2. NT Doctrine of the Fatherhood of God

CHAPTER II THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD THE revelation of the Fatherhood of God came to mankind through our Lord Jesus Christ. Undoubtedly there had been a belief in the Divine Fatherhood among the Aryan races; there are foregleams of it, as we shall see hereafter, in the Old Testament, and our Lord found in the religious language of His contemporaries an extensive use of the name “ Father “which had grown up since the completion of the Old Testament Scriptures. But as He used the name it became so spiritual, so profound and all-embracing, as to outshine all other use of it, like the sun at noon outshines the morningstar, and to become the foundation of a new idea of God and of a new religion for men.

I. THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD TOWARDS CHRIST The reason of this is that, when our Lord speaks of the Father, He is uttering His own deepest experience; is declaring the Father out of the fulness of His own consciousness as the Son. Three things were necessary before the Father hood of God could have either supreme spiritual significance or certain authentication. Firstly, an adequate conception of the spiritual and moral perfection of God; secondly, a sense of sinless and complete correspondence to Him; thirdly, an immediate, unbroken, and all-determining experience of complete fellowship with Him, revealing and resting upon mutual kinship. And all this was the characteristic consciousness of our Lord Jesus Christ, and was His alone. Generally speaking, it may be said that the revelation of the Fatherhood of God to and by our Lord was, in the first place, not universal, but personal; not theoretic, but experimental; not natural, but spiritual; not accidental, but all-determinative; not common, but unique. The great saying, “ No one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son “ (Matthew 11:27), is, when we bear in mind the depth of meaningcontained in the Hebraic use of the word “ knoweth,” conclusive proof of all these statements; and, if it were needful, abundant additional evidence could be given. Whatever else may be bound up with it, according to the unbroken use both of our Lord and of His apostles, “ the Father “ means originally, and above all, “ the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The Gospels show as clearly how fundamental this experience of God’s Fatherhood and of His own Sonship was for our Lord. It was original and not acquired; intuitive and not reasoned. Our Lord’s first recorded saying, “ Wist ye not that I must be in My Father’s house,” or, “ about My Father’s business “ (Luke 2:49), shows that His earliest selfconsciousness was that of Sonship; that already its light illumined all the world for Him, and guided all His thoughts, desires, and deeds. The history of His life is simply the history of the influence and sufficiency of the consciousness of this fatherly and filial relationship. His ministry opened under the inspiration of the testimony, “ Thou art My beloved Son, in Thee I am well pleased” (Mark 1:11). The story of the great temptation which followed is in substance simply the narrative of how our Lord guarded the integrity of this relationship when assailed at every point. As His ministry drew towards its close and the prospect of death rose up before Him, the transfiguration and the heavenly voice, “ This is My beloved Son: hear ye Him “ (Mark 9:7; Matthew 17:5; Luke 9:35), gave Him a renewed assurance in terms which at once distinguished Him from Moses and Elijah, the greatest servants of the past, and, in so doing, declared His sole authority over His disciples. It was in the light of this relationship that our Lord explained His position in the world and His office for mankind. By it He interpreted the meaning of human life, and transformed the current ideal of the kingdom of God. This conscious fellowship with the Father was His sole and all-sufficient equipment for the work of His life. The guiding principle and power of His life is thus described by Him: “ I do nothing of Myself; but as the Father taught Me, I speak these things” (John 8:28; see also John 8:28 and John 8:19-20). His unwavering confidence and satisfaction is, “ I do always those things that are pleasing to Him “ (John 8:29). When the darkness of unutterable woe of betrayal, desertion, suffering, and death gathered round Him so strangely out of keeping, at first sight, with the fatherly presence andprotection of God He uttered the triumphant assurance, “ Ye shall leave Me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with Me” (John 16:32). That presence, thus guiding, refreshing, satisfying, and strengthening Him, was never overshadowed save in the one awful moment when He cried, “ My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? “ (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34). Even then the cry of bewilderment shows that He had kept His filial consciousness intact; above all, uninjured by any sense of sin. And thus, when the dreadful anguish passed, the consciousness of the overshadowing presence returned, and with His cry, “ Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit “ (Luke 23:46), our Lord ended His earthly life as He began it; and, in so ending it, proclaimed that the consciousness which had inspired His life, when tested by all the tempests which earth and hell could rouse against it, had not even felt the strain. In a sense higher than that of the centurion, and with a different emphasis, we may well say, in presence of this wondrous consciousness, “ Truly this man was the Son of God “ (Mark 15:39). This characteristic and pervasive consciousness of our Lord, imperfectly summarised in what has just been said, must be more closely studied as it is presented to us, first, in the synoptic Gospels, and in the next place by St. John. The Synoptists report to us the words and deeds by which our Lord unfolded the fulness of His filial consciousness to His disciples. They exhibit that consciousness as original, immediate, unfailing, and supreme in the Spirit of our Lord; as the key to all His thoughts, words, and actions. But they throw no light upon its metaphysical basis, and they are silent as to our Lord’s pre-existence before His human birth.

It is the splendour of a spiritual and moral Sonship which their narratives reflect. The life of our Lord is a completely realised fellowship of heart, mind, will, and character between Him and His Father, in which the Father reveals, orders, and upholds, and the Son perceives, trusts, and obeys with the freedom and satisfaction which perfect filial consecration implies. Without entering at large into discussions as to the person of Christ and the biblical doctrine on the subject, which are beyond the scope of our present inquiry, it may be said that this emphasis on the spiritual and ethical nature of the relationship between the Father and His Son is the most important service the Synoptists could have rendered to us. Foremost in fact and in spiritual importance was the manifestation in human life and character of, to use St. John’s words, “glory as of an only-begotten from a Father” (John 1:14). The world had been accustomed to the thought of Divine Sonship, physical, national, or official; it had little difficulty in framing the creed of Sonship, meta physical or even eternal. But the glory of a perfect spiritual and moral Sonship, this had never been either revealed or conceived till it was revealed in our Lord. And if we should be tempted to say this is only a spiritual and ethical Sonship, we show that we have not yet reached the standpoint at which the spiritual and ethical have the highest reality and supreme importance, as they had for St. John when he said, “ God is love.” It is the spiritual glory that requires as its postulate, and has involved in it, the Divine, eternal, and metaphysical relationship. Such a metaphysical relationship were poor if it were not spiritually and ethically glorious; and it is the great office of the Synoptists so to present to us the glory of the filial experience of our Lord as to make the metaphysical basis seem to us natural and necessary, and the reflexion on it not a mere speculation as to the nature of God, but an act of worship.

But, while this is so, the spiritual and ethical Sonship of our Lord, set forth by the Synoptists, is so unique that, while uniting our Lord to mankind, it still more significantly separates Him from them. The way in which our Lord’s Sonship unites Him to mankind will become clearer as we proceed; but, in the meanwhile, it is important to note the way in which it sets Him apart from and above men. His constantly and carefully used expression, “ My Father,” which occurs too frequently in the synoptic Gospels for quotation, is evidence of our Lord’s own consciousness. Even the great saying, “ Whosoever shall do the will of My Father which is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother “ (Matthew 12:50; but compare Mark 3:35 and Luke 8:21), while expressing the closest union between Him and those who share His spirit, yet on closer inspection seems to distinguish between Him and them even more impressively, because He is seeking to make the most emphatic declaration of asso ciation. The “ My “ twice repeated asserts a primacy for our Lord, both in relationship to the Father and in relation ship towards those who do His Father’s will, which is more striking than the association. And this impression of distinction between Christ and His disciples, generally conveyed, is made final and unques tionable by the great word, “ All things have been delivered unto Me of My Father: and no one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal Him “ (Matthew 11:27). This last text may be said to complete the general teaching contained in the synoptic Gospels, by founding on our Lord’s unique Sonship a revealing and redemptive office which He alone can fulfil, and which He can fulfil only on the ground of that relationship.

