LECTURE
THIRD.
THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD, AS
REVEALED AND KNOWN BEFORE THE INCARNATION.
"When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth
his Son" - GAL. iv. 4.
I propose here to raise the question ; - To
what extent was the fatherhood of God matter of human knowledge, or matter of
divine revelation, before the coming of his Son Jesus Christ in the flesh? It
is a question which necessarily emerges out of the view that has been given of
the fatherhood of God, as manifested in the person of the incarnate Son. And it
is moreover a question which, in that view, is preliminary to another inquiry,
and one that goes deep into the heart of the whole subject, namely this : - Is
the relation which God sustaHis to his son Jesus Christ come in the flesh, his
only true and proper fatherhood? And is it by their being made personally
partakers, in some sense and to some extent, yet really and truly, of that
relation, that angels and men become sons of God? To prepare the way for that
ulterior inquiry, for the conducting of which the New Testament, of course,
must furnish the principal materials, I intend now to ask - at least that is my
main object - what the Old Testament - with the New as throwing light on the
Old - says of the fatherhood of God ; or in other words, how far, and in what
way, before the incarnation of the Son of God, and apart from that event, God
was revealed and known as a Father in the ancient church.
Before the
Son of God appeared in human nature, the only conception which men could form
of a relation of fatherhood and sonship between God and them must have been
then based on the analogy of the paternal and filial relation among themselves.
And there can be little doubt that the analogy is a natural, and so far, a
valid one. The relation of son and father on earth is fitted, - and probably,
in its original constitution, intended, - to suggest the idea of a similar
relation between earth and heaven. The creation or origination of intelligent
beings, on the part of the great intelligent Creator, may thus be viewed as
analogous to the act by which a human father produces a son like Himself. And
the Creator's providence over his creatures may be likened to the human
father's care and tenderness towards his children. Such representations of God,
accordingly, are not uncommon even among heathen writers, especially the poets;
as might easily be shown by familiar quotations.
In considering such
representations, however, and especially in reasoning upon them, it is
necessary to keep in view an ambiguity of which the analogy admits. God may be
called father, simply as having caused his creatures to exist, and not as
thereafter sustaining a real personal relation to them. That, I apprehend, is
actually all that is meant in not a few of the passages usually cited. But
that, it will he at once perceived, is not to the purpose of my present
inquiry. It is a mere figure of speech employed to denote the creative agency
or act of God. In this sense, paternity, as we have seen, may be attributed to
God with reference to mere material things ; as when God asks Job (xxxviii.
28), -" hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew?" - os if
he meant to assert for himself a fatherhood having the rain and the dew for
sons. Obviously, in such a case, it is a merely creative fatherhood that is
with such boldness of vivid Poetic personification claimed and challenged for
the Supreme.
With more of prosaic propriety, fatherhood in this sense
is attributed to God with reference to His intelligent creatures.
Even
then, however, as thus restricted, it conveys no idea of any permanent personal
relationship. It suggests nothing more than the idea of primeval causation or
origination.
It is in this sense, I am persuaded, and only in this
sense, that we are to understand the verse of old poetry which Paul so aptly
introduced into his speech before the Areopagus at Athens, -"As certain also of
your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring"
This pregnant
saying, which, though originally a merely human and heathen utterance, Paul, by
quoting it, of course adopts and engrosses as his own, has been supposed to
indicate a relation of sonship belonging by a common right to all men, and
actually subsisting in the case of all men. But if we look at it in the light
of the occasion on which Paul quoted it, and the purpose to which he turned it,
we may see some reason to question that interpretation or application of it.
For what is the use which Paul makes of it in his argument? It is simply to
expose the absurdity of rational beings ascribing their origin to what is
irrational; or, which comes to the same thing, worshipping in an irrational
manner him to whom they ascribe their origin, so as virtually to make him out
to be irrational. That is all. That is the apostle's only object ; the sole and
single point of his reasoning. Obviously there is no question of present
personal relationship raised here at all; no question as to the footing on
which men as individuals are with their Maker, - what he is to them and they
are to him. There is simply an assertion of a common source or origin, Are we
not all his children? If this makes God a father at all, it is in the sense in
which an ancestor is held to be the father of all his posterity; it is in the
sense in which Abraham is called "the father of many nations." Our being all
God's offspring, in that sense, sustains the apostle's argument, and is indeed
all that is necessary, or even relevant, to sustain it. Anything else, anything
more, would be out of place. We dislike to have our lineage - our parentage in
the line of direct and natural ascent - traced up to a gorilla, or a tadpole,
or a monade. We think that our being possessed of intelligence affords a
presumption in favour of our original progenitor, the primary author of our
race, whoever he may be, being himself intelligent as we are. So thought the
wisest and best men in heathendom. Paul appeals to their being of that mind. He
adopts their logic, and makes it available for his immediate object, which is
simply to expose the inconsistency of idolatrous worship. That is really all.
