To his friends, George Müller embodied Psalm 23 even under the towering burdens of orphan ministry. What kind of communion with God made such peace possible?

Watch Now

My mom’s daily delight was observing wildlife from her porch overlooking our country pond. One spring morning, she watched six fluffy ducklings trail their mother across the water. Gripping her coffee mug, she stared in disbelief as the sixth duckling at the row’s end suddenly vanished underwater, leaving only ripples. Moments later, as the mama duck and her entourage paddled obliviously onward, the smallest splash occurred near the end of the line, and the fifth baby duck disappeared. The predators of the pond, giant snapping turtles, had snatched and stolen those ducklings.

Christian families worldwide face the sorrow of dear prodigals being pulled off the path of righteousness. The enemy of our souls comes to steal, kill, and destroy. He comes at night and, yes, like those snapping turtles, sometimes in broad daylight. Our enemy isn’t flesh and blood, but rather Satan and spiritual forces of evil who prowl around, seeking someone to devour (Ephesians 6:12; 1 Peter 5:8).

Our precious ones may be captured right now. Our beloved may be wandering, willfully resisting Jesus. But unlike those drowned ducklings, hope remains for our ensnared and wayward kids. So how can parents care for prodigals and help guide them back to Christ?

Intercede in Prayer

Fight on your knees for your children. It’s gut-wrenching when someone we love, someone we’ve tended to and invested in for decades, strays from Christ. Some days will bring you to your knees. Stay there. The one who can recover what’s been stolen meets us on the floor.

Pray over every good thing God knit into your beloved: the seeds of faith, the kindness, the curiosity, the playfulness, the artistic talent. You know the list because you watched it develop and helped it unfold. God, who gave all of those gifts, can consecrate them afresh to Christ. Ask him to nurture every evidence of grace you can recall.

Pray Isaiah 43:12–13 when fear wakes you at 3:00am and whispers that your wanderer is beyond reach:

I am God. . . .
I am he;
     there is none who can deliver from my hand;
     I work, and who can turn it back?

From eternity to eternity, God is God. No one can wander beyond his reach. In dark hours, pray that your children would return to the Father’s keeping (John 17:11) and have a faith that doesn’t fail (Luke 22:32).

Pray according to who God tells us he is: compassionate and merciful, slow to anger, filled with unfailing love and faithfulness. Though he does not excuse the guilty, he forgives iniquity, rebellion, and sin (Exodus 34:6–7). Thank God that he is a relentless mercy-giver, and trust him to go where you cannot.

Extend Kindness with Truth

Be kind without compromise. “Above all, keep loving one another earnestly,” Peter tells us (1 Peter 4:8). If God’s kindness is meant to lead us to repentance (Romans 2:4), then our earnest love, extended through his strength, can become a path toward reconciliation and restoration. Serve your wanderer in creative, thoughtful ways, and say yes to requests whenever you can.

In our society, “affirmation” has been hijacked to mean validating someone’s feelings and choices, whatever they may be. Biblical affirmation is far richer: declaring God’s truth over others, calling out the good he has placed in them, and reminding them of gospel hope. One centers on the self; the other centers on the Savior. Look for evidence of God’s work in your wanderer, and find ways to say, “Well done!” often.

Extending kindness includes a caveat: We are to offer it without compromising truth. The apostle Paul says love “does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth” (1 Corinthians 13:6). If we compromise the truth of God’s word to keep the peace, we turn off the very porch light we pray will draw our wayward ones home.

Hope in God’s Sovereign Work

When you become weary, when you struggle to keep fear at bay and maintain quietness of soul, perhaps it’s time to rest under that same porch light.

I wait for the Lord, my soul waits,
     and in his word I hope. . . .
O Israel, hope in the Lord!
     For with the Lord there is steadfast love,
     and with him is plentiful redemption.

God’s willing, plentiful redemption frees us from despair to hope in his character (Psalm 130:5, 7).

Jesus has all power over physically and spiritually dead people. I am deeply comforted by Martha’s faith as she modeled resting in hope even after she prepared her brother’s body for burial. When Jesus arrived, Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days. Martha cried out in faith, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” She had still greater faith to continue, “But even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you” (John 11:21–22).

On my daily prayer calendar, a yellow Post-it keeps my place. Every morning when I move it to the next day, I read the soul-steadying words written in permanent black marker: “Even Now.” I am emboldened by the faith of the woman who taught me to pray these two words. The same Jesus who called Lazarus out of a physical tomb can call your wayward child out of a spiritual one. No matter how far your wanderer has gone or how long he has been gone, even now Jesus is able to bring this precious one home.

Jesus defeated death. He walked out of his own tomb — which means no tomb, physical or spiritual, need have the final word. “According to his great mercy, [God causes] us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3).

