I. The Historical Theology of God’s Fatherhood and Love
In the earlier Christian theological discussion, starting with Origen, God’s fatherhood was primarily seen in the context of the Trinity.2 In the Reformation, John Calvin argued that God is only a Father to the redeemed. In the late nineteenth century, in response to Calvin’s theology that limited God’s fatherhood to the elect, Adam Clarke, Francis Greenwood Peabody, and Walter Rauschenbush developed a “social gospel” that affirmed the brotherhood of all human beings and God as Father of them all.3
Randolf Foster hints that “The older theologians distinguished the attributes of God…from properties which are technically the distinguishing characteristics of the several persons of the Trinity. There are certain acts or relations peculiar to the Father, others to the Son, others to the Spirit.”4 As Paul indicates in the trinitarian text, 2 Cor. 15:13, the prominent attribute of the Father is love. Drawing an application from the teaching of the Trinity and emphasizing the perichoresis, Jurgen Moltmann advocates that “The trinitarian concept of God the Father doesn’t justify any patriarchalism or dominance of the father in society, but only communal love.”5
In a general sense, creation expresses God’s fatherly love for all humanity. As Foster rightly says, in creation, we see “the measure of the Father’s love, and it shall appear forever and ever that creation is a simple expression of love.”6 Whether concerning the Israelites or the entire human race, God’s fatherhood often refers to his love. Randolph Foster summarises it well by saying, “It is a father waiting at the gate for the returning prodigal.”7
II. The Uniqueness of God’s Fatherhood
The concept of divine fatherhood is not limited to the Jewish/Christian religions and cultures. In a discussion of divine fatherhood, it is essential to note that “In many religions, particularly the Mediterranean ones, the supreme god was called ‘Father of the universe,’ whether it was Zeus, the father of all, or Jupiter, the father of the gods.”8
In his book Ancient Near Eastern Literature and the Hebrew Scriptures about the Fatherhood of God and his article “The Fatherhood of God,” David Tasker explores the concept of divine fatherhood across various ancient cultures. According to Tasker, the Sumerians viewed their gods, such as An and Utu, as paternal figures with authority and responsibility. One of the Sumerian songs portrays Utu as a father (and a mother) whose benevolent act is praised.9
A similar idea occurs in Ugarit. In one Ugaritic epic, “El as father-god is moved with pity for his earthly son Kirta, and orders circumstances so that Kirta sires a number of children, including Aghat.”10 In the ANE, Resheph was “a widely worshipped deity.”11 Also, in Emar (a Syrian city), one of the most common names given to people is Abi-Rashap, which means “Resheph is my father.”12 This hints at God’s fatherhood in the Syrian religion and people’s devotion to him in their willingness to be identified as his children. In Babylon, there is evidence that people pray to the god Marduk, referring to him as “father” and asking him to watch over them, give them a favor, and prosper them.13
One notable thing about the ANE concept of divine fatherhood is that it is hardly about a human-god relation. For example, Tasker notes, “The Egyptian gods are called ‘father’ in the context of the generation of other gods, the world, and everything in it. They are also called ‘father’ in relation to the pharaohs, and in relation to assisting souls in the afterlife into the presence of Ra. It is in the context of creation and resurrection that their fatherhood is made evident.”14
The preceding discussion indicates that divine fatherhood is not limited to the Israelite’s territory. The people of Israel themselves might be aware of this. Nevertheless, this does not make them equate their God with the gods of the neighboring nations. Despite their awareness of the fact that peoples around them identify themselves as “children” to their gods and that they attribute divine benevolence to the father nature of their gods, the people of Israel sing:
Who among the gods
is like you, Lord?…
You stretch out your right hand,
and the earth swallows your enemies.
In your unfailing love you will lead
the people you have redeemed (Exod. 15:11 – 13).15
If the above song may relate to the concept of divine fatherhood and people’s well-being, underneath would be an implied assertion that there is no Father like Yahweh, the Father figure who redeemed his people as no other gods did. Although there is an indication of fatherhood self-proclamation and attribution to the ANE gods and that benevolent acts are attributed to them, the people of Israel see the person and fatherhood of God as something incomparable.