The principle asserted, the ground and medium of the argument, is simply this -
that tire head, or origin, or father, whether of a long line of descendants, or
of a numerous race coming simultaneously into existence, cannot be wholly
dissimilar to them in nature; that if they are intelligent he must be
recognised as being so, much more; and that he cannot therefore be expected to
be pleased with unintelligent worship.
There is no assertion here of any
personal relation of fatherhood and sonship. It is merely an argument for
community of nature as regards intelligence. it is, in fact, nothing more than
an application of the maxim, or axiom, that "like produces like." It appeals to
the same sort of principle which Paul so powerfully brings to bear in another
direction on the spiritual identity, in respect of faith, between believing
Abraham and all his spiritual children (Gal. iii.; Rom. iv.) As he is, so are
they; he and they alike being believers. Therefore he is their father, "the
father of the faithful" And they, in respect of their joint possession with him
of the common quality or attribute of faith, are his seed. The argument of Paul
in his appeal to the Athenians is precisely of the same kind. As you, the
offspring, are intelligent, so, it is to be presumed, must he whose offspring
you are be intelligent. And he must, therefore, be intelligently worshipped.
But all this has nothing whatever to do with the question of the personal
relation in which the offspring, - that is, the individual persons composing
the offspring, - are personally to stand to him whose offspring they all
are.
In a way very similar to this, I think another text, often cited
or referred to with some confidence, is to be disposed of. Adam, it is said, is
declared in Scripture to be, as he came forth from the hand of his Creator,
"the son of God," or "a son of God," or simply "son of God." Now, the only
authority alleged for that statement is the closing climax of Luke's genealogy
of our Lord; in which, after a long enumeration of an ascending series of
fatherhoods, he comes at last to Adam, and says of him, using the very same
formula as in all the other cases, "which was the son of God ;" - or rather,
for the phrase is all throughout elliptical, "which was of God" (Luke iii. 38).
This mere rounding off of the genealogy of our Lord, as traced by Luke upwards,
and not, as in Matthew's gospel, downwards, - this simple intimation that in
Adam the ascending line of human parentage is lost, and that his origin must be
ascribed immediately to God, - is often brought forward as if it were not only
an express, but even an emphatic assertion of Adam's proper personal sonship.
Nay, it is made, as would seem, the ground of an argument for "attributing
Adam's creation to the Deity of Christ." In reality, there is no idea suggested
in this whole pedigree or family-tree but that of descent; son descending from
father, until Adam is reached, whose descent is from no human father, but must
be said to be of God. There is nothing like real fatherhood and sonship, as a
permanent and personal relation, asserted here.
Setting aside, then,
those passages in the Bible, as well as those passages in heathen writings,
which seem to ascribe fatherhood to God, in the sense simply of origination, or
causation, or ancestry, - the question remains, What traces or indications are
there, before and apart from the incarnation of the Son of God, of fatherhood
of God, properly so called ; - of his actually sustaining the paternal relation
to his intelligent creatures and subjects, personally and individually.
In
dealing with this question, I leave out of view the secular literature of
antiquity ; - for, in truth, it throws little or no light on the subject of my
present inquiry. That inquiry is almost altogether a scriptural one ; - Was God
revealed as a Father to the Old Testament Church? If so, in what manner and to
what extent? And of what nature is his fatherhood represented as
being?
I. I begin with what I hold
to be a material and fundamental fact. So far as I can see, there is no trace
of anything like natural or original sonship, either in angels or in men,
having ever been accepted in the church as an article of belief. That either
angels or men were sons of God from the beginning of their being, is nowhere
taught in holy Scripture.
1. I speak first of the angels.
Those of them
that fell are never spoken of or referred to as having been before their fall
sons of God. Their offence is stigmatised as "pride." "The condemnation of the
devil" is his being "lifted up with pride" (1 Tim. iii. 6). It is the offence
of a disloyal subject, rather than of a disaffected and undutiful son. They
refuse to occupy a subordinate position; to own government by authority of law
and judgment. They aspire to the liberty of independence. It is as proud,
rebellious subjects, not as ill-conditioned sons, that they disobey, and come
under the condemnation of disobedience. And if that be so, then it follows that
it is a trial of their obedience as subjects that their faithful brethren
stand. They too are tested, not as sons, but as subjects. The trial is, whether
they will proudly insist on being their own masters, or meekly consent to be
ruled? At any rate, it is oniy after their trial and its good issue, that the
angels who kept their first estate are introduced in Scripture as sons of
God.