We may sum up the teaching contained in the synoptic Gospels by saying that the Fatherhood of God is first revealed in the filial consciousness of Christ; that it expresses His prevailing sense of kinship and fellowship with, but ofsubordination to, the Father; that it manifests a relationship original and peculiar to Himself; and that that relationship is the foundation of His saving office for mankind. The Fourth Gospel has all the same positive character istics as have been noted in the other three. But there is a development which may be said to make the meaning of the others more definite, or to open out what is involved in it. In the first place, the conception of our Lord’s unique Sonship is hardened and brought into higher relief by the introduction of the adjective “only-begotten” (John 1:14, John 1:18, John 1:3, John 1:18; see also 1 John 4:9). In the second place, our Lord’s Sonship is clearly traced back to a preincarnate existence and relationship to God. This is, of course, the case so far as the prologue of the Gospel is concerned; but, in addition, there are the two great declarations ascribed by the evangelist to our Lord, namely, “ Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58), and, “Now, Father, glorify Thou Me with Thine own self with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was “ (John 17:5). In addition, there are many other sayings, as, for example, John 3:17, which, while they may undoubtedly receive a possible explanation without the idea of pre-existence, yet are most naturally explained by it, and are clearly ruled by the explicit declarations which have been quoted. 1 In the third place, the prologue assigns to our Lord a preincarnate and creative relationship to the universe, “ All things were made by Him,” etc. (John 1:3); though no such declaration is said to have been made by our Lord Himself

And, finally, there is a great development in our Lord’s discourses recorded by St. John of teaching as to the bearing of His unique Sonship on the salvation of mankind an amplification of the doctrine we have found in Matthew 11:27. The consideration of this last element of teaching will occupy us in the next chapter. 2 It is needless and beyond our scope to pursue the teaching as to our Lord’s unique Sonship through the Epistles of the New Testament. It may suffice to say that in them all His distinctive title is “ the Son of God “; that His Sonship is treated as unique, preincarnate, and Divine; that the writers, with all their individual peculi arities, are in substantial accord with the teaching of the

1 The question whether the preincarnate relationship of our Lord to the Father is that of Sonship, is discussed in Chapter VII.

2 See pp. 53 - Titus

Fourth Gospel on the subject. St. Paul’s conception of the resurrection as declaring the Sonship of Christ may be noted as an additional feature peculiar to himself (see Acts 13:33; Romans 1:4).

II. THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD TOWARDS BELIEVERS IN CHRIST

We pass from the New Testament doctrine of the Fatherhood of God towards our Lord Jesus Christ to that of His Fatherhood towards believers in Christ. The fact of this doctrine is too obvious to need elaborate treatment. Our Lord throughout teaches that God is the Father of the disciples, and treats His Fatherhood as determining the whole spirit, conduct, and conditions of their life. The Sermon on the Mount is a leading example of this teaching, which is too common throughout the New Testament either to need proof or to bear detailed quotation. And the knowledge of God as Father became the charac teristic experience of the apostles. St. Paul speaks of the sending of the Spirit of God’s Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba, Father” (Galatians 4:6; see also Romans 8:15-16).

St. John says, “ Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God; and such we are” (1 John 3:1). St. Peter treats the calling on God “as Father” as the distinctive mark of Christians (1 Peter 1:17). And St. James speaks of “our God and Father” (James 1:27, James 3:9). But again, just as in the case of our Lord, this knowledge of God as Father is a personal experience; it is conditioned by the corresponding consciousness of Sonship; it is spiritual and ethical in character, being brought about by the Spirit of Christ. Indeed, what has been said in reference to our Lord may be repeated in regard to His disciples, that any real and adequate revelation of the Fatherhood of God depends upon the answering consciousness of sonship, with all its spiritual and moral characteristics. God can only show in any fulness what He is as Father to those who know themselves as His sons, and stand in that attitude towards Him which agrees with and expresses sonship. And thus it may be said that, throughout the New Testament, the knowledge of God as Father, possessed by believers in Christ, hinges upon their consciousness of sonship. It may be added, that it is the vividness and influence of that consciousness of personal sonship which distinguishes their ascription of Fatherhood to God from any other that can be discovered in apostolic times. But this vital knowledge of God as Father, conditioned by consciousness of sonship, was not, in the case of believers, original, but derived. Our Lord claimed to be the only importer of it; His disciples recognised that they had received it only in and through Him, and by means of His Spirit. Our Lord declared, “ Neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal Him” (Matthew 11:27). It seems as though that gracious revelation explained the evangelic invitation which our Lord went on to give, “ Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest “; explained also the ease of His yoke and the lightness of His burden. The labour and the burden of the Pharisaic religion are exchanged for rest when the Father is found. The yoke of the Master, who reveals the Father, is easy; the burden of His commandments, based upon the Fatherhood of God and addressed to those who are inspired by the knowledge of it, is light. The Fourth Gospel gives fuller and more definite teaching to the same effect. It may be summed up in the great declaration, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no one cometh to the Father, but by Me “ (John 14:6). And the experience of the apostles conforms to this claim of our Lord. Their sin and its consequent blindness kept them from seeing the Father; still more their guilt made them, left to themselves, incapable of entering into the privileges of sonship. “God sent forth His Son... that we might receive the adoption of sons,” says St. Paul (Galatians 4:4-5). “As many as received Him, to them gave He the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on His name,” is the corresponding utterance of St. John (John 1:12).

Hence the experience of sonship is in the case of believers not only derivative from Christ, but attained by a spiritual transition. This transition is set forth in the New Testament under two aspects. It is treated as a change of relationship, and as a change of nature. The former is expressed by the term adoption; the latter, by the term regeneration. The use of the term “adoption” is St. Paul s. It is found in the great passages, Galatians 4:5; Romans 8:15; Ephesians 1:5. It is probable that the apostle had in mind the analogy of adoption under Roman law, which was elaborately safeguarded and frequently practised. The immediate meaning is obvious. Adoption introduced to the status, the privileges, the responsibilities of a particular sonship one who had not enjoyed them before. And it did so under conditions which provided for the universal recognition, the security, and the permanence of the new relationship. So far, then, what St. Paul means is simple and clear. By adoption, believers have entered into a relationship to God which they knew not before, and which others, without that adoption, cannot enjoy. That relationship is recognised, valid, and secure. Perhaps we may add, though St. Paul does not express the thought in this connexion, that the new relationship is brought into existence and is protected by the righteousness of God. But to leave the matter here, while very simple and common, does little justice to the complexity of St. Paul’s teaching, and the presuppositions underlying it. The forensic elements, while the most prominent superficially and of great importance, are, in reality, the least part of the whole. The experience is not external, but internal; not legal, but vital. The Spirit of the Son is “ sent into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father,” according to Galatians 4:6; believers have “ received the spirit of adoption, whereby ye cry, Abba, Father,” according to Romans 8:15. And the experience is not of a declaration made to us, “ Thou art My son “; but is the awakening of a filial recognition and nature within us, crying to God, “ Abba, Father.” The action of the Spirit and the response of our hearts cannot reasonably be considered to be a creation out of nothing. The nature which could find its own true life and liberty in this recognition of the Father and response to the Spirit of the Son, must be presupposed, and presupposed as a universal datum, in mankind. And this impression is confirmed by the context in Galatians 4:1-31. Those who were to receive the adoption of sons had been previously in bondage, like the heir who, so long as he “ is a child, differeth nothing from a bondservant, though he is lord of all; but is under guardians and stewards until the term appointed of the father “ (Galatians 4:1). This shows that in the apostle’s mind there was, antecedent to the adoption, an implicit sonship and capacity for heirship; so that, in one respect, the adoption was the coming into those full rights and responsibilities which await maturity; although what would otherwise have been a normal development was complicated by the fact of sin, and must needs be brought about by an act of redemption. 1 What is involved in this capacity for and destination to sonship must be more closely considered later on. But enough has been said to show clearly that by adoption St. Paul does not mean any mere externaltransference, under legal conditions, from one relationship towards God to another; and that the spiritual act of adoption has reference to and crowns a precedent and innate potentiality.