Spiritually dead wanderers, prodigal sons, lost daughters, snatched children are not beyond his reach. Though our treasured ones have been captured by the devil’s snare to do his will, “God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,” and they may escape (2 Timothy 2:25–26). Not all who wander are lost forever. By the mercy of God, even now, may your wanderer return home.

Paul wanted Philemon to welcome Onesimus back — but did it matter how? Paul’s radical reasoning has big implications for Onesimus’s status as a slave.

Watch Now

Where do you go now to meet with God? John Piper opens John 2:12–22 to show that Jesus replaces the temple as the living meeting place with God.

Watch Now

John Piper once wrote,

If our single, all-embracing passion is to make much of Christ in life and death, and if the life that magnifies him most is the life of costly love, then life is risk, and risk is right. To run from it is to waste your life. (Risk Is Right, 17)

I agree. I don’t want to waste my life; I want to run toward costly love, even if that means facing risk. I want the same thing for you. For some of us, costly love may require the right risk of cross-cultural church planting. For some, it may require the right risk of moving to an uncomfortable city or neighborhood.

And for some, costly love may require the right risk of pursuing a godly spouse.

He who finds a good wife has gotten a gift, a hearty smile from the King (Proverbs 18:22). A godly spouse is a wise investment, and children are the great return (Proverbs 31:10; Psalm 127:3). But from the garden onward, the foundation of marriage has been costly love.

Eve’s very genesis reveals this profound truth about the husband-wife relationship: It required from Adam a rib. Before sin ever entered the world, Adam had to enter sleep (a “death” of sorts), sacrificing part of his own body so that his wife could live. The name “Eve” denotes “life” in Hebrew, so it is not a stretch to say that life itself springs from costly love.

Man could not fulfill his glorious task of representing God’s rule through multiplication and dominion any other way. The fall and curse underlined this reality, but they did not cause it. It was sown into the fabric of man’s genesis. The first picture of Christ and his church included a price point and a stitched-up side. The mother of all living herself sprang from costly love; should we not expect something similar for her daughters? There is indeed a risk inherent to the realm of romance, but that risk is right.

Realm of Many Risks

The first challenge for many today is not how to pursue marriage but whether to pursue it at all.

Why? Well, some people are cynical. The marital institution has been corrupted over time. Others see marriage as implausible — not in this economy! But I suspect fear paralyzes the majority.

Modernity catechizes young ladies to pursue the gender-neutral path to “success” that lands them squarely in the 9-to-5, laboring for a corporation (rather than a household), submitting to a CEO (rather than a husband), and filling a checking account and 401k (rather than a womb). In short, they are being told to invest in a career rather than a spouse.

Many young ladies buy into this not because they despise the male sex but out of fear. What if she never finds “the one”? What if her fairy tale is written backward, and her “prince” turns out to be a toad? Even if she does find her prince, it’s a two-income society. So she works more and more, and she looks less and less, and she fears.

I know more than a few ladies who did not chart this course intentionally. They never outright dismissed the opposite sex. Some of them simply followed the career path suggested by their parents. Many of them are trying to be productive and make the best use of their time; they have bills to pay, skills to use, and talents to honor their Lord with. Many would say they still want to get married. But even if fear did not put them there, it may keep them. The longer you build a life and future as a single person, the harder it may be to imagine anything different — and the more it may feel like a risk to pursue a marriage that could change everything, though you yearn for companionship and family.

The guys have their own fears to deal with. The “Chads” love to quote the Stoics as they pour their soul into bodybuilding, but many of them are Epicurean when it comes to romance. Epicurus and the “incel” (involuntary celibate) share a striking similarity in their outlook: The “good life” is defined by maximally avoiding pain. So don’t even try to get the girl. Have you seen the divorce statistics? Have you seen the double standards and unrealistic expectations? No thanks. I’ll stick to my friends and my hobbies.

But just like with the ladies, most young, single men have not dismissed the institution or ideal. Many just fear the risk. Risk of rejection. Risk of wasting their time. Risk of the unfamiliar. Even the white knights are afraid of risk: What if he hurts her? What if he makes a mistake? What if he ruins the good friendship they have? What if he’s not ready — financially, spiritually, emotionally? And of course, our society incentivizes prolonged adolescence with Netflix, video games, and sports.

If I may point at extremities to make my point: Young women cope with their fear of risk by pursuing a career path that looks strangely like what used to be a man’s idea of success. And young men avoid the risk by black-pilling (deciding the game is rigged and the future is hopeless) and withdrawing altogether.

Risk Is Still Right

Here is the truth. Marriage is still good — and still part of God’s plan for filling the world with people who represent his rule. The Great Commission has not superseded or nullified the Cultural Mandate; they are compatible. Complementary, even.