It is in the book of Job, and there only, that the holy unfallen
angels are spoken of or referred to as sons of God. For I suppose it is they
who are meant when it is said, twice over, that "the sons of God came to
present themselves before the Lord" (Job i. 6; ii. 1). I doubt, however, if
according to Hebrew idiom, this title, as here given to them, can be fairly
held to imply more than a mere antagonism or antithesis to the adversary of
God, "Satan," who "came among them."
But be that as it may, there is
certainly, it must be admitted, another paage in the book of Job where this
explanation will not apply. It occurs at the opening of that sublime address in
which - after the sophistries of the three bigoted friends and the noble appeal
of the generous Elihu - the Lord himself takes the matter in hand and reduces
Job to silence (Job xxxviii. 1-7). There that much-afflicted but as yet too
self-righteous patriarch is thus abruptly challenged:
"Where wast thou
when I laid the foundations of the earth?" Wast thou with me then, as a party
to my counsels and my working "when the morning stars sang together, and all
the sons of God shouted for joy ?" There can scarcely be a doubt that it is the
elect angels who are here meant. And they are called the sons of God
absolutely; not merely in the way of contrast to any other parties, or
contra-distinction from them; - but simply in respect of their own gracious
character and standing.
This I take to be the only unequivocal
intimation of the sonship of the angels which the Old Testament Church ever
got. I admit it, or rather I hold it, to be emphatic. But it is so chiefly, as
it appears to me, in a prospective point of view, and in its bearing on
subsequent scriptural hints and discoveries. For, as I think, it fits in
remarkably to Balaam's prophecy (Nurn. xxiv. 17), "There shall come a star out
of Jacob ;" - and also to that announcement in the very close of the Revelation
(xxii. 16), "I am the root and offspring of David, and the bright and morning
star." Thus followed out, it suggests large and high thoughts as to the
connection of the sonship of the holy angels with that of Christ And if we take
in another text, in which Christ says to "him that overcometh" at Thyatira
(Rev. ii. 28) "I will give him the morning star," - it may seem probable that
some sort of joint-fellowship of angels and men in Christ's sonship is what, by
thus connecting together, in so close a verbal relation, the widelyseparated
books of Job and the Revelation, the Spirit intends to teach. For thus we find
the title, "morning star," which is associated with that of "son of God" in the
case of the angels, applied to the Son of God himself, and in him also to the
overcoming Christian.
But anything like such community of sonship could be
only very imperfectly taught, if taught at all, to the Old Testament Church, by
such a brief notice as that which the book of Job contains. To the men who had
simply that, and nothing more than that, the juxtaposition of the titles
"morning stars" and" sons of God" could convey little or no clear information.
It might rather indeed occasion perplexity. Certainly, however well they might
understand the words put into the mouth of God as a most conclusive rebuke to
Job, they could scarcely gather from them any distinct idea of the sonship of
angels. At all events they would not be likely to gather from them any idea of
the sonship of angels being, as a real personal relation, natural and original.
The title must rather, I thjnk, have appeared to them, like the other title
"morning star," to be merely figurative and analogical. And in any view, it
belongs to them as having stood the trial which proved fatal to their
fellows.
2. As the angels are not represented in the word of God in the
character of sons of God by nature and from the beginning of their being, so
neither is man. There is not a hint of sonship in all that is said of Paradise,
or of man's sin and fall there. Nay, I hold that what is revealed of God's
treatment of Adam, in the garden, is palpably irreconcilable with the idea of
anything like the paternal and filial relation subsisting between them.
Adam is tried simply as a creature, intelligent and free ; as a subject
under authority and law. Not a hint is given of his having violated, when he
transgressed, any filial obligation. Nor, in the sentence pronounced upon him,
is there any trace whatever of his being subjected to fatherly discipline and
correction. All about it is strictly, I should say exclusively, forensic and
judicial. It is the legal condemnation of a subject or servant ; - not the
fatherly chastisement of a son. No doubt, hope of recovery is held out. But it
is held out in a way strictly and exclusively indicative of legal judgment and
legal deliverance. The deliverer is to prevail over the tempter by becoming
himself a victim ; a victim to outraged authority; a substitute for those whom
the devil has tried to ruin; bearing in his own person the doom impending by a
righteous award over them; accepting the curse which the great deceiver has
brought upon them; and doing so to the effect of destroying him and
emancipating them. Accordingly, the remedial work of Christ is always
represented in Scripture, - in exact consistency with its representation of the
evil to be remedied, - as purely and wholly legal, forensic, and judicial. That
is its character, so far as it consists in his becoming his people's surety and
ransom. He redeems them from the curse of the law. It is nowhere said that he
atones for any filial offence; any offence committed by them as sons against
God as their father. If they sinned in that character and relation, their sin,
so far as appears from Scripture, is up to this hour unexpiated. Surely that is
a conclusion somewhat startling. And yet it seems to me to follow inevitably,
and by the inexorable force of logic, from the notion of man's original
relation to God being filial.
