SOLA
Give
All Presentations

The Living God

The Fatherhood of God: A Biblical-Theological Reflection and Analysis

November 2024

Vijai Singh Tagore

Watch On

Watch On

Contents

Abstract

The appropriateness of the term “Father” as a self-disclosure of God in the Bible has been questioned by some feminists,1 and is also being discussed within the evangelical debate on gender and trans-gender issues over the last few decades.2 The major issue concerns the broader question of God’s gender and the appropriateness of the masculine expressions in Scripture describing God and his character.3 As such, the masculine expression of God as “Father” has been brought into question asking whether it is an essential, eternal and immutable attribute or description of God, or an outdated, time and culture bound analogy or anthropomorphism that needs be replaced with feminine or gender-neutral terms in place of “Father.”

Renowned Feminist theologian, Mary Dale, famously wrote long ago, “If God is male, then the male is God,”4 describing the term “Father” and the concept of the Fatherhood of God in the Bible carrying notions of an oppressive patriarchy designed to subjugate women. Proposals have been offered to replace the term “Father” with “Mother” or “Parent” for God to rid patriarchal notions of God from Scripture.5 There have even been efforts to introduce such changes into the official doctrinal statement of some denominations within evangelicalism.6 Biblical description of God in masculine expressions or images (husband, king, judge, father) have been sought to be explained away, even denied as a result of the influence and outcome of the patriarchal world in which the Old and New Testaments were written.7 There are often constant efforts to strip the Scripture of male conceptions of God by redefining the names and descriptions of God, even of Jesus. As such, the Fatherhood of God has been regarded or questioned as an outdated anthropomorphism, resulting from male-dominant Jewish and Greco-Roman description of God promoting misogyny. Amy Peeler’s recent book argues that God is not male even though the Bible uses masculine language to describe God (e.g., Father). Rather, “Mother” or “Parent” are legitimate terms to describe the First Person of the Trinity.8

A major issue with such approaches is that they arise from an assumption that the traditional view of God as “Father” puts male gender into a superiority position over female. Such an approach confuses the masculine expressions of God as “Father” or “husband” with the sexed male gender. On the contrary, no orthodox or evangelical theologian holds to the view that God is male. God is neither male, nor female but a non-sexual Spirit (John 4:24.).9

However, the eternal God chose to reveal himself to humanity using masculine expression of fatherhood, and the image of “Father” in biblical history. “Father” has been the most significant term for God both traditionally and theologically in the evangelical world. Among all the descriptions, names and attributes of God, “Father” has been the most common and the most familiar term used by Christians worldwide to address God in prayers. The Apostles’ Creed begins with the description of God as “Father.” Apart from 3 John, every NT canonical book mentions God as “Father.” The gospels alone have more than 165 references to God as “Father” or to his fatherhood.10 Not only was “Father” Jesus’ favorite term to address God, but he also taught his disciples and believers to pray addressing God as their “Father” (Matt. 6:9). A closer look at the biblical data confirms that beside his relationship with the Son (Jesus) within the economy of salvation, God the Father chose to reveal himself to mankind in creation and in the history of redemption as “Father.”

The biblical evidence reveals that the idea of fatherhood comes from an Eternal and Immutable God (Eph. 3:14) in the context of a Trinitarian (Father-Son) and Covenantal relationship. God is not borrowing human analogy of fatherhood, rather sharing his eternal immutable character of fatherhood with humanity.11 God’s Fatherhood is prior to and is the basis of creaturely fatherhood (Eph. 3:14). In fact, eternal generation of the Son is the primary grounds for naming God as Father and God’s eternal nature determines his self-disclosure as Father. Herman Bavinck puts it well.