One quality that marks out the inferiority of the ANE gods compared to the God of Israel is their aloofness. For example, as was earlier noted in this study, the fatherhood of the Egyptian gods does not depict or entail intimacy. Tasker further notes that when discussing god-human relations in Egypt, “the masses did not really count for much” before the gods of the land.16
Moses might be aware of the aloofness of the gods of the neighboring communities when he rhetorically asked: “What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him?” (Deut. 4:7). In contrast to the father-gods of the nations around, God’s fatherhood to Israel demonstrates a personal, covenantal relationship whereby God is present among his people, combining His divine authority with intimacy to result in the well-being of the people.
III. Israel and the Fatherly Love of God
In the Book of Exodus, God’s fatherhood to the Israelites was affirmed in the call of Moses (Exod. 3:21 – 23). In Walter Kaiser’s words,
Moses’ first act as the newly appointed spokesman for the living God was categorically to command Pharaoh, “Israel is my firstborn son: … Let my son go” (Exod. 4:22 – 23). Yahweh was now to be seen as a “Father” by what He did: He brought Israel into being as a nation: He fostered the nation and led it. This is what fatherhood was all about.17
It is important to note that God’s initial introduction of Himself as the Father of Israel is within the context of deliverance: “Let my son go.” On this note, Svetlana Knobnya concludes, “The idea of God the Father is developed with reference to his redeeming activity in the deliverance of Israel from Egypt when he elected and lifted Israel to the status of ‘son’ (Ex 4:22).”18
In Deuteronomy, the theme of God’s fatherhood is also evident. Moses reminds Israelites of God’s fatherhood when he says: “And in the wilderness. There you saw how the Lord your God carried you, as a father carries his son, all the way you went until you reached this place” (Deut. 1:31). Since this verse is taken within the context of Moses’ narration of the Israelites’ journey and how the people rebelled, Moses’ expression here affirms God’s ability to take them through the rest of the journey. However, the critical point to note for this study is how Moses reminded them of God’s fatherly care for them as his sons.
Also, Deuteronomy portrays God as a Father intending to teach discipline to his “son.” In the book, Moses rehearses the Law of God to the people and encourages them to obey Yahweh. He reminds them of the wilderness experiences so they might fear Yahweh and obey his instructions. For Moses, the Israelites’ wilderness experience is God’s way of dealing with them as their Father: “Know then in your heart that as a man disciplines his son, so the Lord your God disciplines you” (Deut. 8:5).
Likewise, in Deuteronomy, Moses’ narration of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt and preservation in the wilderness underscores God’s love for his people. Moses’ message to the people was direct: “Because [God] loved your ancestors and chose their descendants after them, he brought you out of Egypt by his presence and his great strength” (Deut. 4:37).
Although William Moran, in his article “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” is skeptical about the Father-son love of God for Israel, however, he did not deny the centrality of love in the book. He notes that the book contains the theme of “Yahweh’s love for Israel and the imperative necessity of Israel’s love for Yahweh in return.”19 Reading Deuteronomy in light of Exodus 4:11 indicates that God’s love for Israel is that of a father to his son. As Kaiser notes, “All Israel’s freedom was owed to the loyal love of God (hesed—Exod 15:13) Yahweh had for His people.”20 Yahweh’s deliverance of his people is grounded in the expression, “Israel is my firstborn son.”