II.
The manner in which the expression "sons of God" is used in the Hebrew
Scriptures is very vague and indefinite. It is not very often used. And many of
the instances in which it is used are such as to indicate that it is little
more than an idiomatic way of identifying the godly as distinguished from the
ungodly; or Israel as distinguished from the Gentiles. Personal relationship is
not really in such instances a relevant thought.
Thus, in the narrative
of the breaking down of the wall of division and demarcation between the church
and the world which brought on the sweeping judgment of the flood, "the sons of
God" are contrasted with "the daughters of men" (Gen. vi.) But it would be
unwarrantable to found upon the phrase, as there used, anything more than that
those so called were professedly of the number who, when the wickedness of
Cain's race became rampant, separated themselves, and" began to call upon the
name of the Lord," or " to call themselves by the name of the Lord" (iv.
26).
In other cases also the phrase " sons of God" is evidently used in
the vague analogical sense in which the Jews were wont to apply it, - and in
which we too do not object to apply it - as appropriate to any relation
implying benefit on the one side and dependence on the other, with
corresponding feelings of endearment on both sides. Thus a master calls his
loved scholar his son. So also the pupils of the prophets are called their
sons. "And such an one as Paul" appeals to Timothy as "his own son in the
faith."
In like manner, when the Lord promises in Hosea (i. 10), "In
the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be
said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God," it seems plain that no new
or peculiar relation is meant by the latter phrase, as if it were in contrast
with the former. And in the same way, as I apprehend, we must interpret those
appeals in Jeremiah and Malachi - the most emphatically paternal in their terms
to be found in the Old Testament (Jer. xxxi. 20), "Is Ephraim my son? Is he a
pleasant child" (Mal. i. 6), "A son honoureth his father, and a servant his
master. If then, I be a father, where is mine honour? And if I be a master,
where is my fear?" It is the language of intense affection, putting his people
upon honour in terms of their own profession.
III. The passages in the Old Testament are thus seen to be very few,
which even appear to assert anything like a distinct personal relation of
fatherhood and sonship between God and his people individually.
No
doubt, in the church or nation viewed collectively, the Lord sometimes claims a
father's right of property. Thus he sends an urgent message to Pharaoh (Exod.
iv. 22, 23), "Israel is my son, even my first-born; let my son go that he may
serve me." And he gives this as his reason for bringing the people back from
captivity (Jer. xxxi. 9), "For I am a father unto Israel, and Ephraim is my
firstborn." The collective church, or nation, also occasionally appeals to the
Lord on that ground: as in Isaiah (lxiii. 16), "Thou, 0 Lord, art our father,
our redeemer;" and again (lxiv. 8), "But now, 0 Lord, thou art our father; we
are the clay, and thou our potter; and we are all the work of thy hand." In
these instances, however, though a certain paternity is ascribed to God, as
choosing, constituting, redeeming, creating, his people Israel, it is a
figurative paternity, having for its object simply "Israel as a spiritual or
ideal person ;" - not that real fatherhood of which individuals are the
objects. Nor is even that most pathetic passage in Jeremiah to the point, - the
passage, I mean, in which the Lord puts into the mouth of the repenting people
the affecting language of filial tenderness (iii. 4), "Wilt thou not from this
time cry unto me,'My father, thou art the guide of my youth?" For the context
plainly shows that it is not the relation of parent and child at all that is
referred to, but that of husband and wife; the conjugal relation, not the
paternal. The idea suggested - and it could be better understood and felt
according to old Eastern manners than according to our modern notions - is that
of the faithless young wife casting herself at the feet of her injured husband,
pleading her tender years, - and making her plaintive appeal, - as to a sire
rather than a spouse, - "My father, thou art the guide of my youth!" Clearly
there is here no claim of sonship, properly so called.
IV. In marked contrast with these vague and
indefinite modes of speech, - in which ideas of paternal authority and filial
tenderness are for the most part, as it would seem, merely borrowed to
illustrate other relationships, - I notice the clear, exact, and unequivocal
precision with which real and proper personal sonship is ascribed to one
individual, and to one only.
There is a Son of God revealed in the Old
Testament. He is revealed as standing alone and apart. There is not much said
of him in that character, it is true ; indeed, there is very little. And
nothing at all is said of the bearing of his sonship on others besides himself.