St. John uses the phrase “ begotten of God “ to indicate the way in which men become sons of God (John 1:13; 1 John 3:9, 1 John 3:4-7,1 John 3:5, 1 John 3:4, 1 John 3:18). The phrase carries us back to the saying of our Lord to Mcodemus, “ Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God “ (John 3:5). And His further explanation was followed by the declaration, “ That which is born of the flesh is flesh: and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6).

Here we are taught that a vital change wrought by the Spirit “ from above “ is necessary before men can “ enter into the kingdom of God,” or become His sons. The addition of a heavenly nature and the transformation of the earthly must be brought about. But, as in the case of adoption, the matter is not so simple as at first sight it appears. The separation 1 See the next chapter. between the natural and the spiritual, between the earth-born and those “born from above,” which is absolute in idea, is modified in fact, according to our Lord’s own teaching. Preparatory to rebirth, “ he that doeth the truth cometh to the light” (John 3:21). The Good Shepherd had sheep before He came, who refused to listen to “thieves and robbers,” but knew His voice directly He called to them (John 10:8, John 10:14). Even rebirth, therefore, is not an absolute miracle, creating something of which no promise had been given before.

It is the calling into activity of a possibility latent or uncom pleted hitherto. In any complete doctrine, both of these complementary views must be preserved in perfect balance.

Leave out the necessity of being “ begotten of God “ in order to sonship, and the result is unevangelical and unethical.

Leave this aspect unqualified by the rest of our Lord’s teaching, and the result is so irrational and arbitrary as to be spiritually inconceivable.

St. Paul teaches a practically equivalent doctrine of the necessity of a vital change in order to realise sonship, by his insistence on death and resurrection with Christ as being the only entrance to the Christian life.

III. THE FATHER So far as we have gone, the doctrine of the New Testament is so clear that there can be little question or controversy. And here, according to many, the clear teaching of the New Testament ends; any more extensive doctrine of the Father hood of God, according to them, being founded on theprecarious authority of a few passages which either do not really extend it, or employ the term in a lower significance, or are so metaphorical in character as to be unsuitable for any precise dogmatic definition. To this part of the investigation we must now advance.

And, in the first place, there is great difference of opinion as to the meaning of the name, so frequently used both by our Lord and by His apostles, “ the Father.” On the one hand, it is laid down that this name is used simply to set forth the universal Fatherhood of God. For example, Beyschlag states: “ So Jesus makes the relation name a character name; He not only says My Father and your Father, but also simply the Father (Matthew 11:27; Mark 13:32, and still more frequently in the Fourth Gospel). The character of God which this fatherliness implies, follows of itself. Fatherhood is love, original and underived, antici pating and undeserved, forgiving and educating, communicating and drawing to its heart. Jesus felt, conceived, and revealed God as this love which itself personal applies to every child of man.” l And, in dealing with the Johannine Christology, the same writer says that the name Father “ is nowhere narrower in its extent than the name 6 #eo?.” - To the same effect Wendt says of our Lord: “ But yet He did not regard God as being only His own Father. Eather it appeared to Him self-evident that the fatherly love of God, whose object He knew Himself to be, was not a limited condition of the character and government of God, manifesting itself merely to some, or only to a single individual, but that it was universally and always present with God, and constituted the highest principle of His will and working. Therefore, for Jesus, God was above all else the Father (Mark 13:3Mark 13:2; Matthew 11:27; Luke 11:13).” 3 On the other hand, Professor Mead represents a considerable body of opinion when he says in an article on “ The Father hood of God “: 4 “ There are few cases in which the phrase the Father is not used in obvious reference to Christ as Son.” The truth seems to lie somewhere between these two extreme positions. In passing, two observations must be made on the opinion last quoted. In the first place, it leaves the inquiry in an indeterminate condition. To say “ there are few cases,” as to a matter which demands scientific accuracy, is loose and unsatisfactory. It suggests exceptions, and those exceptions demand investigation. 5 Until such investigation has taken 1 New Testament Theology (Eng. trans.), 1:82.

2 Ibid. 2:427.

3 Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus (Eng. trans.), 1:192.

4 American Journal of Theology, Jnly 1897, pp. 585 - Joshua

5 Professor Mead himself admits that the nse of the name in John 4:21-23 may plausibly be understood to have a universal reference (I.e. p. 586). place, a statement like the above is practically worthless.

Moreover, in the second place, even if it should turn out to he possible to establish this as the universal use, this would not necessarily dispose of the contention that the truth of the universal Fatherhood of God is conveyed in the name “ the Father.” For, perhaps, it might subsequently be established that our Lord knew Himself to be so related to mankind that it was impossible for Him to call God “ My Father “ without recognising that God was therefore, in a real sense, the Father of mankind.

Yet, after these criticisms have been made, it seems clear that in all passages where the name “ the Father “ is used as the correlative of “ the Son,” and in all other passages where, though the Son is not expressly mentioned, this correlation is clearly understood, the name “ the Father “ does primarily simply set forth the relationship in which God stood to Christ. Such passages are, of course, numerous. But it must be borne well in mind that this relationship between the Father and the Son is both spiritual and ideally perfect; that it manifests unspeakable love on the Father’s part, and, while calling forth supreme trust and consecration on the Son s, bestows the highest blessedness; that the relationship is undeniably shared with believers on the Son; and that it not only waits to be extended, in its fulness, to all others when they believe, but that all the Divine influences revealed by the gospel are at work to bring about that extension.

It seems clear, therefore, that foremost in our Lord’s thought of the unique and ideal Fatherhood of God to Him self was the sense of perfect fatherliness; and that the relationship of Fatherhood was transfigured by the qualities and character which fulfilled it. With the transference of that relationship to believers would necessarily come the extension of that perfect fatherliness to them. And, once more, both for our Lord and for those who, through Him, realised their sonship, the qualities and character of the Father would actually transfigure the relationship, and would thus come to hold the mind rather than the abstract relation ship, just as is the case in a loving earthly home. Thus to those who knew the Father, by possessing the life of sonship, the perfect fatherliness must of necessity have been the dominant thought in the name “ the Father.” But as the name became thus qualitative, there were influences tending also to universalise its application. “ God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:10). “The Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world “ (1 John 4:14). Thus we should expect that perfect fatherliness would come to be thought of as the characteristic attribute of God, as the spring of all His purposes and actions, and as going forth universally to all whom He would admit to the privileges of sonship that is, to all man kind. Hence it would appear natural that the name should pass to represent an ideal character of fatherliness, a supreme, all-embracing, and ever-active fatherly disposition; and this, while never losing the sense of the personal, unique, and experiential relationship in which it was first and fully manifested. And hence the name might be expected to waver, in a way impossible strictly to define, between the original, the universal, and the qualitative connotations, each being connected with the others.