Isaiah is another biblical book that reflects the fatherly love of God for Israel. Chapters 40 – 55 discuss the Israelites’ exile and deliverance. Chapter 43 stresses the love of God, as it reads, “I will say to the north, ‘Give them up!’ and to the south, ‘Do not hold them back.’ Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth” (Isa. 43:6). As in Exodus, Isaiah links God’s fatherly love to his deliverance of the Israelites. Isaiah explicitly connects the idea of God ‘our Father’ with ‘our Redeemer’”, especially in chapter 63, verse 16.21 In verses 15b and 16a, Isaiah highlights God’s compassion.22 God’s compassion is shown repeatedly in the life of the Israelites as evident in the book of Judges. Conleth Kearns talks about God’s compassion rooted in his fatherly love when he concludes:
In one sense the Old Testament is nothing else but the story of God’s fatherhood in communicating his own divine life to man, thus making him his son, and man’s response or failure to respond: the Prodigal Father open-handed with his benefactions, and the Prodigal Son squandering his birthright.23
Although Israel would not stop wandering away from God’s compassionate, fatherly love, “God deals with the situation as a father, gently but firmly, guiding his errant children, not as a conquering king wiping out all opposition.”24
Like Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Isaiah, the books of Jeremiah, Hosea, and Malachi remarkably reflect the attributes of God’s fatherly love for Israel. Knobnya summarizes these attributes in Jeremiah and Hosea as follows:
Jeremiah recalls the time when God delivered Israel out of Egypt, when he cared for them (31:1-6). Jeremiah implies that the appeal for mercy to God the Father reflects Israel’s tradition and their history that constantly illustrates God’s election and the redemption of Israel out of Egypt (Jer 31). Hosea also remembers the exodus: when God brought Israel out of Egypt he treated it like a child (11:1). Hosea uses the beautiful metaphor of a ‘father’ treating his ‘child’ with love to represent the relationship of God and Israel (11:1-3).
Malachi also portrays God’s special love for Israel (1:2 – 3). It proceeds to point out Israel’s failure to honor God, who is their father. “The whole book talks about Israel breaking covenant with God by their wrongdoing.”25 Chapter 3, verse 2 expresses the threat of judgment, and Jeremiah (e.g., 3:4 – 5), Hosea (e.g., 11:5 – 6), and Malachi all have these themes in common.
Considering God’s combination of love and justice in dealing with his people, Tasker is therefore correct when he writes, “[God] not only deals with oppressors of His people, but with their rebellion against divine order as well. He declares that He will punish His sons if they forsake His law and judgment, statutes and commandments.”26 God’s discipline of his people is also a demonstration of His favor. This is because “[Justice] is that form of love which respects rights.”27
Finally, as we discuss the OT fatherhood of God, it is important to note how this title is used not only concerning the nation of Israel but also to David and his descendants (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 17:13; 22:10; 28:6; Ps 2; 89:26-27; Prov 3:11-12). The use of this title suggests that God set the kings of Israel apart as his representatives, thereby seeking his well-being mission for his people. 28 As such, God desires that his people be led the way he has always led them as a Father. As we have earlier indicated, God’s fatherhood to the people of Israel led to his care for them, and his desire for leaders to lead them in the way of well-being is all about his love for his people. In the entire story of Israel, God, in his relationship with them, did what a father does: He led them and loved them, love that is demonstrated in his benevolent acts.
IV. African Demonstration of Fatherly Love in Leadership
Examining the ATL, it is observed that a similar concept of fatherhood modeled and instructed by God is demonstrated. Meanwhile, we must emphasize that “Human fatherhood, however provident and tender, is only a shadow of the loving fatherhood God exercises towards every one of his human creatures.”29 In this section, we shall highlight the father-leader concept in the ATL, discuss the role of a king in relation to God, and explore three different areas where the king, as a father-leader, ensures the well-being of the people.
A. The existence of father-leader concept
In the Rwandan culture, the king (umwami) was…known as Sebantu (the father of all the people and clans). As the “father,” “he was the ultimate proprietor of all lands and cattle in the hands of the larger family of the nation.”30 Also, the father-leader concept is implied in the belief that everybody belongs to the king and the king belongs to everyone – whether Tutsi, Hutu, or Twa.31
Similarly, in Yoruba culture, the idea of a king’s fatherhood is evident in the common saying Oba ni bàbá (the king is the father). Generally, the metaphoric use of fatherhood for leadership is reflected in traditional leadership titles such as baálé (head of a clan) and baálẹ̀ (village head), which respectively mean “father of who owns the house” and “father who owns the land.”32
B. Kings as god’s agents for people’s well-being
The Rwandan political system is theocratic. Imana, the creator God, chooses the king who will shepherd his people.33 Frank Rusagara says, “The Rwandese of long ago conceived the notion of Imana as a special being – a creator and a perfect benevolent being. [He] governed through the king.”34 This is why it is believed that “the king participated in the realization of the divine right to rule while at the same time remaining a man among men.”35 This implies that “God did not physically distance himself from humans.”36 The Rwandan traditional people pride themselves on God’s closeness to them as a people and thereby hold that “Imana yilirwa ahandi igataha i Rwanda” (God may spend the day elsewhere but he always comes back to Rwanda).37
In the Yoruba view of God, Olodumare is known for his creation role and mighty power.38 Nevertheless, the saying “adáni mágbàgbé” (He who created but never forgets the created one) relates God’s creation with care. He created and ensured the well-being of his works.