Is it risky to bear fruit, multiply, and take dominion? Yes. A rib is the price of entry. And that was before the thorns. It will cost you far more, especially if you “win.” It will require death to self every day. You will risk embarrassment, failure, exposed sin, the needs of others, ingratitude, and, if you are abundantly successful, sleepless nights and dirty diapers. It will cost you. But cost is not always curse; sometimes cost is the point.

Remember David’s final words in 2 Samuel. Araunah offered to give him a threshing floor and oxen so David could make a sacrifice that would save the nation. “No, but I will buy it from you for a price. I will not offer burnt offerings to the Lord my God that cost me nothing” (2 Samuel 24:24). David knew the cost gave his action meaning. Life is not about avoiding pain. Life is about pain that purchases something worthwhile. Life is costly because love is costly. That’s not the curse. That’s part of what makes it good.

Not Riskless, Not Reckless

By all means, think about the right risk of devoting your life to singleness, so you can be single-mindedly devoted to the things of the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:32–34). Consider that a genuine option. But if it’s in your heart to get married, take a different risk that’s also right: the risk of pursuing a godly spouse.

If you are an unmarried woman, read the book of Ruth. Take note: It is not unspiritual to have a strategy for getting a spouse. Sometimes, we assume that if we just do all the spiritual stuff — read the Bible, pray, attend church, serve — God will drop off a husband on our front porch. But that’s like a married couple waiting on their front porch for babies by stork. I write to you what I would say to them: Friends, there is in fact something you can do about this!

It is okay to have a strategy, a game plan — in fact, it may prove necessary. You might need to change your schedule, rearrange weekly commitments, and ask married couples in your church for help. Ruth and Naomi were a couple of schemers. Boaz did not stand a chance because they had a thoughtful strategy that the Lord blessed.

Unmarried men, you too can plan. A good life is not riskless, but it is also not reckless. My encouragement is advice well-worn: Do not, first and foremost, focus on getting a girl; instead, focus on building the kind of life a woman would want to join you in. Are you the kind of godly man a godly woman would want to marry? Read Psalms 127 and 128. See what a great blessing a wife and a family are. See the connection between building a household and keeping a civilization. See the connections between family and fulfillment, between lineage and legacy. See how truly good it is. Desire it. Aspire to it. Pursue it. Let the mature married couples in your church know you’re on the hunt for a godly woman. Ask for their input.

And when wise counsel agrees you’re in a good and godly state to date, go for it. Ask her out. Do not make her make the first move. Don’t belittle her if she does — but take the lead from there. Seek wise counsel about how to date well. Maybe do some light reading.

Do you want a pain-free life? Save yourself from the pain of loneliness and irrelevance that will inevitably come from a youth squandered on isolation and entertainment. Do you want to avoid risk? Avoid the risk of wasting your life on self-serving comfort. Embrace the risk of laying yourself down for the sake of costly love. Life is love, and love is costly, so life is risky.

And that means, in the realm of romance, that risk is right.

What do we mean when we say God is sovereign? Pastor John traces God’s sovereignty throughout the Bible and draws out two big, soul-steadying truths.

Listen Now

What was Jesus revealing when he turned water into wine? John Piper opens John 2:1–11 to show the Son’s glory in pointing from ritual cleansing to his coming hour.

Watch Now

ABSTRACT: Divine accommodation describes how the infinite, transcendent, and holy God condescends to make himself known. It answers the fundamental religious question, “How can I know God?” by saying, “God reveals himself.” The doctrine, with roots deep in the Christian tradition, has been opposed by various theologians in both the distant and recent past. Yet considered in its far-reaching consequences, divine accommodation remains a crucial doctrine for preserving a biblical understanding of revelation and how people come to know God.

The majority of people in the world believe in “God.”¹ Of these people, the majority believe that this “God” created everything that exists.² Of these “believers,” the majority hope that this “God” is knowable in some way.³ Our question becomes, then, “How can people know this ‘God?’”

Many people throughout the world focus on themselves as the answer to this question. They seek to know their “God” through engaging in religious ceremonies (for example, praying five times a day and going on a pilgrimage), following some law of freedom (for example, karma), focusing on self-denial through practices of abstinence or repudiation, seeking union with the cosmos or divine force, meditating to achieve self-emptying or an altered consciousness, and the like. That is, people initiate the way to know their “God.”

Christianity denies this is the way to know the one true living God, because there is no human starting point — nor can there be. On the contrary, God makes himself known to people. Christians answer the question, “How can people know God?” with one word: accommodation.

In this essay, I will define accommodation, give some analogies to help us better understand it, explore John Calvin’s contribution to this doctrine, call attention to attacks (one in particular) against it, highlight seven areas of the doctrine’s significance and implications, and offer a few questions for consideration and application.