There seem to be clear cases of this preponderance of the qualitative and universal meaning of the name, though always carrying with them the suggestion of the original significance, namely, “ the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ “ (Ephesians 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3; 2 Corinthians 1:3). These we will examine, leaving undetermined how far in obscurer instances there may be traces of similar conceptions in the more limited and personal use of the name. In the first place, let us consider the baptismal formula, “ Baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19). The name, according to universal Hebrew usage, signifies the manifestation of the person to whom it applies; the revelation in actuality of the qualities, not as abstract, but as subsisting in real relationships, which make the person what he is. And so it must be taken to be here. But baptism is “ into “ the name. That is, it brings men into fellowship with the Divine person, and into experience of what is revealed in His name. Therefore, although the three names, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are primarily relative to one another, they also stand in relation to us, and contain a threefold world of spiritual experience for us, into which it is our salvation to enter. And the name, with all that is included in it, is antecedent to our baptism into it. It remains the same, whether we experience it or not. The only question is, not of any change in the name itself, but of our entrance through baptism into its meaning, into communion with Him who is set forth by it. And this seems to involve that “ the name of the Father “ is the revelation of the supreme and perfect Fatherhood in God, which is manifest towards the Son and waits to disclose itself to us, till we come into true relationship with it.

We pass next to the great passage, John 4:23, John 4:24, which describes worship after the mind of Christ. “ The hour cometh,” our Lord says, “and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: for such doth the Father seek to be His worshippers. God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.” In the first place, the final explanatory sentence seems conclusively to show that the equivalent of “ the Father “is God; and that therefore there is here no special reference to the personal distinctions internal in the holy Trinity.

If this be so, it is sufficient by itself to identify the name “ the Father” with the universal relationship and disposition of God.

But, further, the text describes the true worship by reference to false, or at least imperfect, worship. It is “ in spirit “; that is, it is spiritual, in contrast to the external and local worship of Jews and Samaritans (John 4:21). It is “ in truth “; it corresponds to the character of God, now perfectly revealed, and to the relationship between Him and men. Hence it is in contrast with the ignorant, and there foreinadequate, worship characteristic of the Samaritans, “Ye worship that which ye know not” (John 4:22). Once more, it is personal, and therefore catholic; in contrast to either national worship or to its practical equivalent, namely, worship in the crowd. Centralised worship, with its rivalries and exclusiveness, is to pass away, and the true worshippers shall worship the Father “ in spirit and in truth.” Do not the conditions of this worship its spirituality, its truth, its personal yet catholic character correspond to the Fatherhood of God and to nothing else? Is not the whole description determined by the object of the worship “ the Father “? And is not His Fatherhood, understood as our Lord understood it, what is meant by “ Spirit,” giving positive content to what would otherwise be a merely abstract determination? Surely we have here a universalisation of the doctrine as to worship prayer, public and private, and deeds of piety contained in the Sermon on the Mount.

There our Lord’s teaching takes the form of instruction and commandment: “ Thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet,” etc. (Matthew 6:6); “ When ye pray, say,” etc. (Matthew 6:9). Here instruction has passed into prediction; thepersonal into the universal. And how has it so passed? Has it not been by the substitution in St. John of the name “ the Father “ for the “ thy Father “ and “ your Father “ of the Sermon on the Mount? In other words, has not the Father hood been expressly universalised, and the name “ the Father “chosen to set this forth? The comparison between the two contexts seems conclusively to confirm this interpretation of the passage we are discussing. And thus the name “ the Father “ has here taken a qualitative and universal meaning, without, however, losing that relationship to the unique personal experience of our Lord which is at its root. And this perfect and universal Fatherhood is a fact, antecedent to and independent of the conformity of our worship to it.

Substantially the same interpretation must be given of the great declaration: “ I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me “ (John 14:6). “ Coming unto “ the Father is not, seeing that “ God is a Spirit,” an external approach, but an apprehension of Him as “ the Father “ in the spirit of sonship; both the apprehension and the spirit becoming ours only through our Lord. But this involves that perfect Fatherhood both the relationship and the disposition constituting and fulfilling it i’s waiting for us to “ come unto.” The fact is above and before our experience of it, is the cause and condition of our experience. And this must surely be set forth by the name “ the Father.”

It is true that our Lord goes on to say, “ If ye had known Me, ye would have known My Father also,” and hence it may be understood that “ the Father “ is exactly equivalent to “ My Father.” But such an explanation is too simple to be true in so complex a matter. Christ has just said that He is “ the way, and the truth, and the life.” And it is exactly this consciousness, and the reality under lying it, which bridges the two names, showing a harmony which includes both equivalence and difference. Such is our Lord’s relationship to and His office for mankind, that the Fatherhood is universal, but personal to our Lord in its source; and that “ My Father “ is personal, but potentially universal, can therefore be “ known “ (the word having the pregnant Hebrew sense) by those who “ know,” have living experience of our Lord. And the same explanation seems true in regard to St. Paul’s saying, “ Through Him,” that is, Christ, “ we both have access in one Spirit unto the Father “ (Ephesians 2:18). No doubt the word translated “ access,” Trpocraywyij, has the sense of a formal approach or presentation of a subject to a sovereign; and the context, which speaks of citizenship and of the household of God, shows that this metaphor was in the apostle’s mind. But access “ in one Spirit “ can be no external or formal approach, but an experiencing of what “ the Father “ essentially is towards us. He is “ our Father “when we have thus approached Him; but, in order to His becoming that, He must be “ the Father,” His Fatherhood extending to and available for us, before, and in order to, our experience of it.

It is true that we have in the passage the clearly marked Trinitarian distinctions, but they are so stated as to make it evident that the Father “ unto whom “ we have access, Christ “ through “ whom we have access, and the Spirit “ in “ whom we have access, are not only, so to speak, turned towards themselves in the economy of the Godhead, but are also turned towards us, so that we have a triune experience of them, and of what is involved in the personal name of each.

It seems necessary similarly to understand the exhortation that being “ filled with the Spirit “ we should give “ thanks always for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father” (Ephesians 5:18-20). It is natural to suppose that St. Paul intends not merely to denote the person of “ the Father “ as the source, but to connote His perfect fatherliness and His universal Fatherhood as the originating cause of the blessings in all things for which we are to give thanks. The passage 1 Corinthians 8:6 is considered later on. 1 St. James says of the tongue, “ Therewith bless we the Lord and Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the likeness of God” (James 3:9). Hereunquestionably “ the Lord and Father “ in the former half of the verse is simply another name for God in the latter half.

There is no mention here or thought of Christ, and no special reference to believers. The Lordship and the Fatherhood of God must therefore be coextensive, and thus both are universal. And this interpretation is confirmed by reference to the saying, “Every good gift and every perfect boon is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom can be no variation, neither shadow that is cast by turning” (James 1:17). Here the qualification “of lights” shows that the name “ the Father “ is not associated with the thought either of our Lord or of believers in Him; but that it represents supreme and perfect Fatherhood, manifest in a universal beneficence, and present in all that is good.

We pass to 1 Peter 1:17 : “ And if ye call on Him as Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to each man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning in fear.”

Here, again, the name Father appears to be clearly universal.

Calling upon God “ as Father” is the distinctive mark of a Christian. But it is distinctive, apparently, in the sense that it depends upon the apprehension of a Divine reality not realised by others. And this apprehension of God is a motive

1 See p. 38. for fear. It is not said “although ye call upon Him as Father,” but “if” ye do so, let the consequence be that “ ye pass the time of your sojourning in fear.” And the reason is that the perfect and universal Fatherhood of God is manifest in the complete absence of injustice and partiality; He, “ without respect of persons, judgeth according to each man’s work.” And if it be asked why this even and complete justice should be treated as a mark of Fatherhood, the answer is that it is a reminiscence of, and an advance upon, the ascription of the Psalmist, who, appreciating the mercifulness the fatherlikeness of equity as contrasted with the tyranny, tempered with favouritism, of Oriental rulers, says, “ Also unto Thee, Lord, belongeth mercy: for Thou renderest to every man according to his work “ (Ps. I12:12). The last passage to be considered 1 John 2:15-17, “ Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world.

