CHILDREN (SONS) OF GOD

honour?' (Mai 1"). But such response Is, ol necessity, not only national, but also, and first, individual; and the way is opened for a conception of God as Fatlier of every man (cf. Mai 2'°), and of all men as, at least potentially, 'children of God.'

The Psalms have been left for separate reference. For if the religion of Israel had really attained to any clear conception of God as Father and of men as His children, it would most naturally find utterance in these compositions, in which we have at once the devoutest expression of the personal reUgious consciousness and the chosen vehicle of the worship of the congregation. But the dominating conception is of God as King and of man as His servant. True, the Divine care for man and the Divine help are set forth under a wealth of imagery: God is shield, rock, fortress, refuge, shepherd, light, salvation, but not Father. Twice only is the name used of Him, not as appellative but in simile, to describe His tender mercies. He is 'a Father of the fatherless' (Ps 68=); ' Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him' (lOS's, cf. Is 66"). Once the term 'thy children' is appUed to 'Israel, even the pure in heart' (Ps 73"- '); and in several passages the term 'son of God' is used of the theocratic king, as representing ideal Israel (Ps 2'; see also Ps 89»- ", 2 S 7", He 15).

It cannot, then, be said that in the OT we have a doctrine of men as 'children of God,' springing from, and developed under, a conception of God as essentially Father. Nor is it clear that later Judaism made advance towards this closer and more individual conviction of sonship.

Bousset affirms that 'the behef comes to light, more and more frequently the nearer we approacli to Jesus' own time, that God is the Father of each individual believer' ^Jesus, p. 113, Eng. edj. But against this may be set the judgment of Wendt: 'In the later Judaism, down to the time of Jesus, there was by no means a development of the conception of God . . . inclining to a more prevalent use of the name of Father. The development proceeded rather in the way of enhancing to the utmost the idea of God's transcendent greatness and judicial authority over men. According to the Pharisaic view, the moral relation of man toGod was one of legal subjection' (Teachingof J esit8,L 190).

The relevant passages in the Apocrypha, at least, leave the gulf unbridged between OT and NT (To 13<, Wis 5' 14=, Sir 231- ' 36" 51'», Ad. Est 16"), and nowhere does our Lord's teaching appear in sharper contrast to current religious ideas than in relation to the Divine Fatherhood (.e.g. Jn S^'-").

II. In the NT. — The outstanding fact is that in the self-revelation of Jesus Christ, as well as in His teaching, the characteristic name for Gdd is ' Father.' He enters into full inheritance of the OT conception of the Divine power and transcendence, proclaims a Kingdom of God, and develops its meaning for His disciples; but the King is also Father, and the stress of Christ's teaching on this side is not on the Kingship but on the Fatherhood of God. In what unique sense He knew God as ' His own Father,' Himself as 'Son of God,' we do not here inquire (see Jesus Christ), noting only how simply, in the deepest experiences of joy or trouble. His faith uttered itself in the name 'Father' (Mt U^ 26'», Lk 23«). But there was that in His religious consciousness which He could freely share with His disciples as 'children of God': the faint and halting analogy of the OT became through Him a clear and steadfast revelation of the Divine Fatherhood, and of sonship, in its fullest sense, as the possible and indeed normal relation of human to Divine.

1. The Synoptic Gospels. — The essential and uni-versal Fatherhood of God appears in such sayings as that of Mt 5*'-*', and, supremely, in the parable of the Prodigal Son. Even when, as generally, it is in discourse to thedisciples that the term ' your Father ' is used, it still connotes what is in God, awaiting in man that obedient recognition which is sonship. It is the appeal of Christ to His disciples against hypocrisy, unforgivingness, lack

CHILDREN (SONS) OF GOD

of faith (Mt 6'- "• »); It stands as symbol of the Divine providence, forgiveness, redemption — in a word, of the Divine love (Lk 6i» 11", Mk ll^s), and hence it gives the ground and manner of all access to God, — 'Whensoever ye pray, say, Father' (Lk 11^).

If with Jesus the Fatherhood of God lies in His dis-position towards men, not in the mere fact that He created them, so the filial relationship is ethical. God is Father, men must become children. In the Synoptic Gospels the term implying generation — 'child (children) of God' — is not used, and the references to ' sons of God ' are few, though sufficient to emphasize the moral conditions of sonship. Thus, the peacemakers ' shall be called sons of God' (Mt 5'): love to one's enemies has for its motive ' that ye may become sons of your Father which is in heaven' (Mt 5«, cf. Lk 6"). But since sonship is virtually identical with membership of the Kingdom of God, these direct references must be supplemented by the many sayings in which the conditions of entrance into the Kingdom are laid down: it is the righteous (and what the term means is set forth in the Sermon on the Mount) who ' shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father' (Mt 13").

2. TheGospel(andlEp.)of St. John.— In the Fourth Gospel (considered here rather than in its chronological sequence, for the sake of comparison with the Synoptics) certain elements in our Lord's revelation of the Father receive new emphasis.

(a) The unique Sonship of Jesus is the prevailing theme (Jn 1"- i« 20=')- Hence the Synoptic phrase 'your Father' all but disappears. What it implies is not absent, but is to be reached through a rich un-folding of, and fellowship with, the personal reUgious consciousness of Jesus Himself, under the terms 'my Father' and, especially, 'the Father.' Only once does He speak to the disciples of 'your Father,' when, after His resurrection. He links them with Himself as ' brethren' in the message, 'I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God' (Jn 20", cf. 14^).

(6) The sonship of the disciples is to be attained through Jesus Christ: 'No one cometh unto the Father but through me' (Jn 14»). What is exceptional in the Synoptics (Mt ll**, Lk 10") becomes the normal teaching of the Fourth Gospel: to see, know, believe, love, confess the Son, is the one way of access to the Father (Jn 14-17, 1 Jn 2^). Moreover, the impulse of attraction to Christ is itself from the Father (Jn 6"- »), and the Divine initiative, as well as the completeness of the break required with ' the world ' and ' the flesh ' (1 Jn 2", Jn 3=), is described as being 'born anew,' 'born of the Spirit,' 'born of God' (Jn 3'-' 1", 1 Jn 3»). In 1 Jn. the moral fruits of this new birth are set forth — righteousness, incapabiUty to sin, love, faith in the Son of God, victory over the world (1 Jn Z" 3' 4' 5'- •).

These are the elements which combine in the con-ception of sonsliip in the Johannine writings: the actual phrase 'children (not 'sons') of God' occurs Jn 1>2 1V^ 1 Jn 31- 2- i» 5K

3. The Epistles of St. Paul.— St. Paul speaks both of 'children of God' and of 'sons of God.' His doctrine comprises the mystical and the ethical elements already noted, while it is enriched and developed by addi-tional features. In his speech at Athens (Ac 17*') he for a moment adopts the Greek point of view, and regards all men as the 'offspring' of God. Apart from this, he — like the Fourth Gospel, but in his own way — connects sonship with faith in Christ: it is part of his doctrine of redemption, a status and privilege conferred by God upon men through faith in Christ, attested by the indwelling Spirit and His fruits. 'Ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus' (Gal 3™); 'The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God' (Ro 8«); 'As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of (3od' (Ro 8"). It is as 'children of God' that his converts have a moral mission to the world (Ph 2").

126