Accommodation Defined

By way of definition, accommodation is “God’s act of condescending to human capacity in his revelation of himself.”⁴ In terms of the basic principle of accommodation, “for an infinite, perfect, and holy God to interact with finite, fallible, and fallen humanity, he must accommodate himself to our ability to understand him, coming down to our level so that we can grasp what he says and does.”⁵

The doctrine is closely associated with John Calvin, though it was certainly affirmed earlier in history. Calvin

underscored the appropriateness of God, who is infinitely exalted, accommodating himself to human weakness so that his adjusted revelation would be intelligible to its recipients. Indeed, God stoops like a mother when she communicates with her child. This accommodation is especially seen in Scripture: it is the Word of God written in limited human languages for sinful human beings with limited capacity to understand it, yet it does not participate in human error.⁶

Accommodation, then, acknowledges the need for God to “stoop” in order to reveal himself to us.

The above expression “God stoops like a mother when she communicates with her child” is just one of several metaphors/analogies theologians have used to portray divine accommodation. Others include a mother feeding her baby,⁷ a doctor prescribing medicine in accordance with his patient’s condition,⁸ an adult speaking with a child,⁹ a nurse “lisping” to an infant,¹⁰ or a schoolmaster teaching a young student.¹¹

These helpful analogies underscore the condescension with which God acts as he seeks to make himself known through his communication in Scripture to human beings. Certainly, a mother, doctor, adult, nurse, and schoolmaster are of the same (human) nature as a baby, patient, child, infant, and young student. Such commonality shrinks the distance between the former and the latter. Such is not so with God, a divine being, in relation to human beings. God is infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient; human beings are finite, located, weak, uninformed. Such discontinuity exaggerates the chasm between the former and the latter.

Unsurprisingly, then, it is impossible for human beings to take the initiative to know God through even the best of human efforts. With this way to God shuttered, the only way for people to know him is by God making himself known to them.

This is divine accommodation.¹²

John Calvin on Accommodation

The leading Reformed voice on this doctrine was that of John Calvin (1509–1564).¹³ Two highlights of his significant contributions to the doctrine of divine accommodation are presented here.¹⁴

First, he used one of the powerful metaphors already noted. In his treatment of the Trinity, Calvin critiqued people who imagine that God is physical based on “the fact that Scripture often ascribes to him a mouth, ears, eyes, hands, and feet.” Calvin chided,

For who even of slight intelligence does not understand that, as nurses commonly do with infants, God is wont in a measure to “lisp” in speaking to us? Thus such forms of speaking do not so much express clearly what God is like as accommodate the knowledge of him to our slight capacity. To do this he must descend far beneath his loftiness.¹⁵

Accordingly, written Scripture (for example, its descriptions of God as having human body parts) does not reveal God as he is in himself: an immaterial being without physical components. Rather, it comes to embodied human beings (who do have body parts) in an accommodated manner so they can understand by analogy what God is truly like toward them: He “speaks,” “hears,” “sees,” “acts,” and “moves” for their benefit. Breathtakingly, the God who is high and lifted up descends low, speaking to human beings with baby talk.

Similarly, Calvin discussed Scripture’s use of the word “repentance” in relation to God. He referenced several passages: God “repented of having created man [Genesis 6:6]; of having put Saul over the kingdom [1 Samuel 15:11]; and of his going to repent of the evil that he had determined to inflict upon his people, as soon as he sensed any change of heart in them [Jeremiah 18:8].” Calvin added the examples of God’s repentance when he relented of destroying the Ninevites (Jonah 3:4, 10) and when he deferred Hezekiah’s death sentence (Isaiah 38:1, 5).

Calvin was concerned to ward off charges by many “that God has not determined the affairs of men by an eternal decree.”¹⁶ Thus, he explained that this mode of speech describes

God for us in human terms. For because our weakness does not attain his exalted state, the description of him that is given to us must be accommodated to our capacity so that we may understand it. Now the mode of accommodation is for him to represent himself to us not as he is in himself, but as he seems to us.¹⁷

God in himself has eternally decreed all things and will certainly execute his decree. At the same time, because such a reality is infinitely above human comprehension — people struggle to make one simple plan and carry it out effectively — God accommodated the revelation of himself and his ways in human terms, as he appears to them, and in accordance with human limitations, so they could comprehend it.¹⁸

Second, Calvin explained another significant purpose for divine accommodation. Describing Scripture’s use of jarring expressions — for example, “God was men’s enemy. . . . They were under a curse. . . . They were estranged from God” until they were reconciled to him — Calvin argued,