If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the vainglory of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.” This must be taken in connexion with 1 John 5:4, 1 John 5:5 : “ For whatsoever is begotten of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that hath overcome the world, even our faith. And who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?” The world as spoken of here is, on the objective side, the order of things experienced by man conceived as a secular whole, without the apprehension of the Father as its source, life, and end. On the subjective side, corresponding to this, it is the use of what presents itself to experience, in order to gratify selfish desires, higher or lower, and ambitions, apart from and contrary to “ the love of the Father.” True life therefore comes from the transformation which sees all things springing forth from and ruled by the Father, and allows His love entering the heart to displace sensual and earthly desires by the spirit of obedience. And this is, according to the second passage, to be “ begotten of God “; which, again, is treated as equivalent to having faith. And the object of this faith is said to be the fact “ that Jesus is the Son of God.” That great proposition lays stress alike on the humanity, the divinity, the incarnation, and the filial relationship to God of our Lord. Hence clearly “ the Father “ is, first of all, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom we have learnt by faith to call the Son of God. But the proposition, “ Jesus is the Son of God,” has, when believed, saving power, not as a merely external dogma, but by reason of the spiritual and universal meaning contained in it. To know the Son is to enter into His Sonship is therefore, to use our Lord’s own saying, to “ come unto the Father.” And just as believing on the Son brings us to the life of sonship; so coining through Him to the Father of Jesus, is to experience His Fatherhood, and to receive the “ love of the Father,” glorifying, vivifying, and spiritualising the world, and changing it from being an incentive to sinful desires and ambitions, to being the sphere in which the believer “ doeth the will of God.” But this glory is a universal light. The love which lives in the world, and makes its entrance into the believer’s heart, while first and fully manifest in and through the Son, is the eternal truth of all truths, giving life and meaning to the universe. Our apprehension of it has come into recent being; but not the reality wiiich we apprehend. And when we consider the name “ the Father,” the attribute mentioned His love, and its pervasive presence entering believers hearts, to reveal to them a cosmos where their selfish unbelief had made a chaos, we are driven to conclude that the name has passed to represent the supreme Fatherhood, which, while fully manifest in and towards Jesus the Son of God, is the universal and ordering principle of the world of man’s spiritual life.

If this be a true interpretation, the last passage is an exact verification of that which at the outset seemed probable and even inevitable, namely, that the name “the Father” having a primary reference to our Lord, representing arelationship into which believers enter in Him, should pass on to set forth a perfect and universal Fatherhood, the source and end of all things; although, even in its greatest extension, it has not lost hold upon the meaning which it had at first.

IV. DISTINCT TEACHING OF THE UNIVERSAL FATHERHOOD OF GOD

Finally, the New Testament directly teaches the universal Fatherhood of God. The certainty and importance of this teaching must not be measured by the number of texts which can be cited as absolute evidence of it. It may almost be that the certainty of the doctrine is in inverse proportion to the number of mere proof -texts of it; that the further we explore, the more we shall find the prevalence of a teaching as to God, Christ, believers, mankind, which would be deprived of all spiritual coherence and reasonableness unless the universal Fatherhood were at the base of it. But in that case such a Fatherhood, vital to the whole life of the world, andrecognised to be so by the New Testament writers, would be rather assumed throughout than occasionally declared. And this we shall find to be the case. The New Testament teaching of the universal Fatherhood of God may be divided under three heads 1. Teaching as to the Fatherhood of God explicitly or implicitly declaring its universality.

2. Teaching as to the nature of salvation, which shows that it rests upon universal Fatherhood.

3. Teaching as to human nature, which implies its essentially filial constitution. The passages which we shall consider fall, broadly speaking, under one or other of these three heads. It is clearer and more satisfactory to divide them thus, though in one or two instances the line of demarcation may not be distinct. And the full force of the three heads will not be manifest until we reach the next stage of our inquiry and consider the teaching of the various New Testament writers as a whole.

Meanwhile we are dealing with passages that can be immediately produced, and in separation from the general context in which they are found.

1. Teaching as to the Fatherhood of God explicitly or implicitly affirming its universality.

Under this head are to be placed the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7); the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32); Acts 17:28, Acts 17:29; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 3:14-15; Ephesians 4:6; James 1:17, James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:17. The Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon on the Mount is addressed to our Lord’s disciples, and it has two aspects, which may perhaps, though the nomenclature is not altogether satisfactory, be called legislative and judicial. As the supreme prophetic legislator, our Lord unfolds the Fatherhood of God, as the key to all character, conduct, worship, and service in the kingdom of heaven, and lays upon His disciples commands in accordance with it. As the supreme prophetic judge, He tests the false and the imperfect religious life of His time, and condemns it.

Throughout the whole Sermon there is no distinct mention of the universal Fatherhood of God. Indeed the recurring “your Father,” and “thy Father,” when it is remembered that our Lord is addressing His disciples, have been held to exclude it. Even the “our Father” of the Lord’s Prayer may conceivably be interpreted in the same way, as referring to the little family of disciples, though most would probably feel that its glory was well-nigh lost by so restricting it. The teaching of the Sermon on the subject must be determined by wider than merely literal and textual considerations. The whole Sermon is addressed to our Lord’s disciples. The question is: In what relationship are they conceived as standing to the rest of mankind? By the answer to that question the whole discussion must be decided. Are the privileges of the kingdom of heaven extended to the disciples, and its laws and its spirit incumbent upon them, because they are exceptions to the rest of mankind, or because they are types; representatives of what all men are ideally or potentially, of what, therefore, all men should become really? The judicial aspect of the Sermon seems conclusively to decide in favour of the latter alternative. The character, 3 spiritual ideals, and religious temper and observances of the Pharisees are condemned because they are untrue to the Fatherhood of God, as the object of worship, and to the filial spirit, as the temper of true worship, revealed to and enjoined upon His disciples by our Lord. Hence it may be concluded that the disciples representatively experience a relationship of God towards them, namely, Fatherhood, which holds good for all men; and enter into a corresponding relationship of sonship, which is the true life for all men. “ The righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees” excludes them from the kingdom of heaven, because the external, unspiritual, and unethical character of their religion and conduct does not correspond to the true relationships of the spiritual world. But those relationships could not have been set up as a standard by which they are condemned, had they not been real for them, as well as for the disciples.

It may be replied that this, indeed, is true as to the end to which our Lord would bring all men; but that certainly the scribes and Pharisees do not possess sonship; that they have consequently neither the right nor the power to apprehend God as Father, but are under His kingship until they become spiritually regenerate. The assumptions underlying this view must be discussed at a later stage and in a more general way. 1

But, in the meanwhile, the answer is as follows: Firstly, the degradation of the character and worship of the “ scribes and Pharisees” corresponds to a degraded conception of the kingship of God. It indeed represents the inevitable corruption of religion which will from time to time result when the highest relationship of God to man is conceived of as king ship. Kingship, unenlarged by the living sense of more intimate and vital relationships, by necessity, tends to the conception of externality of relationship; and, by consequence, to externality and ceremony of worship. The Pharisees had received the Old Testament doctrine of the Divine kingship, and had allowed its spiritual elements to perish. But our Lord does not judge these men by asserting the obligations of a worthier conception of Divine kingship, but by setting, side 1 See Chapters VI. and VII. by side with their hypocritical worship and external morality, the ideal of spiritual worship determined by the Fatherhood of God. How could He have done so if that ideal, only so determined, had for these men no present reality? The Fatherhood of God, therefore, must be pronounced as being real even for the scribes and Pharisees; although it is quite true that they are without realised sonship, and therefore without any true apprehension of the Fatherhood.