For this, before I close, I may suggest a probable reason. But a Son of God
there is in the ancient Scriptures. And however rare may be the passages in
which he appears, and however few the words in which he is described, his
sonship is beyond all question not figurative, but true sonship. In the oracle
which the second Psalm records, "Thou art my son ;" - in the prediction of the
eighty-ninth Psalm, "He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, . . . I will
make him my firstborn ;" - and perhaps also in the song of triumph in the
eighth chapter of Isaiah, "Unto us a son is given ;" - chiefly, however, in the
great original oracle ; - the sonship of a person is declared.
How far
the ancient church understood the oracle ; - whether or not they held this
personal and individual Son of God to be divine, or identified him with the
Jehovah of their worship, or with the promised Messiah ; - I am not now
concerned to inquire. There has been much ingenious speculation on all these
questions; and it has been argued with great power that, at least among the
later Jews about our Lord's time, an opinion prevailed admitting the Son to be
a divine person, but separating him from the Christ. Be that as it may, my
present object is simply to direct attention to the precision of the language
which the Holy Spirit takes care shall be used, when the idea of true and
proper personal fatherhood and sonship is to be expressed, as affording a
presumption that no such relation is really meant to be asserted when the
phraseology is of a looser and more indefinite kind.
V. I would only advert in a sentence to one other
consideration which seems to me all but decisive in support of my idea of the
teaching of the Old Testament on this subject. I mean the very remarkable
absence, in the recorded religious experiences and devotional utterances of the
Old Testament saints, of the filial element. I may have occasion to touch on
this topic again. I notice it now as a fact which cannot well be disputed, and
which surely must be allowed to be a fact of great significancy, in relation to
our present inquiry.
On the whole I am disposed to conclude that, so
far as we can gather information or evidence from the Scriptures of the Old
Testament, the fatherhood of God was not revealed to the ancient Church, either
as a relation common to all his intelligent creatures generally, or as a
relation belonging to the obedient angels and believing men specially; that any
use made of the analogy of this relation as it exists among men, in the way of
applying it to the dispositions and dealings of God, was little more than
rhetorical; and that, in fact, there was great reserve maintained on the part
of the great revealer with reference to this whole subject.
But it may be
asked, does the New Testament afford no materials for helping us in the
determination of the question? I am persuaded that it does, in several places.
I solicit attention to two passages in particular.
The first is in the
Epistle to the Hebrews. It is a passage, as I believe, fitted to have great
weight with those who, in the language of the Westminster Confession of Faith,
are prepared to receive as the teaching of the Spirit, not only what is
"expressly set down in Scripture," but also what, "by good and necessary
consequence, may be deduced from Scripture." My argument will undoubtedly be
based on a process of inferential reasoning; a mode of proof against which some
very respectable men, especially in our country, seem to have a strange and
unaccountable antipathy. It may be convenient sometimes, when one sees an
unwelcome conclusion looming in the distance, to refuse all inferences, and to
demand explicit and articulate chapter and verse for everything. But we are
commanded to "search the Scriptures ;" and we are commanded also "in
understanding to be men." To those obeying these commands, in the spirit of
them, I do not think my argument will appear very far-fetched, although it
ranges over several chapters, and connects somewhat distant verses.
At
the close of the tenth chapter, Paul quotes the Old Testament saying, "The just
shall live by faith ;" and he proceeds immediately, in his glorious muster-roll
of the worthies of the olden time, to give instances of "the just living by
faith." He ends his enumeration thus : "These all" - the just living by faith
-" received not the promise; God having provided some better thing for us, that
they without us should not be made perfect" (xi. 39, 40.) What is that "better
thing" which they, while they "lived by faith," and when, as the apostle had
previously said, they "died in faith," had not - which God has provided for us
? - which they must share with us if they are to be made perfect? For, it would
seem, they cannot be made perfect without it, and they cannot have it apart
from us. Is it merely the general blessing of clearer light and fuller joy
consequent upon the complete revelation of the gospel plan, through the actual
coming of the long-promised Saviour, and the actual accomplishment of the great
salvation? Or is it some particular benefit, precise and well defined, which
really effects a change in their standing or position?
Let us carry our
view forward.
After pondering devoutly the practical appeal in the beginning
of the twelfth chapter, founded upon our being "compassed about with so great a
cloud of witnesses," let us approach the august scene presenting itself to our
adoring gaze before the chapter ends. What have we here? A scene at Zion
analogous and corresponding to the scene at Sinai of old, with which it is
contrasted. It is ideal, spiritual, heavenly - but not the less on that account
revealing real truth. The redeemed of all ages are represented as brought
together to meet their redeeming God. Setting aside the locality and the
witnesses of which the first of the three verses (ver. 22) speaks ; and the
mediator and the mediation brought forward in the third ; we have the real
meeting in the verse which intervenes. It consists of "the general assembly or
church of the first-born which are written in heaven, God the judge or all, and
the spirits of just men made perfect."