Expressions of this sort have been accommodated to our capacity that we may better understand how miserable and ruinous our condition is apart from Christ. For if it had not been clearly stated that the wrath and vengeance of God and eternal death rested upon us, we would scarcely have recognized how miserable we would have been without God’s mercy, and we would have underestimated the benefit of liberation.¹⁹

Though some people might be repulsed by such disturbing language — “enemy,” “curse,” “estranged” — the truth is that the wrath of God hangs over the head of sinful people. To unsettle them out of their indifference to or rebellion against him, God brilliantly (though unusually) “stoops” and grabs their attention, thereby prompting them to wake up to their dreadful plight. So, not only does God temper his revelation through written Scripture so that human beings can grasp by analogy something of God and his ways for their understanding, but even more, God accommodates that revelation so that fallen human beings experientially sense the dire straits in which they find themselves before him and his wrath and thus, completely undone and moved by his mercy, flee to him for salvation.

Accommodation Under Attack

The doctrine of divine accommodation has been a mainstay throughout church history. Some would even call it a hermeneutical and theological axiom for the proper interpretation of Scripture and for soundness of doctrinal formulation about God and his ways. But it has also come under fierce attack.

As recounted by Glenn Sunshine, a substantial critique and reformulation of accommodation came from the rationalist, anti-Trinitarian heretic Faustus Socinus (Fausto Sozzini, 1539–1604).²⁰ Disapproving of Jesus’s affirmation of (what would later become the doctrine of) eternal conscious punishment of the wicked in hell, based on his teaching about Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19–31), Socinus dismissed it as a parable in which Christ accommodated himself “to the level of the [Jewish] people.”²¹ Thus, accommodation became a critical tool in the hands of skeptics to reject biblical affirmations that were, to those critics, unpalatable.

Similar attacks persist today in even more virulent forms. An important one comes from Kenton Sparks in his 2008 work God’s Word in Human Words.²² He wrestles with historical criticism and explains it in part with reference to (a novel idea of) divine accommodation. For example, he addresses historical criticism’s dismissal of Moses’s authorship of the Pentateuch, Isaiah’s sole authorship of his prophetic book, and Daniel’s authorship of his prophecy. Sparks invokes accommodation for Jesus’s (wrongful) affirmation of these men as authors of the books attributed to them:

If Jesus was fully human, as orthodoxy demands, then it is likely that he learned — along with other ancient Jews — that Moses, Isaiah, and Daniel wrote their books, irrespective of factual and historical realities. Moreover, even if Jesus knew the critical fact that Moses did not pen the Pentateuch, it is hardly reasonable to assume that he would have revealed this information to his ancient audience.²³

Here we are on the horns of a dilemma: Either Jesus accommodated himself to incorrect ideas of Old Testament authorship, having learned wrongly that Moses, Isaiah, and Daniel authored their biblical writings, or Jesus knew these men did not author those writings but accommodated himself by not revealing the truth to his naive and misinformed audiences.

Moreover, Sparks notes clear indications “that the biblical authors were subject to their own finitude and fallenness when they wrote Scripture.” For example, Daniel expected the kingdom of God to come in his lifetime (as did Paul and John with respect to the Lord’s return). Thus, Sparks insists that we must hold out “the possibility that a limited perspective [on the part of the biblical authors] might inevitably lead to a mistaken perspective.”²⁴ He continues,

The only question that remains, then, is whether God somehow protected or insulated their biblical words from their human fallenness. If he did so, it should be easy to recognize. Scripture would reflect a single, coherent, and consistent God-given view of morals and ethics from Genesis to Revelation.²⁵

As to be expected, Sparks then rehearses inconsistencies in Scripture such as the biblical commands to slaughter women and children versus praying for one’s enemies, instructions about the beating of slaves versus treating them kindly, listing women as property versus regarding them as one in Christ, prohibiting the eating of pigs versus permitting it, the imprecatory psalms, and more.²⁶

Such inconsistencies, for Sparks, are not limited to ethical matters in Scripture; they extend to theological diversity as well. In response, Sparks again invokes accommodation, defining it as “God’s adoption in inscripturation of the human audience’s finite and fallen perspective. Its underlying conceptual assumption is that in many cases God does not correct our mistaken human viewpoints but merely assumes them in order to communicate with us.”²⁷ In a move seemingly undertaken to rescue this condescending God from error, Sparks claims that the doctrine of accommodation does not introduce human error into Scripture; it is rather the explanation for the errors that are already in the text. Furthermore, “any errant views in Scripture stem, not from the character of our perfect God, but from his adoption in revelation of the finite and fallen perspectives of his human audience.” This distinction permits Sparks to argue that “God does not err in the Bible when he accommodates the errant views of Scripture’s human audience.”²⁸

Sparks’s notion of accommodation, like that of many contemporary critics of inerrant Scripture, diverges greatly from the church’s historical view. In fact, it ends up doing the opposite of what that traditional perspective sought to do when answering our opening question, “How can people know God?” If Sparks is right and (1) Jesus’s ideas about Scripture were incorrect or deceptive; (2) the biblical authors were mistaken as they wrote (so their scriptural writings are errant); and (3) Scripture contains inconsistencies (and thus contradicts itself) — even if Sparks blames such disasters on the biblical authors — then our “accommodated” Bible cannot be relied upon to answer the question of how people can know God.