In the Rwanda culture, the government of the king was, above all, spiritual,39 and “The essence of the monarch was that the king was God,” as it is traditionally believed that “Umwami si imuntu” (the king is not human).40 The Ubwiru was constituted to preserve the kingship’s sacredness. According to Gamaliel Mbonimana, “Ubwiru was perhaps the most important institution among all the other subsidiary institutions of the kingdom. It was an esoteric institution which is essentially political in nature; its major role was to preserve, adapt, present and glorify the monarchy as a “sacred” institution.”41 As a leader of his people, a Rwanda king serves as a link between them and the spiritual universe. For people to tap into Imana’s benevolence, “offerings should be made to appease him…. The king is considered a national priest” in this regard.42
In the Yoruba culture, all the kings have their line of succession traced back to Oduduwa, who descended from Olodumare. More so, the most critical role of a Yoruba king is to undertake “the spiritual search of the society’s well-being,” which implies regular consultation with the divinity.43
3. The role of a king in ensuring well-being
A Rwandan king is the “guarantor of personal wealth, health and justice,”44 who ensures all is well in all spheres of life. This belief is evident in the proverb, “[Umwami] uyu akamirwa n’Imana, natwe akadukamira amata akadukwira (the king who is present drinks milk which is milked by Imana and, in turn, the king milks it for us, hence the milk becomes abundant…).45
Just like the Rwandan people, the Yoruba believe that the king, the father to his people, exists for nothing other than to ensure people’s well-being. The story below illustrates this belief:
Once upon a time, there was a woman, Ìyá Alàkàrà, who sells àkàrà (bean cake) for her daily business. Tortoise (ìjàpá) employed the service of a giant rat (òkété) in digging an underground hole from his house to Ìyá Alàkàrà’s business joint. He dressed himself in masquerade regalia and used the underground hole to access the joint. On getting there, he changed his voice like that of a masquerade and scared Ìyá Alàkàrà, who took to her heels and left her àkàrà behind. Tortoise packed and ate all the àkàrà. He did this repeatedly.
The first time this incident happened, Ìyá Alàkàrà brought it to the notice of her husband who attempted to do something about the predicament. He did not succeed; therefore, he took the matter to the village head (Baálẹ̀), who in turn reported the matter to a chief in the king’s court, who finally reported the matter to the king. This is when the king reported the matter to the ancestor, the Ifa oracle.
Then, the ancestors instructed them to make use of àrọ̀nì (a handicapped man with one hand and one leg) to fight the battle against the mischievous “masquerade.” The àrọ̀nì set a net trap for the Tortoise-turned-masquerade and was captured, and killed. And thus, the predicament came to an end.46
This story suggests that the king (or a leader) is responsible for finding solutions to anything that hinders the people’s well-being. In the ATL, leadership is about responsibilities and ensuring that people are in a state of well-being. Like the God of Israel, who ensures provision, security, and justice of the people and desires that his chosen leaders follow the same model, we shall explore how the ATL ensures well-being in these three areas: security, prosperity, and justice.