Sitting on a central throne is
God the judge of all; his people's saviour, but still their judge ; the judge
of all. On either side there stands a vast company. Who are these on the one
side? "The firstborn written" or registered "in heaven." They are there in
their character of sons and heirs. They are there in full "assembly," yet in
the capacity of a select body, "a church." The expression "firstborn,
registered in heaven," properly denoting the possession of the filial
birthright, describes the position of those referred to elsewhere, when Christ
is spoken of as destined to be "the firstborn among many brethren" (Rom. viii.
29). He alone is, strictly speaking, the firstborn. To him belongs the
birthright, the right of primogeniture. He is the Son; and, as the Son, the
heir of all things. - But he shares his birthright, or right of primogeniture,
with many brethren. They all accordingly in him become in a sense firstborn ; -
sons and heirs. And they are registered as such in heaven. The position of
believers under the dispensation of the gospel is thus characteristically
marked. I can scarcely doubt that it is the entire body of New Testament
believers who are mystically, as it were, and by a sublime figure, set before
us, as convened, in a universal but select church-convocation, on one side of
"God the judge of all"
Who then are they who are seen by the eye of
faith standing on the other side? "The spirits of just men made perfect." I
cannot admit that this means merely the pious dead generally. I cannot forget
that a particular class of "just men" have been brought prominently out in the
very passage of which this magnificent pictorial representation of the
gathering together of all the saved is the close. "Just men" have been spoken
of, who in the days of old lived by faith and died in faith, who yet were not
"made perfect." There was a certain incompleteness, a certain defect, in or
about their spiritual state, while they lived, and when they died. And the
defect could not be altogether remedied, - their state could not be thoroughly
put right, - apart from Christian believers. It is they, I am satisfied, who
are to be regarded as standing alongside of the firstborn registered in heaven,
before Jehovah's awful throne. They are made perfect now. Perfect! in what
respect? Surely one can scarcely help drawing the conclusion, in respect of
their sharing with the firstborn their privilege of sonship and right of
primogeniture, becoming out and out sons, as they are.
The other
passage which I mean to adduce is in the Epistle to the Galatians. The
consideration of it need not detain us long. I am persuaded, however, that it
strongly confirms the view which I have been suggesting of the passage in the
Epistle to the Hebrews.
In the beginning of the fourth chapter, Paul
draws a contrast between believers under the law and believers under the
gospel. Of the former, he thus writes: - "Now I say that the heir, as long as
he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all, but
is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so
we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of this world."
Of the latter, "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his
Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the
law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons God
hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
Wherefore thou art no more a servant but a son; and if a son, then an heir of
God through Christ." It is admitted, or rather strongly asserted by the
apostle, that the Old Testament believer is an heir. Being a child of Abraham,
in virtue of his having and exercising the same faith that Abraham had and
exercised, he really has all the rights of a son and heir in the family of God.
But these rights are in abeyance during the period of pupillage or nonage. He
cannot avail himself of them. He is not fully acquainted with them. His place
in the family is rather that of a servant than that of a son. Such, says Paul,
was the position even of the true members of the church before gospel times.
But, he adds, their position is now changed. And what effects the change? God
sending forth his Son, and the Spirit of his Son. It is very plainly intimated
that it is through God's sending forth his Son, as his Son, that they receive
the adoption of sons; and that it is through God's sending forth into their
hearts the Spirit, as the Spirit of his Son, crying, Abba, Father, that they
realise their receiving the adoption of sons. If sons before, they were so
prospectively and as it were potentially - in posse, rather than in
esse. They are sons now really and truly, in a sense and to an effect
impossible before. They saw, indeed, the day of Christ afar off, and were glad.
They saw his holy person in the spotless lamb; his atoning death in the paschal
sacrifice. But they saw him not as the Son of God. And till he is so seen, even
believing men cannot receive, so as to realise it, the adoption of sons; they
cannot conceive what true sonship really is. It is the manifested sonship of
Christ that alone opens up the way for his believing people becoming sons
indeed, and having in them the spirit of sonship, the Spirit of God's very Son,
crying, Abba, Father.
Now, if such a change was thus effected in the
spiritual position of living believers, and in their consciousness of it, is
there any difficulty in apprehending the thought of a similar change taking
place in the case of the dead? Is there anything incredible in the idea of
these grand old worthies -" the just who lived by faith and died in faith" -
coming to know their Redeemer as God's Son and their brother, in a way in which
they never could know him, till they saw him "sent forth made of a woman, made
under the law ?" And what a large accession of holy joy might their new
knowledge of him impart! They have never been separated from him since they
left the world, for they are one with him. They have known and loved him well.