The Significance and Implications of Accommodation

The importance of this doctrine, and the reasons Christians should reject attacks against it, can be seen in seven areas of significance and implication.

Doctrinal Significance of Accommodation

As for the significance of divine accommodation, first, there is no diminishing of divine authority. As John Frame explains of Scripture, “In the divine voice, God ‘accommodates’ himself to his hearers. . . . Nevertheless, this accommodation does not diminish in any way the authority with which God speaks (or, indeed, the power and presence of his word).”²⁹

Second, this doctrine underscores that Scripture is adequate as divine revelation in human language. As article 4 of The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy states,

We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation. We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God’s work of inspiration.

Third, as he always does in everything that comes to pass, God effectively accomplishes his eternal plan through the instrumentality of his word. Noel Weeks highlights the general biblical principle that nothing can thwart God’s plan: “Scripture does not see man as an impediment to the achievement of the divine purpose. Even man’s sin and blindness cannot prevent God from achieving his purpose.”³⁰ The prophet Isaiah applies this principle to the (accommodated) word of God:

As the rain and the snow come down from heaven
     and do not return there but water the earth,
making it bring forth and sprout,
     giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
     it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
     and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it. (Isaiah 55:10–11)

Accommodation, therefore, is not a hindrance to God’s work but the framework for it.

Implications of Accommodation

Following Calvin, here are four implications of divine accommodation.

First, “Prayer influences divine sovereignty through a process of accommodation: ‘[God] so tempers the outcome of events according to his incomprehensible plan that the prayers of the saints, which are a mixture of faith and error, are not nullified.’”³¹ Listening to and answering the prayers of his people is an example of the sovereign God condescending to consecrate human beings, whom he does not and cannot need, to serve him in the accomplishment of his predestined plan.

Second, the divine discipline of believers is meted out in an accommodated manner. God disciplines his people “in accordance with what is healthful for each man. For not all of us suffer in equal degree from the same diseases or, on that account, need the same harsh cure.”³² Rather than employ a one-size-fits-all strategy to correct and sanctify his people, God condescendingly tailors his action for each believer because “he knows our frame; he remembers that we are dust” (Psalm 103:14).

Third, accommodated preaching is suited to believers’ needs. Through sermons, God “provides for our weaknesses in that he prefers to address us in human fashion through interpreters [preachers] in order to draw us to himself rather than to thunder at us and drive us away.”³³ Like effective human communicators, God accommodates his speech acts — assertions, commands, promises, and warnings that are voiced by pastors — to the hearing and responding capacities of his people.

Fourth, in the sacraments God provides accommodated means of grace for the church:

As our faith is slight and feeble unless it is propped up on all sides and sustained by every means, it trembles, wavers, totters, and at last gives way. Here our merciful Lord, according to his infinite kindness, so tempers himself to our capacity that, since we are creatures who always creep on the ground, cleave to the flesh, and do not think about or even conceive of anything spiritual, he condescends to lead us to himself even by these earthly elements [the bread and wine of communion] and to set before us a mirror of spiritual blessings.³⁴

Lamenting the “dull capacity” of fleshly (i.e., embodied) believers, Calvin explains that God shows them himself and his promises through the physical elements of baptism (water) and the Lord’s Supper (bread and wine). Indeed, God “attests his good will and love toward us more expressly [through these ordinances] than by word.”³⁵ In Paul’s words regarding communion, “As often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Corinthians 11:26), not by a preached word but by an enacted word.

Summary and Questions for Application

In this essay, I defined accommodation as “God’s act of condescending to human capacity in his revelation of himself.”³⁶ To better understand it, I gave some analogies — an adult speaking with a child,³⁷ a nurse “lisping” to an infant³⁸ — that have been used for accommodation. I explored John Calvin’s development of this doctrine and highlighted Kenton Sparks’s attacks against it. Finally, I underscored seven areas of the doctrine’s significance (e.g., Scripture is adequate as divine revelation in human language) and implications (e.g., accommodated preaching is suited to believers’ needs). To conclude, I offer a few questions for consideration and application.

How might a right understanding of this doctrine help us read our Bibles and know our God better?