Indeed this inequality the reality of Fatherhood without the corresponding realisation of sonship appears to be expressly taught by our Lord. He commands His disciples, “ Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you, that ye may be sons of your Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 5:45); thus exhorting them to become sons of one who is their Father.

Indeed, as we shall see more clearly later on, it is difficult, if not impossible, to see how kingship can grow into Father hood; though it is quite easy to explain how Fatherhood might be restricted for the time to the manifestation of king ship, 1 owing either to the stage of spiritual advancement or to the condition of sinful alienation in men. This general conclusion as to the meaning of the Sermon on the Mount will be strengthened when we have before us our Lord’s teaching as to His relationship to mankind, and have also investigated the place which the Fatherhood of God occupies in the theology of the New Testament writers as a whole.

Speaking generally, the Sermon on the Mount can only be understood if we conceive the kingdom of heaven to be in such wise the crown and consummation of the order of things as to stand in vital and spiritual relations to it. The latter is preparatory to, and contains the promise of, the kingdom of heaven. The distinction, therefore, between the disciples and the rest of mankind is between those who have entered into the consummated life of true and perfect spiritual relationships, which are open to all men, and those who, for one reason or another, have not. But this repre sentative character can only subsist on condition of the 1 See Chapter VI. universal Fatherhood of God and the potential sonship of all men. Here and elsewhere the difference between those who affirm and those who deny the universal Fatherhood can be harmonised, if sufficient distinction be drawn by the former between the true life and entrance upon it, so that it is admitted that, while the Fatherhood is real, the sonship may be unfulfilled; and, on the other hand, if it be conceded by the latter that believers could not apprehend the Father hood of God unless He were universally Father, and could not become sons of God unless sonship represented the ideal of human life, of which the possibilities are present in all mankind. The Parable of the Prodigal Son. The Parable of the Prodigal Son is for all, with the exception of two classes of objectors, absolutely conclusive as to the universal Fatherhood of God; for the prodigal son stands as the type of all spiritually outcast races, classes, or individuals; and, in the case of all such, the relations with God are treated as those of Fatherhood and sonship. The exceptions are the two extremes, composed of those, on the one hand, who deny to parables any precise dogmatic value in defining Divine relations, and instance the “ Lost Sheep “ and the “ Piece of Money,” in support of this contention; and of those, on the other hand, who insist, perhaps with a view to establish the former contention, that spiritual significance must be found for every detail of the parable, and remind us of the “ hired servants.” The answer to the first contention is twofold. Firstly, Fatherhood and sonship are everywhere set forth as the relations between God arid men; and not only in parables. And, secondly, man being man, and neither a sheep nor a piece of money, relations between God and man must be more adequately set forth in terms of human relationships than in those of relationships into which sheep or pieces of money can enter. There is, at least, less of the full reality dropped in the use of the former than in that of the latter; for the capacity for and the nature of relationships is fixed by the nature of the parties to them. 1 1 The whole question of the adequacy of human relations to set forth Divine is discussed in Chapter VI. As to the other contention, if pressed, the answer is that the object of the parable is to set forth the dealings of God with the righteous and with sinners a division which our Lord constantly treated as covering the whole extent of spiritual and moral life; and He treats the relationship of sinners who, according to ordinary standards and exhypothcsi, are farthest from God, by the light of Fatherhood and sonship. Let alone, therefore, that no teaching is conveyed as to the “ hired servants,” it is clear that they have no part in the parables, except as part of its pictorial setting, upon which its earthly lifelikeness depends. The teaching of the parable as to the universality of the Divine Fatherhood may therefore be considered self-evident and conclusive.

Acts 17:28, Acts 17:29 : “As certain even of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring. Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and device of men.” In his discourse to the Areopagus, St. Paul avails himself of and accommodates himself to the Stoic declaration, “ For we are also His offspring.” As first used, the term signified natural origination by, but also natural affinity with, God. St. Paul accepts the premise of origination, and presses the conclusion of affinity as the reductio addbsurdum of idolatry. The originator of living, rational, and ethical beings cannot be represented by lifeless matter; nor can the supreme and spiritual Creator be adequately represented by human handicraft. Origination involves kinship spiritual, rational, and moral, involves that the originator realises in Himself supremely that which He originates in creation; that therefore the originated cannot adequately set forth the originator, and, least of all, in terms of that which is inferior to themselves. The relationship here is obviously universal, and the name for it is Fatherhood. And the use is most important for us, being complementary to that which we have hitherto found. In the passages we have considered, Father hood has, above all, a spiritual significance, and its metaphysical foundation has to be traced out and inferred. Here, however, the metaphysical is the starting-point, and the spiritual and moral consequences of it are set forth and pressed home. And thus we have important guidance, expressly justifying us in pressing the Fatherhood of God hack to its metaphysical foundations, and in treating its universality as necessitated by the universality of creation.

1 Corinthians 8:6 : “ Yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him.” The exposition of this text must follow that of the preceding passage. It is true that the Father and Jesus Christ are brought into relationship with one another as to their distinct offices in regard to creation. But it is impossible to regard the term “ God, the Father,” as limited to Christ. The creation of all things is through the Son; the salvation of believers is also through Him. Lordship and Christhood the Messianic office therefore express His creative and redemptive mediation. But the source and end of creation is “ one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto Him.” His Godhead and Fatherhood make Him the source of all things actually; while the attainment of His fatherly end is reached only inbelievers His sons “ we unto Him.” But if God as Father is conceived as being the source of all things and the passage from Acts justifies us in concluding this then the Fatherhood is treated as universal, though its ends are attained only in the Church.

Ephesians 3:14-15 : “I bow my knees unto the Father, from whom every fatherhood in heaven and in earth is named,” i.e. from whose Fatherhood every other fatherhood derives its essence. The literal meaning of the passage is fairly obvious.

Each earthly clan had its historical, legendary, or mythical head, and this among all nations. The clan was named from the head. In some sense it is clear that St. Paul treats “the Father” as the Head of all such clans, whether in heaven or on earth. Of course, if the passage means that the Headship of the Father is so supreme that it makes impossible or supersedes all ancestral headship real or imaginary then the universal Fatherhood of God is at once taught, and in the directest way. But the manner of stating it, in that case, seems somewhat unimpressive, in addition to the unlikelihood of the apostle thus suppressing human fatherhood.

Moreover, there is a difficulty about the word “ named.” The apostle says that every Trarpid is named after 6 Trarrjp. But surely he cannot be taken to mean that the thought of the universal Fatherhood of God was either explicitly or implicitly present in the framing of the word irarpid, to represent the family bond as derived from fatherhood. If he really meant to say this, then it could only be as the imperfect and historically inaccurate expression of a prof ounder thought struggling for utterance in his mind. The absoluteness of the name “ the Father,” and the petition “ that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory,” seem to point rather to the splendour and munificence of the Divine Fatherhood as the archetype of all fatherhood in heaven and in earth. In that case, the archetypal rather than the universal Fatherhood of God is immediately conveyed, though, as we shall subsequently see, the universal Fatherhood results. So Dr. Dale says: “ God is the Father of all races in heaven and on earth; and the unity of a family, a tribe, a nation, in its common ancestor, has its original and archetype in the unity of angels and men in Him.” x Hence the predicate “ is named “ would have the pregnant meaning so familiar to a Hebrew, and the saying would substantially mean “ the Father, from whoseperfect Fatherhood every fatherly bond in heaven and on earth derives the essential significance which it manifests.”