This name “Father,” accordingly, is not a metaphor derived from the earth and attributed to God. Exactly the opposite is true: fatherhood on earth is but a distant and vague reflection of the fatherhood of God (Eph. 3:14-15). God is Father in the true and complete sense of the term… He is solely, purely, and totally Father. He is Father alone; he is Father by nature and Father eternally, without beginning or end.”12

Before God became the Creator, he was the Father in eternity in an eternal loving relationship. Hence, “Father” is a key term for our understanding of God. The biblical description of God’s Fatherhood conveys not just the idea that God is our Creator but the very fact that he is our Redeemer.

This paper attempts to defend the notion that “Fatherhood” is an essential, eternal, and immutable characteristic and attribute of God as revealed in the Scripture and is not time or culture bound. It must not be replaced or denied. It must be continued to be held, defended, cherished, and used in Christian tradition both in theology and worship. To substantiate this claim, support will be sought in a biblical-theological analysis and reflection of the Fatherhood of God in the Bible. It will be shown that God’s Fatherhood is a central theme in the Bible, particularly in the NT with Jesus’ coming and because of his redemptive work. The theme of God’s Fatherhood often appears in the context of redemption both in the Old and New Testaments. As such, the paper will provide a biblical-theological study of the Fatherhood of God highlighting its prevalence and importance in God’s self-disclosure to humanity and confirming that Fatherhood is an essential theological characteristic within the divinity of God.

The focus of this paper pertains primarily to the Fatherhood of God in relation to his people. As such, the paper will not focus on the current God and Gender debate,13 as well as

the Father-Son relationship within the Trinity regarding the nature of the Son’s subordination to the Father.14

I. The Fatherhood of God in the Bible

In the Scripture, the term “Father” or the idea of God’s Fatherhood is used in different contexts and may refer to various relationships between God the Father and others. “Father” as a description for God in the Bible has a deeper meaning and wider implications that are often overlooked or are not generally realized. Finlayson and Jensen’s categorization helps pointing them out by defining the various facets of God’s Fatherhood expressed in four different relationships, namely Creational, Theocentric, Generative, and Adoptive.15

Creational Fatherhood of God means he is the Father of all by virtue of creation (Acts 17:28). Since God is the Creator and Sustainer of the whole universe (cf. Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps. 8:6; Luke 3:38), and the giver of life to all (cf. Num. 16:22; Acts 17:28–29; Heb.12:9), it includes the fundamental relationship of God with all humans.16 Without this Fatherhood of God, there will be no humanity at all.17

Theocentric Fatherhood of God refers to God’s relationship with his covenant people, the nation of Israel. Collectively, God calls Israel his son (“first-born son,” Exod. 4:22–23) and refers to himself as its “Father.” The context of this relationship is Israel’s redemption from slavery in Egypt as a chosen people.18 As such, God calls himself “Father” to Israel not because he was their Creator but because he was their Redeemer and had established an exclusive covenantal relationship with them. Bray points out this covenantal relationship of God with Israel from Isaiah 63:16–17 and 64:8–9 where Israel was able to call God as “Father” because he was their Redeemer.19 Even within the covenant community in OT, there appears to be a restricted sense of God’s Fatherhood where he is only the “Father” of the God-fearing among the nation and not of the whole nation (cf. Ps. 103:13; Mal. 3:17).

Generative Fatherhood of God is only applied to the Second Person of the Trinity, the only begotten Son of God. It is unique since it is not applied to any other creature.20 Christ speaks of this unique and eternal relationship with the Father repeatedly in the gospels (Matt. 7:21; 10:32, 33; Luke 10:22; 22:29; John 2:16; 5:17). God was his Father by eternal generation, whereas believers are God’s children through adoption (John 1:12; Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:5–6; Eph.1:5).21 Christ clearly made this distinction between his Sonship and the sonship of believers as indicated in John 20:17 (“my Father and your Father”) although the two are linked together since the former is the basis of the latter. He is the pre-existent eternal Son, equal with the Father (Matt. 11:27; John 8:58; 10:30, 38; 14:9; 16:28).22 Thus, God is not the Father of believers in the same sense he is the Father of Jesus the Son. Jesus never addressed God as “our Father” (Matt. 6:9 is not an exception but Jesus teaching his disciples how they [plural] were to pray to God), also confirmed from his use of “your” (singular and plural) and “my” Father but never “our” Father (Matt. 5:16, 45, 48; 6:1, 4, 6; 7:21; 10:32–33). He is the divine and sinless Son of the Father by nature, whereas believers are sinners who have been adopted by the Father in and through the Son.