But now they behold a new thing - his sonship in their nature. And beholding
that cry of God, they are changed into the same image. The single drawback, the
solitary element of inferiority attached to their saved state, is gone. Not in
an ideal sense only, but in real heavenly fellowship, they are now on the same
footing with Stephen, and James, and the noble army of martyrs, and all the
faithful who, falling asleep in Jesus, depart to be with him. The just are made
perfect as sons.
Thus, as it seems to me, the opinion which is
suggested by a calm survey of the teaching of the Old Testament on the
question, - How far the fatherhood of God was revealed to the Old Testament
Church, - is corroborated by what we find in the intimations of the New
Testament.
There are two observations which I wish before closing to
make on the view which I have ventured to submit.
1. In the first place, I
think I can see a reason for reserve, as regards the full discovery of God's
fatherhood, before the coming of Christ. I can see some risk likely to arise
from its being prematurely disclosed, and some benefit in its being in a gteat
degree shaded and concealed. I remarked at the outset that, apart from the
incarnation, - and what is seen in the earthly and human life of the Son of the
footing on which, as the Son, he is with the Father, and the manner of their
mutual intercourse as Father and Son with one another, - all our conceptions of
fatherhood in God, as a relation which he sustains towards any of his
creatures, must have been simply analogical; based on the analogy of the
relation of father and son as it subsists among men. But that analogy is
originally inadequate; and, since the fall, it is positively unsafe.
I
believe, indeed, that the existence of the paternal and filial relation among
men, from the beginning, has reference to the eternal relation of fatherhood
and sonship in the Godhead, and to the ultimate development of that relation,
in the standing of all saved intelligences. I entirely agree with those who
maintain that this forms part, and a chief part, of the image and likeness of
God in which man was originally made. The divine relation is not a mere
analogical inference from the human. The human is formed upon the model of the
divine, and expressly in order to be its analogical representative. Adam's
being a father is not the type of God's paternity. Rather, in the sense of
being the mould into which it is cast, God's paternity is the type of his.
In that view I can conceive of the angels welcoming the introduction on the
stage of being of a race meant to exhibit this relation. They could form no
idea of it from the manner of their own existence. They had been, so far as
appears, simultaneously created; all of them alike in full possession of mature
intelligence. They had been all of them simultaneously tried and tested; and
the faithful among them had made good their position simultaneously, as the
subjects and servants of the Most High. If the reward of their obedience was to
be sonship; - especially if it was to be sonship somehow after the model of the
relation of the second person to the first in the ever adorable Trinity; they
might well be at a loss to conceive any adequate notion of a relation so
utterly beyond the reach of their own experience. But now they see a race of
new intelligences called into existence; in whose constitution and history a
relation is to be exhibited that may at least be a faint shadow of the divine
relation, to some participation in which they are taught to aspire. They
rejoice in the help thus given towards their understanding the relation of
fatherhood in which God is to stand to them. But alas! the dawn is soon
overcast. Sin comes in; and its blight taints and blasts the earthly relation
which should have been the image of the heavenly. It is better for the angels
now that the full discovery of this relation should be deferred till the Son of
God himself appears as a creature ; - to show what, for the creatures, it
really is.
The postponement was equally expedient, or rather even more
expedient, as regards men. What materials were there in these old times, what
materials are there now, for the construction of a notion of fatherhood in God
upon the analogy of fatherhood in man? One of the best perhaps of human
fathers, since the fall, is Abraham. But was he faultless in that relation? Or
shall we take Jacob? or Eli? or David? If the Old Testament Church - if Old
Testament believers - had been asked to worship God as their Father, was there
no danger of their conceiving of him whom they worshipped, after such unsafe
analogies as these? There is the same danger still. It is urgent. It is the
unbelief of the day. I have little hesitation in saying that the merely
analogical view of the fatherhood of God lies at the root of much, if not all,
of our modern current infidelity. How indeed, can it fail, unless very
carefully guarded, to breed infidelity? It must do so doubly, in two ways.
Human parents, on the one hand, are weak, fallible, selfish, capricious; -
holding with unsteady hand the balance of equity; unreasonably passionate, yet
fondly placable. And, on the other hand, they who conceive of God's fatherhood
as like the fatherhood of human parents, are but too ready to reconcile
themselves to precisely such a view of God as that which the analogy
suggests.
I believe it to be God's purpose to set aside, to a large
extent, if not altogether, all analogical apprehensions of his fatherhood. I
believe he means us to look exclusively, or all but exclusively, to the manner
of life of his Son Jesus Christ, and to draw our notions of his fatherhood
directly from thence. Here there is no analogy; or, if there is, it is all the
other way. It is not analogical reasoning from the human to the divine, but
from the divine to the human. There is presented before our eyes the actual
working out, in human nature and human experience, of the only relation of
fatherhood and sonship which God would have us to realise as possible between
himself and us. He would be our father, not as we are the fathers of our
children, but as he is the father of his Son Jesus Christ.