Fatherhood is the supreme relationship on earth; at once most vital and most authoritative. And earthly fatherhood is, according to St. Paul, not the reality from which the Divine Fatherhood is metaphorically derived. The opposite is the truth. God alone originally realises the perfect ideal of fatherhood; and His Fatherhood is the archetype of which every other fatherhood is a shadow, and from which it derives its limited reality.

Fatherhood, then, is the supreme relation of which we 1 Dale, Lectures on the Epistle to the E^iesians, in loc. know anything on earth, all other being comparatively accidental; it is vitally related to the Divine Fatherhood; the Divine being the original the Ideal and Source of the human. What is implied by this? That the relations between God and creation are so immanent and vital that creation must, according to its measure, reproduce what is highest and most characteristic in God. Fatherhood could not be supreme in the heaven and earth of created beings if Fatherhood were not supreme in God; and Fatherhood could not be supreme in God without necessitating its reproduction and supremacy throughout creation. The fundamental relation ship in the one is of necessity the fundamental relationship in the other. We may almost say that the whole texture of life is woven out of the Fatherhood of God.

It matters nothing to this conclusion, whether we under stand St. Paul to mean by “ the Father “ primarily the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, or to set forth His Fatherhood towards the whole creation. Probably the two are combined, the latter being expressly present to his mind as the consequence of the former. But, supposing that only the former were expressly in the apostle’s mind, the latter would be inextricably bound up with it, according to St. Paul’s theology. For this teaching as to the vital relationship of the Father to creation must be taken in connexion with the doctrine in the Epistle to the Colossians of the vital relation ship of the Son to the universe (Colossians 1:16). In fact, the reproduction in creation of what is essential in the Father must be taken to be brought about, according to St. Paul’s theology, by the immanence of the Son in it. And thus, though the universality of the Fatherhood of God is not explicitly taught here, it is taught no less effectually, whether the title itself convey it or not, and whether the Fatherhood is conceived of as direct, or, as is more probably true, as mediated through the Son. For Fatherhood is represented as so supreme and characteristic in God, that, throughout creation, it shadows itself forth in the supreme and universal relationship among created things a relation ship which reflects that which is supreme in God, because creation is of necessity the vital revelation of the Creator. This view, again, will receive additional confirmation when we have considered the evidence of St. Paul’s theology as a whole.

Hebrews 12:9 : “ Shall we not much rather be insubjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? “ Here the universal Fatherhood of God is clearly taught. For even if we translate “ of our spirits,” yet we have spirits, just as we have flesh, in common with all mankind, unless we find in this passage a psychology which does not seem to belong to it, and deny the possession of spirits to those who are not Christian. The passage seems to contrast the origination of our spiritual with that of our bodily nature, and, while deriving the latter from “ fathers of our flesh,” to attribute the former to the “ Father of our spirits.” Each fatherhood is therefore, primarily, of the limited class whom the writer is addressing; but that which is spoken of in them is universally human. The Fatherhood of God, as in St. Paul’s address to the Areopagus, is taken to convey, first of all, creative origination. But the context sets forth the obligations under which God, by His Fatherhood, places Himself for our spiritual and moral education and discipline. His chastening is as necessary as that of the “ fathers of our flesh “; but His is exercised with an ampler authority, a more perfect wisdom, and a more complete unselfishness than theirs. All this is, without doubt, peculiarly true of believers, but it is clearly impossible, with any due sense of the grace of God, to limit it to them, or to suppose that the writer so limited it. The only other passages to be mentioned under this head may be dealt with in a word, for their universal teaching has already been brought out in establishing their unrestricted use of the name “ the Father.” They are 1 Peter 1:11 Peter 1:7 and James 1:17, James 1:18. The two fatherly attributes, the impartial justice spoken of by St. Peter and the beneficence spoken of by St. James, being clearly unlimited in their manifestation, spring out of a relationship and disposition which, by conse quence, is equally unlimited.

2. Teaching as to the nature of salvation, which shows that it rests upon universal Fatherhood. This class of passages may be dealt with summarily now, since it falls into two divisions, the former of which has already been considered with a somewhat different object; while the latter will become more impressive at the next stage of our inquiry.

(1) The first division consists of passages in which sal vation is represented as the coming to apprehend and to be conformed to the Fatherhood of God. The following passages, which were considered in fixing the meaning of the name “the Father,” may be cited, namely, John 4:21-24, John 4:14; Ephesians 2:18; 1 John 2:15, 1 John 2:16. The characteristic feature about all these passages is that “ the Father “ is apprehended and approached as such. He does not become such. The eternal relation in which He stands to the Son which is at the foundation of each of these passages assures His eternal Fatherhood. And yet that Fatherhood is for us when we come into fellowship with it through the Son. Restricted in manifestation it may and must be until our apprehension brings us into correspondence with it. But the Fatherhood must be stable and supreme if the name is truly given. And the Fatherhood must be real and all-embracing, if it is there for us, and any who will, to apprehend. We do not make the Fatherhood, but recognise it and respond to it. And in that recognition and response is our salvation.

(2) The second division consists of those passages, too numerous and familiar to be instanced, wherein salvation is set forth as the entrance into the life of sonship. This, then, is the end which God has set Himself to realise “ through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus “; and the purpose of His love is to realise it in all men. But in what way can we conceive of God’s action “ in bringing many sons to glory,” save as the motive of perfect Fatherhood and fatherliness fulfilling itself in redemptive grace? It may be replied that the will to be Father the fatherly disposition certainly precedes the existence of sonship, but that the Fatherhood and sonship come into existence at the same moment. But this, as we shall come to see more clearly later on, is to do a double injustice to the meaning of the New Testament; owing to its twofold doctrine of the relationship of the Father to the race in the Son, and of the race in the Son to the Father, being overlooked. 1 Without at present taking account of this, there is certainly the will in God to be Father to all men. And this carries with it more than appears. For salvation is the completion of creation, the remedy for the evil done to creation by sin. Salvation cannot, then, be separated from creation, of which it is the crown, and from the fall of which it is the remedy. And any completed development is in line with the preparatory stages, and does but manifest what was implicit in them. The consummated Fatherhood of salvation is therefore the completed manifestation of the Fatherhood involved in creation, which of course is universal.

But, in addition to this, the doctrine of the New Testament is of such a relationship of the Son of God to mankind as to carry with it, on the one hand, a Fatherhood of God, towards all men, founded in creation and realised inredemption; and, on the other, a potential sonship in man, owing to his relationship to Christ, which is brought to actuality by redemption, and is in itself the best proof of the fatherly nature of the act and relationship contained in creation. And therefore we may say that salvation, as it is presented to us in the New Testament, can only be construed by means of the universal Fatherhood of God. This leads us naturally to the third class of passages.

3. Teaching as to human nature, which implies its essentially filial constitution.

Much of this teaching can best be appreciated by studying it as part of the apostolic teaching as a whole. It will be well, therefore, to postpone it till that part of the inquiry is reached. 2 This, for example, is the case with the great passage, Galatians 4:1-7. At this stage the inquiry will be limited to the view of our Lord’s relationship to the human race, given in the Gospels, leaving the apostolic doctrine, founded on it, to be subsequently considered. The consideration of the narrative of the great temptation, and of our Lord’s use of the title, “ the Son of Man,” will 1 See Chapter 7:2 See Chapters III. and VII. show what is His conception of human nature, and will give the key to His view of His saving office for man kind.

(1) The Narrative of the great Temptation (Matthew 4:1-11; Mark 1:12, Mark 1:13; Luke 4:1-13). The whole object of the threefold temptation is to test from every side our Lord’s filial spirit, by presenting to Him a course of action, at first sight in accordance with it, in reality destructive of it. According to the false ideal of the tempter, sonship justifies the adoption of self-preservation, self-assertion, self-advancement, as the highest ends of life.

