say its not so, John?

For some reason it seems quite important to human beings to be considered a “child of God.” Great leaders like Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr have been admired because they are so inclusive in saying “we are all children of God”. It seems to make sense for anyone who has a notion of God that His love must be such that “we are all in.”

Yet, John says something quite to the contrary (John 1). He challenges all of our sense-making about our relationship with God. He says that becoming a child of God is not a result of being born into the human race (by blood), nor is there some social exchange that we can have with God that creates such an outcome (flesh or human nature). John even goes further to say that mankind is not capable of choosing God as one’s father, for we know the will of man is constrained by self-sufficiency and is at enmity with God. 

John says that ONLY those who “receive Jesus” have the right to be called the children of God. Receive here means that one takes onto himself everything that Jesus embraces, the redemptive work of the cross. Again, making sense of our relationship to God, as a child of the King who is clothed by and feasts with the Master who lives in the big mansion on the hill, involves the model of Grace. That God has provided for us when we could not deserve it or really did not even want it (will of man). So how does this happen? Shouldn’t we do something more than just receive? There must be some obligation that we can fulfill? Surely we must contribute to this relationship in some way?

John ends this truth with the simple words “but of God”. That is even the desire to be His child must be given to us by God. After all, this is His sovereign will.