, philosophies about the supernatural and body image, rituals and taboos, racial or ethnic stereotyping and superiority, etc. We are no longer obligated to continue following them (Med.#31; Med.#81; Med.#30; Med.#44). Now there are some cultural things that each group in Christ can still value as good or deem to be permissible. Yet all believers are responsible to ‘line up under’ the cross [Gr. stoikhomen] in the way they practice such things  (Gal.6:15, Med.#30)—so long as members of all groups are built up and no ‘evil’ can be attributed to the Father's new multi-ethnic family kingdom due to one group's practices (Med.#70; Med.#69).

This also applies to how social leadership is practiced. Since we all grow up under the influence of human ‘fathers’ (even absent ones) and ‘father-figures’ in our respective family, ethnic and religious groups, we tend to reproduce in the church what we have seen modeled in these groups—concerning who can lead, how to act as a leader and how to behave toward people in leadership, etc. Negative examples of this can be found in Paul's letters—of church leaders imposing their own cultural customs on other groups in the church (Med.#28), or misleading believers into divisions that align with human cultural ideas and expectations rather than with Christ (Med.#69; Med.#70). Also in letters from John (Med.#75; Med.#55), James (Med.#77) and Jude (Med.#93).

Yet it was from Paul that I learned the most about how Christian leadership can and should reflect the ‘new creation’ reality of the Father's family kingdom, and how the cross of Christ has disarmed the social powers. Paul demonstrated such leadership in the way he acted as a non-hierarchical ‘father’ to younger adult brothers in Christ like Timothy (Med.#72), Titus (Med.#73), Philemon and Onesimus (Med.#74). Also in relation to the believers in Corinth, where he contrasts his father role to them with the behavior of many other leaders who are acting like their ‘childhood tutors’, or like ‘super-super apostles’ (Med.#34). Though Paul's initial teaching in this church had to be very basic (1 Cor.3:1), he nevertheless ‘encourages’, ‘warns’, and ‘entreats’ them as his ‘brothers and sisters’ —as ‘co-workers’ and fellow adult ‘sons and daughters’ under ‘one Father’ and ‘one Lord’ (Med.#32; Med.#69). He chooses not to ‘exercise dominion over’ them (Med.#73); for his goal in all the churches is to use his gifts to enable ‘each’ believer to grow in maturity [Gr. teleios] in Christ, not just to help them avoid sinful behavior (Med.#80; Med.#50; Med.#56). Jesus also used this Greek word in a similar way when he spoke of fulfilling the Law by becoming ‘mature as our Father is mature’ (Med.#12).

I also learned from Paul how a man can be a spiritual ‘mother’ to new believers, as well as a spiritual ‘father’ to them—while at the same time treating them as fellow adult heirs of the Father and not underage children (Med.#71). In this same meditation I show where he identifies one particular woman ‘minister’ that had played a ‘father’ role to him and to many others; and where he mentions a second woman who had been a ‘mother’ to him in the faith. Also from John's letters I gained other insights about being a ‘father’ in the Father's family (Med.#76), and again how church leadership is not limited to men (Med.#75).

NOTES

[17] This was even the third time Jesus tried to impress this truth on his disciples (Med.#18; Med.#92).

What then did I learn about our human future from our Father's perspective as revealed in the Bible? In two of Paul's letters, he speaks of an aspect of our ‘redemption’ in Christ that has yet to take place. This family-redemption involves all believers receiving the full ‘possession’ of ‘our inheritance’, for which the Spirit is merely ‘the deposit of guarantee’ (Med.#8). The ‘glorious freedom’we now enjoy as adult sons and daughters cannot be compared with the glory ‘in us’ that will be revealed when all creation finds out who we really are, after we have finally become fully conformed to the glorious image of our Eldest Brother through the ‘redemption of our bodies’ (Med.#5). When the disciples observed Jesus in his new resurrection body they were actually being given a glimpse of the hope of our glorious Father's calling in Christ (1 Cor.2:7-9, Med.#69)—that on his return will finally fulfill the prophecy in the Tanakh (Hos.13:14, Med.#E) about people being ‘family-redeemed’ [Heb. gaal] from Death (Med.#94).

Further, Paul, Peter and Jesus all indicate that there is a group dimension to this as well, since the ‘placement as sons’ has always been the Father's future for the people of Israel—even though many of them have stubbornly refused ‘the word’ Jesus brought them concerning this appointed destiny (Med.#5). Now, though, this ‘placement’ and the future ‘possession’ of it also belong to the obedient remnants of the other nations as well (Med.#45). When Jesus returns with his ‘messengers’ and all nations [Gr. ethne] are gathered before him, he will ‘separate them’ in two groups. Then the nations that have received his messengers (‘his little brothers’) will ‘inherit the kingdom’ that the Father prepared for them ‘from the foundation of the world’ (Med.#89; Med.#90; Med.#91; Med.#92). But before that happens, Paul indicates that in the time leading up to the resurrection of the dead, the Father's family kingdom will have increased to comprise both a ‘fullness’ of Israel and a ‘fullness’ of other nations as well (Rom.11:12b-16,25-26).[18] And at Jesus' return, all those in positions of social power—the ‘primal chiefs [Gr. arkhee] and authorities [Gr. exousia]’ that had been created by and for him as guardians over the nations—will either be ‘reconciled to him’ (Med.#31), or they will be ‘destroyed’ (Med.#94). Then too, the Psalmist's answer to the question about what it means to be human (Ps.8:4-6). will finally be fulfilled as all believing individuals and nations will be ‘crowned with glory and honor’, and have all things having been ‘placed under their feet’ (Med.#7).