Against these our Lord sets the true ideal of filial obedience, under its three aspects of trustfulness, of patient waiting upon God, of worshipful self-surrender. But something more is involved. The first temptation rests upon the assumption that the Son of God has powers, and the right to use them, beyond those of ordinary men, and even contrary to the general conditions under which ordinary men live. The conditions to which men must submit, the Son of God can and may override. The law of life, then, for the Son of God would be different from, or even opposed to, the law of life for ordinary men. Against this perversion of the truth our Lord strikes by His quotation, “ Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” The law of life for the Son of God and for man is one and the same. Whatever destroys perfect manhood destroys likewise Divine Sonship. The law of true and typical human life consists in trustful fellowship with God, and in subordination of the physical appetites and needs of life. In departing from that standard, man departs from his manhood. And the obligations of manhood rest upon the incarnate Son of God. How could there be this complete harmony, securing at once the perfect expression of sonship and manhood, if the constitution of human nature were not originally and inherently filial? Nay more, the Spiritportrayed in the saying, “ Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God,” is intrinsically filial. Life in the fellowship of trustful obedience, the temper of complete and confident dependence, what are these but the typical marks of the filial spirit, naturally realised in that relationship as in no other? And all this may safely be generalised. There are two indispensable conditions of the Incarnation which the whole history of the Gospels, and the whole doctrine of the Epistles, show to have been fulfilled. In the first place, the incarnate Son must have complete solidarity with all mankind, must be in perfect union of nature with all His brethren. In the second, His Divine Sonship must have complete manifestation in the typical but common human nature He has assumed, for the end of the Incarnation is to reveal and not to obscure the Son. Thus the revelation of Divine Sonship and the realisation of perfect manhood must be throughout the whole range of His life and action harmonious and inseparable. The manhood must be the expression of the sonship; the sonship the crown and explanation of the manhood. And the whole doctrine of the New Testament rests upon this principle. But how could this be unless human nature were originally and universally filial in its constitution and possibilities, although the constitution has been marred and the possibilities have been unfulfilled by reason of sin? And how could this filial constitution represent the original and universal truth of manhood as is revealed in the consummating Man, who is Brother of all men were not human nature created by and for the all-perfect and universal Father in heaven?

(2) The Son of Man. We have seen that our Lord, in revealing the Fatherhood of God to His disciples, always distinguishes between the Fatherhood as towards Himself and towards His disciples, speaking invariably of “My Father” and “your Father,” and yet treats His own office for them as being to reveal the Father to them, by bringing them to the consciousness of sonship. We have seen further that He treats the Fatherhood of God as universal, and the life of sonship as being the true life for all men, being typically realised in Himself and, through Him, in His disciples.

Something is required to bring all these elements, not merely into external connexion, but into internal unity, and it is found in the name by which our Lord commonly describes Himself, the Son of Man.

It is neither possible nor necessary to enter into a detailed discussion as to the meaning of this title. The following results seem sufficiently established. Our Lord adopts the title from Daniel 7:13, and uses it with a Messianic significance. His primary reason for so doing was that, while the name was originally Messianic, it was not in current use by the Jews, and our Lord’s use of it was not generally understood by them to be Messianic. This fact at once enabled our Lord to found His ministry and the whole interpretation of His ministry on the claim to Messiahship, while both avoiding the use of a title so distorted by the popular religion as to be entirely misleading, and gaining time for the free unfolding of the truth, in word and deed, unpre judiced by a misleading name. But the name as used by Daniel emphasises the typical humanity of the Messianic King. It does not denote a person, but describes his characteristics. Daniel says, “ one like unto a Son of Man “; and the Divine kingdom is contrasted with the world-empires which, not being of God, are not of man, but are the empires of wild beasts. The Messiah’s kingdom is the kingdom both of God and of man; of each because it is of the other. Thus the contrast in the picture is between human weakness and bestial strength, on the one side; and between the might and permanence of human faith, reason, and purpose, upheld by God, and earthly greed, am bition, and lawless violence, on the other. The Messianic kingdom, therefore, is that of representative humanity. Our Lord must needs have selected this title on account of this meaning conveyed by it; and the whole spirit of His life, as well as His use of the title, from time to time, in special connexions, shows that He did so understand and appropriate it. It appealed to and expressed that deep consciousness that He was the typical and representative Man, that He had kinship with all men, which so clearly pervades the whole of our Lord’s life.

Thus, from time to time, the name so emphasises our Lord’s unprivileged humanity, and His brotherhood with the poor and weak, as well-nigh to lose its connexion with the vision of Daniel (where, however, as we have seen, the typical weakness of human nature is included), and to revive the ordinary prophetic use of the name to set forth human frailty.

Thus our Lord says, “ The Son of Man hath not where to lay His head” (Luke 9:58). And it was this association of the name with the frailty of ordinary human nature, in comparison with God, that, in part at least, enabled our Lord to use the title without its full significance being perceived.

If then, on the one hand, our Lord knew Himself to be in a unique way the Son of God, on the other hand He knew Himself to be equally the Son of Man, akin to and typical of all mankind. What was true of Him, therefore, was potentially true of all men, in Him, and was actually true of His disciples. Therefore His Divine Sonship was the realisation of the implicit possibilities of mankind. Hence His office as Redeemer was to realise these possibilities in all men; and they were actually realised in all who came to Him as true disciples. And, finally, it was in the light of this consciousness of oneness with mankind that our Lord assumed, rather than proclaimed, the universality of the Fatherhood of God. As we shall see later on, this determinative consciousness of our Lord shapes the whole theology of His apostles, to an extent that is perhaps seldom fully perceived.

Against this wealth of teaching, all that can be set is that our Lord on one occasion said to the Jews, “ If God were your Father, ye would love Me” (John 8:42), and went on to declare, “ Ye are of your father the devil “ (John 8:44). But several considerations must be borne in mind when we consider this statement.

First, an isolated passage cannot be set against the general tenor of our Lord’s teaching, but must be brought into harmony with it. Secondly, our Lord cannot have in tended to teach that the Jews were created by the devil, or had no part in the love of God. All that is intended is expressed equivalently, though with less emphasis, by St. John in his First Epistle, where he says, “ He that doeth sin is of the devil, for the devil sinneth from the beginning “ (1 John 3:8).

Thirdly, we have everywhere seen that, both with our Lord and with His apostles, the sonship of men does not stand on the same footing as the Fatherhood of God. The latter exists, however restricted in any other manifestation than that of mercy and forbearance, while the former is practically absent. When due weight has been assigned to all these considerations, the natural interpretation would seem to be on the lines of the exhortation of the Sermon on the Mount, “ that ye may be the sons of your Father which is in heaven “ (Matthew 5:45). Our Lord would then deny not Fatherhood to God in a strict dogmatic sense, but rather sonship to the Jews. Thus excluding them from sonship, on account of their sin, He is forced by the form in which the Jews had put their claim, namely, “ We have one Father, even God “ (Matthew 5:41), to deny their proposition, and to assign them, on account of their spiritual and moral condition, to the fatherhood of the devil. Their declaration that God was their Father, implied that they were His sons. And our Lord’s intense repudiation of the latter could only take the form of a denial of the former, as travestied by the Jews.

We may therefore sum up by saying that the Father hood of God, as revealed by our Lord, is in a special sense Fatherhood towards the Son; that, secondly, it is Father hood towards those who, through faith in Christ, become sons of God; but that the use of the name “ the Father,” the express teaching, and still more the underlying assumption of our Lord and of His apostles, and, finally, their doctrine of human nature as a whole, especially in its relationship to Christ, compel us to regard the universal Fatherhood of God as everywhere set forth in the New Testament, though man’s sonship is but a latent capacity marred by sin, until he receives “ the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.”