Specifically, how does it aid you as you read about God’s redemption “with an outstretched arm” (Exodus 6:6), his shining face (Numbers 6:25–26), and his “eyes . . . toward the righteous” (Psalm 34:15)? How does it help you to understand the idea of divine emotions such as jealousy (Exodus 20:5), anger (Psalm 7:6), and grief (1 Samuel 15:35), and divine actions such as repentance (Jonah 3:4, 10), the pouring out of wrath (Revelation 16:1), and slowness (2 Peter 3:9)?

What dangers lurk when there is a misunderstanding of this doctrine? Do you ever find yourself questioning the truthfulness, inerrancy, and authority of Scripture because of difficulties in it? How can you settle this matter?

In light of this essay, how would you answer its opening question, “How can people know God?” Specifically, how would you answer the question, “How can you know God?”

From the beginning of time, the God of heaven and earth has declared war on all wisdom that ignores his own. He will tolerate no rivals when it comes to our trust. That’s what makes artificial intelligence such a danger to the Christian, and especially to the minister.

We need to be reminded that God’s wisdom is not the wisdom of a supercomputer. We need fresh conviction that God’s presence must do God’s work. We need to be warned that relying on artificial intelligence instead of the Holy Spirit must eventually end in defeat. To illustrate, I would like us to travel back thousands of years and bring AI to the Canaanite city of Ai.

Victory at Jericho

Let us begin on the eve of Joshua’s initial invasion into the land of promise.

Imagine you gaze at the fortified city of Jericho from a distance. You consult your military council, your maps, your men, and you double-check the steps of your invasion. You open your MacBook and take another bite of the apple, asking ChatGPT to review your strategy and recommend any alterations for your plan of attack. Well, Yes, it quickly replies. Alterations are needed for all of your plans, at every level.

Cross the Jordan during flood season? Impossible. Circumcise your army in enemy territory? Foolish. Expose your entire force to hostile eyes for a week? Unwise. March around the walls for seven days, and then expect a shout and trumpet blast to bring down the foe’s stronghold? Comical.

God’s strategy for victory defied computation. His thoughts were not the thoughts of men or angels. His ways were not the ways of a supercomputer. So Joshua must take the army, walk around the city for seven days, give a big shout and trumpet blast, and expect the miracle. Day one passes — nothing. Day two passes — no sign of progress. Day three passes — naught but amusement from the walls above. Where is the battering ram; where are the scaling ladders? the enemy wondered. What are they doing?

A ram’s horn could not unglue brick and mortar. What did Jericho need to fear from a box, seven priests, seven trumpets, or seven days of the enemy getting their steps in? The commanders of Jericho didn’t need superintelligence to compute whether these walks posed any real threat. If they could have asked, ChatGPT would have compiled the findings of the greatest architects and war generals of all time; it would have scoured all the books of science and warfare and found no evidence whatsoever that their wall was in any danger from quiet walks or loud shouts. But then they soon felt the tremor beneath their feet. The Hebrew God — in the foolishness of his wisdom — was against them. The wall crumbled; they were soon dead, their city ablaze.

What can we say of this victory? It was illogical, unfathomable, unreasonable, a perplexity to men, angels, and mainframes. The utter oddity of the triumph was a signature — this battle belonged to the Lord. Like so many other battles, it was promised of God, acted by man, realized by faith. “By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they had been encircled for seven days” (Hebrews 11:30).

They did not need the best of natural or artificial intelligence; they needed the foolishness of faith and God’s presence (1 Corinthians 1:25). On the eve of battle and the start of this seven-year campaign, God did not send technology to assist Joshua; he sent the Commander of his army to prostrate Joshua. What God gave to Joshua he gives to us today — not cheat codes and shortcuts but a promise: “Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go” (Joshua 1:9).

Defeat at Ai

Now contrast this with the second battle, the only one Joshua loses. He sends out spies to Ai. The report returns, insisting this small population required only a fraction of their force. Joshua sends three thousand men, a reasonable tactic given the size of the opponent. Had they consulted their computers, three thousand would have been a logical strategy. But to everyone’s astonishment, Israel flees against the little brother of mighty Jericho. Thirty-six men die in the embarrassment.

Joshua tears his clothes, and he and the leaders throw dust upon their heads. What went wrong? How had they failed so miserably? The hearts of the people melt. Is God giving them the land or not?

They trusted their eyes, trusted their sense of things. They assumed they had enough knowledge and acted on what they had. The Lord need not be troubled with this small affair. This victory is manageable. Divine guidance would be overkill. They didn’t need the theatrics of faith as before; they had this in hand. Alone, they could see, come, and conquer. No need of a Revealer for revelation. They mistook knowledge of the mission for God’s presence with them on that mission.