1. Security
From the olden days in Rwanda, military activities have been an essential aspect of the government. In fact, “Rwanda’s traditional society was organized around the military, which defined each individual and his or her place in the society.”47 Military conquest was one of the essential pillars of Rwanda’s political philosophy.48 Although the Rwandan military played an economic role, particularly in cattle gathering,49 it mainly aimed at securing the land and its people. It is noted that the Rwandan military was so strong “during its heyday [that] no slave trader could tread its soil.”50 The necessity of the military to the reign of a king is found in the fact that, upon his enthronement, every new king must “create new battalion from his age group/generation.51 Also, kings, such as Ndori, had causes to prove their legitimacy through military conquest.52
In earlier Yoruba history, kings were known for their military prowess. Oduduwa, the people’s historical progeny, became the leader of the race because of his military conquest. His son Oranmiyan was said to have been on an aborted military expedition when he founded the Oyo Kingdom. Subsequent kings ensured the safety of the land by constituting an aristocratic military group headed by the ààrẹ ọ̀nà kakaǹfò (the warlord), supervised by the king.
2. Prosperity:
For Traditional Rwandans, kingship “guaranteed prosperity by its very existence and by the execution of rituals destined to ensure the fertility of the land, fecundity of cattle, and that of his objects.”53 Gicurasi and umuganura, the rituals of the first fruits, “reemphasized the essential role of the king in maintaining the prosperity of his subjects.”54 Like kingship expectations in the Rwandan culture, Yoruba measures the success of a leader by the amount of well-being the society enjoys in his time. This is evident in the proverb, “Ọba tó jẹ t’ílùú r’ójú, a kò ní gbàgbé rẹ̀” (We will forever remember the king whose reign brings much prosperity).
As a personal act, Rwandan kings are in the habit of sharing royal dues with the less privileged. The royal dues “included cows, harvested food grains, and other items paid as tribute. Many of these goods were partly redistributed to the poor in the name of the king.”55
3. Justice:
Both in Rwandan and Yoruba cultures, the well-being of society also entails that no one suffers oppression from another member of the society. It also ensures that disputes are settled following an established system. In traditional Rwandan society, one means by which justice is served is through Gacaca, which is made up of the village’s traditional councils. Gacaca concept “derived its impetus and legitimacy from ubumwe bw’ Abanyarwanda (Rwandan unity), a system which is spearheaded at the national level by the umwami (king) himself.56 A Rwandan king is known to be the national custodian of justice and occasionally moves around the nation to make himself available to people and serve justice when required.57
In the Yoruba society, the justice system is so entrenched in the kingship role that he is directly involved in the national law-making. Tunde Onadeko says, “The Oba and his chiefs and Ogboni promulgated the laws.”58 More so, a political leader in Yorubaland is also saddled with a judge’s responsibility.59
ATL cannot be deemed a direct replica of God’s demonstration of fatherly love to the Israelites. However, African political leadership, described in the discussion, reminds us of God’s fatherly leadership, characterized by love that seeks people’s well-being. For example, in Israel’s case, he kept them secure by defending them against the army of Pharao, and he was thereby declared to be “a warrior” (Exod. 15:3). He fed them miraculously in the wilderness. He gave them the Law and saw to it that they were punished when they erred. He instituted sacred leadership that would ensure the well-being of his people.
In its similarity, ATL still falls short in comparison to God’s love as a father because God is incomparable in his attributes (Exod. 15:11). More so, there exist the aspects of African traditional politics that fall short of what God instructed his chosen people – “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exod. 20:3). For examples, references are made to ritual making in this study. Such rituals are done in the names of other gods. Further studies will reveal the involvement of Rwangome and Sango worship alongside the Supreme Being in Rwandan and Yoruba politics, respectively, an act God is displeased with.
V. Conclusion
God declares Himself the Father of the nation of Israel and demonstrates this through his love, which ensures their well-being. This study has shown that ATL seeks to follow God’s example as it imbibes the notion of father-leadership that exists for nothing other than society’s well-being. As God himself perfectly models it, leadership is a sacred responsibility for Africans and must ensure people’s well-being. This is a critical area of African beliefs and practices that reflects the mind of God for his people. The father-leadership concept in African traditional society affirms that the people have God’s mind through general revelation, but with the twist that other gods are involved aside from Yahweh.