Wait a minute. Isn't this text just about Jesus and not about us? Well, yes and no. Like the author of Hebrews, Paul acknowledges that this text is first fulfilled in Jesus—beginning with his resurrection and ascension (see section 3.6) and then in a more complete way at his return. However, my final surprise in this project came when I saw what Paul says will happen next. Everything that ‘God, even the Father’ finally puts under Jesus' feet will ultimately end up under our feet too. Because Jesus as ‘the Son’, in one grand final act of humility—like when he, as the eternal Word of God, humbled himself to take on human flesh and blood (Med.#56)—will take his place alongside us by subordinating himself to the Father (Med.#94). Wow!

NOTE

[18] Members of this website can read more about Paul's discussion of this in sections 3-4 concerning ‘A 3^rd Aspect of the Mystery’ in the article ‘Dealing with Divisive Ethnic Group Leaders in the Church in Rome’.

There is a family dimension of the story of the Bible that does not seem to be recognized in the Church—at least not in the Western Church. This family dimension has a number of implications.

1. It provides a new perspective on the identity of each human being and each human ethnic group. In short, on what it means to be human.
2. It gives a new dimension to the seriousness of human sinfulness (as harm brought to the family name) and of evil in the world (as a threat to the Father’s family purposes for each human individual and nation).
3. It offers a new perspective on God’s relationship to human as Father-creator, as ‘family-redeemer’ and as family-kingdom Judge—for both individuals and for nations and ethnic groups. In other words, not just Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
4. It enlarges God’s goal for humanity as being our growth in diversity and maturity as his adult sons and daughters—a goal that includes resolving the problems of sin, evil and death, but which is a much broader goal. For it is about the fulfillment of the second phase of his plan for both women and men and all ethnic groups to become co-heirs of an eternal multi-ethnic family kingdom.
5. It also underscores the need for all to receive revelation by the Spirit in order to grasp the importance of God’s two-stage family plan—because of the way he kept it hidden until the coming of his promised Messiah. For even people who have had the Scriptures for generations do not automatically ‘see’ it
6. This two-stage plan also exposes the temporal nature of the social powers (in both the natural and supernatural realms) that were initially created by God for the ordering of human society. And it exposes why these social powers—of rulers, institutions, customs, traditions and boundaries—so often oppose the administration of the new multi-ethnic kingdom in the church and seek to infiltrate it. Our battle is not only against the powers of the evil one, but also often against the social power of rulers and ‘elemental powers’ such as racism, favoritism and Anti-Semitism.
7. Thus revelation of this plan also provides a new perspective on the place of Israel in it that is neither Israel-centered nor replacement-of-Israel oriented. Likewise, it offers a challenge to all cultural perspectives that are characterized either by extreme ethnocentrism or extreme individualism.
8. Finally, this revelation gives us a larger view of the Good News that we have been given to proclaim. For it speaks not only a family-redemption, but also of the arrival of the multi-ethnic family-kingdom and the family-inheritance (in the Messiah and by the Spirit) that our Father had planned for human individuals and nations before human sinfulness had even entered the world. Yet because all social systems need revelation to see this Gospel, they will tend to oppose it. So in our attempts to proclaim it in all ethnic groups and to see it impact every social sphere of those societies, we must be careful that we do not allow the social power of human cultures and their social spheres to modify our family-Gospel in the process.

Before I started this project, I had learned that there are ‘shame’ cultures in the world today that still don't comprehend the Good News about Jesus. Like with our Muslim neighbors, the message of the cross may only begin to make sense to them when they hear it as a ‘family-redemption’ planned by God as their Father (see section 2:3). Even many secularized young people may only understand what ‘good news’ the Gospel really is when they hear it as a ‘coming of age’ and a multi-ethnic ‘coming together’ as adult sons and daughters that was pre-planned by their heavenly Father, as well as hearing it as a family redemption.[19] If we are going to see the Great Commission completed in 21^st century, I believe our Christian witnesses to the Gospel needs a renewed emphasis on God as our Father[20]—in the same way that the increased spread of the Gospel during the 20^th century was enhanced by a renewed emphasis on the empowering of the Holy Spirit and its spread during the 19^th century grew out of revivals that placed a fresh emphasis on a personal relationship with Jesus.

As the apostle Paul (in his letter to the Romans) contemplated the final phase of God's purposes for us (the ingathering of the ‘fulness’ of the nations)—which is also the story of our Father's tough love and mercy towards us (Rom.11:25-32)—he suddenly broke into a song of praise. Having again taken the liberty to change the pronouns, I invite you to join me in making Paul's words also our song of worship—to our Father God (Rom.11:33-36; Phil.4:20, Med.#56).

O how rich the depth, of both your wisdom and knowledge! How inscrutable your judgments and untraceable your ways! ·For:

“Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” [Isa.40:13]

·Or “Who has first given to him that it should be repaid to him?” [Jb.41:11]

— ·seeing that all things (are) from you and through you and to you! To you…,  ·our God and Father, be the glory forever. Amen!!! 

NOTES

[19] This is the approach of my 2^nd book of stories, currently available only in Dutch (Rode Dromer) and Norwegian (Mostafas Drøm).

[20] See my third (2019) talk, ‘What our Father is Doing: three trends and challenges for the 21^st century’ on this page.