Had they asked the Lord beforehand, they would have discovered that all was not right in their camp. Their eyes scanned only the enemy, not themselves. The Lord could have revealed their disobedience prior to their defeat. Thirty-six men could have lived.

Brothers, God’s eyes are not just on the sinful Canaanites in the land of promise. His eyes are upon us and our people. How we obey him, depend upon him, seek his face has more to do with victory than competent plans or comprehensive sermon outlines. We cannot lean on our own understanding (or that of a computer) even when we possess superior numbers. What will that avail us if God sees an Achan in the camp?

And how many preachers mimic Achan with his stolen plunder? Contraband discourses, borrowed knowledge, unlawful paragraphs copied and pasted because a quick AI prompt was easier than doing the work themselves. To me, these have the glimmer of cursed objects, gold and silver under the ban.

The victory at Jericho taught all Israel that God must lead them into battle. Trust him even when the plan doesn’t make sense. Have you not learned the same? The Bible is a long account of such unorthodox conquests — men having their faith tested, hazarding life itself on what God said rather than what they thought.

What is a studied and well-expressed sermon built largely on the foundations of artificial intelligence? Is it not stolen plunder? What value is that orthodox teaching, conjured with a few keystrokes, when bereft of orthodox affection? Is this the blessing that Jacob wrestled all night for, the blessing that marked him the rest of his days? Men’s sacred trains of thought ought never run on AI search engines. There may be gold in their orthodoxy or oratory, but too often these are nuggets taken by the hand of laziness, inexperience, and lack of prayer. A lifetime of AI-produced sermons, Bible studies, and Sunday school lessons will not honor God and will end in defeat.

Victory at Ai

Israel repented; Achan was destroyed. They reengaged the foe.

God now gives them instructions for ambushing the adversary. His plans for them — shrewd and tactical — differ little from what any general could provide. Troops sneak behind the city in the night, and a small decoy force pretends to flee again, luring the enemy army out of the city. This time, the hidden troops destroy the city and encompass the foe. A far cry from silent walks and blowing trumpets, this plan agrees with the reason of both man and computer.

But even here, God adds his signature. Israel would gain victory, based not on their superior plan or numbers, but because Joshua obeyed the Lord, holding up his spear for the entire battle: “Joshua did not draw back his hand with which he stretched out the javelin until he had devoted all the inhabitants of Ai to destruction” (Joshua 8:26). Like Israel’s first battle out of Egypt, when Moses held his staff over the battlefield for the victory against Amalek (Exodus 17:8–13), so now, Joshua holds up his spear to ensure success. Such are the ways of God.

What is the point? Ministers must never replace their reliance upon God and his Spirit with any tools. The warrior of God does not trust in his spear or his chariots or his ChatGPT. If you are abusing your tools, put them away. You don’t need them. If you can use such permissibly, resolve to never use such lazily. God is your sole trust.

The work of ministry is supernatural. Take your computer to the graveyard and see what success it has in calling forth the dead. But one word from Christ Jesus, one visitation from the commander of the Lord’s armies, and Lazaruses come forth still. The weakness of man — his limited knowledge, his lack of eloquence, his human imperfections — are more than a match for the foe when God is with him. By faith, his shouts can bring down the impenetrable walls of the rebel heart, for God has promised to be glorified in man’s weakness, engraving his greatest signature upon the foolishness of the cross.

But grab irreverently for knowledge that is not yours, rely upon the shortcut, go to battle in armor that you have not tried, put your trust in AI, and you shall know the defeat of Ai. It makes sense on paper, the plans are genius, you have more than enough strength to accomplish it, and yet you shall fall because the Lord is not with you. This position is not anti-technology; it’s anti-abuse of technology and anti-trust in technology. It’s anti-reliance upon the flesh — your flesh or digital flesh. It’s anti-leaning on any wisdom but the Lord’s.

Pastor, with all your weaknesses and limitations, preach the word. Preach as God made you to preach. Study hard, pray harder, plead for help, and do not succumb to artificial sermonizing. If God desired, he could have sent his army of seraphic beings with flaming tongues to preach to the world of men. He could have sent Gabriel to do all the heralding. But he didn’t. He doesn’t need you dressed in all the knowledge of the pastors of ages past; he needs you dependent on him: on your knees, waiting for his power to show up.

Joshua didn’t need to consult all military science; he needed to meet God and receive his instructions, however implausible. That is our need today. Where are God’s generals who don’t seek counsel from a computer but trust in God’s signature means of word and prayer? Such will see Jericho’s walls fall, enemy strongholds burn, and God’s people enter the land of promise.

Although Paul refuses to command Philemon, he strengthens his appeal with seven personal reasons why his dear friend should receive Onesimus like a brother.

Watch Now