I do not urge
any question as to the original purpose of God in instituting a relation of
fatherhood in man ; - or as to how his original purpose might have been served,
if the relation had not been practically vitiated by the fall. It might, in
that case, have been, within certain limits and under certain cautions and
reservations, the source and ground of a pure and sound analogy. And so far as
it partakes of the redeeming and renewing grace of the gospel, it may be so
still;
- and may be so more and more. But God has not trusted to that. He
has revealed his fatherhood, not analogically but expressly, in his incarnate
Son. And there is divine wisdom in his keeping silence, for the most part, upon
the whole subject, until the fulness of the time for that revelation comes.
2. The other observation which I wish to make arises naturally out of this last
thought. The divine wisdom in this arrangement is signally manifested in the
character and spirit of Old Testament piety, as that was necessarily moulded by
the sort of religious life which it occasioned.
I have already noticed
the fact that there is little, or I think I may almost say nothing, of the
filial element, in the recorded spiritual experiences and spiritual exercises
of Old Testament believers. The Psalms entirely want it. The nearest approach
to it, perhaps, is that most tenderly expressed analogy (Ps. ciii. 13): " Like
as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him." The
same sort of analogy is suggested elsewhere. Thus in Malachi God says (iii. 17)
: " I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him ;" - in
Deuteronomy (viii. 5): "Thou shalt consider in thine heart that as a man
chasteneth his son, so the Lord thy God chasteneth thee;" - an in Proverbs
(iii. 12) : "Whom the Lord loveth he correcteth, even as a father the son in
whom he delighteth."
In these instances, the very nearness of the approach
to the assertion of God's fatherhood makes the stopping short of it all the
more noticeable. The last instance in particular is, in that view, not a little
significant. The verse from Proverbs is quoted in Hebrews (xii. 6). And the
inspired writer, in quoting it, does not scruple to throw it into New Testament
form, for the purpose of his inspired New Testament appeal:
- " Whom the
Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth."
Fatherhood is in the text, as Paul was Hispired to give it. But it is not in
the text as it stands in the Old Testament. All that is there is a similitude ;
- a " like as," or " so as," or " even as".
But apart from minute
criticism, I suppose it will not be denied, that in Old Testament piety there
is not anything like a full recognition - scarcely, indeed, any recognition at
all - of that personal relation of fatherhood and sonship which enters so
largely and so deeply into the prevailing spirit of Christian devotion. The
consideration of this fact might suggest a line of thought and investigation
intensely interesting; on which, however, I cannot now enter at any length. I
can only throw out a hint or two.
It must, I tlunk, greatly enhance our
admiration of the godly men of old, and of their godliness, when we listen to
their utterances of praise and prayer, or search the records of their manifold
spiritual experiences and deep exercises of soul, to bear in mind how little
they were permitted to know of God as a Father. Their close walk with him,
their strong trust in him, their fervent desire after him, the warmth of their
affection, the poignancy of their sense of sin, the liveliness of their
heavenly joy - these and other features of their personal religion must appear,
in the view of this condition attaching to it, more and more wonderful the more
we examine and reflect upon them. It might be not unprofitable also to inquire,
how far that condition may explain some of the peculiarities of their holy
aspirations and contendings ; the restlessness, the impatience, the dark
questionings and misgivings, the passionate outbursts even, which their
writings occasionally indicate; the sort of wailing cry for something better
which breaks from them ; and the eager, intense expectancy of their air and
attitude, like that of children in a strange place, longing to be taken to some
unknown home. Again, it might be well to mark, in searching these old books,
and specially the psalms and prophetic songs, how marvellously the Holy Spirit
has so inspired them, that this absence of what has since been so fully
revealed, - which might be supposed to be a drawback, - is in truth the very
quality which best fits them for universal use, in all ages of the Church till
the end comes. For it is that which makes them most expressive of the groans
and sighs.of lost humanity; its tossings, strivings, fightings, until it finds
its God; its strange vicissitudes of joy, fear, hope, even after it has found
him.
And then, flually, one might usefully inquire how, in virtue of its
very imperfection, the divinity of the Old Testament prepares the way for that
of the New; how the knowledge and worship of God, as Creator, Governor, Lord,
lays the best and only safe foundation for the knowledge and worship of him as
Father; how in this, as in other respects, "the law is our schoolmaster to
bring us unto Christ."
Home | Biography | Literature | Letters | Links | Photo-Wallet