Adoptive Fatherhood of God refers to the believers’ adoption into the family of God as his children (John 1:12, 13; Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:5–6; Eph. 1:5) as a result of their union with Christ. The context of this relationship is redemption, which is made possible by Christ’s redemptive work (Gal. 3:26).23 Hence, the Adoptive Fatherhood of God is restricted and exclusive to believers because they become God’s children through Jesus.

Finlayson and Jensen’s categorization of the Fatherhood of God above points out the different facets or aspects of it that highlight the essentiality of this attribute and its pervasiveness in the biblical-theological narrative. Others have also recognized the various aspects of God’s Fatherhood in the biblical account. For example, both Frame and Bray notice and distinguish between a Creational Fatherhood of God, where God is the Father of all in a general sense being their Creator, and a Special Fatherhood towards his chosen people by virtue of his covenant with them.24 Hence, theologically, the Fatherhood of God is the very character of God and serves as the framework for the doctrine of adoption of believers into God’s family (Gal. 3:26). It is deeply connected to the redemptive work of Christ and the covenantal relationship of God with His people both in the Old and the New Testaments, as seen below.

II. Fatherhood of God in the Old Testament

In comparison to the NT, the concept of God as “Father” is not widely and explicitly developed in the OT.25 Although clearly indicated in some places in the OT, the depiction of God as “Father” is rarely spelled out.26 Bray observes that the passages in “the Old Testament where the language of fatherhood is used of God are relatively few and their meaning is sometimes unclear.”27 The OT refers to God as a “Father” to the nation of Israel (e.g. Deut. 32:6; Isa. 63:16 [twice]; 64:8; Jer. 3:4, 19; 31:9; Mal. 1:6; 2:10 ) as their protector, provider, caretaker, and redeemer, and of Israelite kings and certain individuals (2 Sam. 7:14; 1 Chron. 17:13; 22:10; 28:6; Ps. 68:5; 89:26) in a metaphorical sense.28 Other times, the father imagery is used while the term “Father” is not used (Ex. 4:22–23; Deut. 1:31; 8:5; 14:1; Ps. 2:7; 103:13; Prov. 3:11–12; Jer. 3:22; 31:20; Hos. 11:1–4; Mal. 3:17). The idea of God being the “Father” also emerges in the personal names of the Israelites (e.g. 1 Sam. 8:2; 2 Sam. 8:16).29 A significant point is that the Fatherhood of God to Israel in the OT is often linked to its redemption as God’s covenant and chosen people (Ex. 4:22–23; Deut. 1:31; 32:6; Isa. 63:16; 64:8).30 The allusions to God’s fatherly care for Israel (Ps. 103:13; Deut. 1:31; 32:6) also indicate God’s special relationship with Israel as son based upon his covenantal promises (Ex. 4:22–23; Jer. 31:9). This is an important point since it shows the covenantal and theological nature of the term “Father.”

Altogether there are about 25 references to God as “Father” or his Fatherhood OT. In comparison to other descriptions of God (such as Creator, Lord, King, Judge), the Fatherhood of God does not appear to be a key description of God in OT. Hence, it is suggested that although people in the OT were aware of the Fatherhood of God in some sense, “Father” was not a popular term to address God even in Jewish prayers.31 Bray points out that the only two examples where the Jewish people are known to have called on God as their “Father” are Isaiah 63:16–17 and 64:8–9.32 Similarly, Jeremias had argued earlier that “Father” seems to be not an available form of address for God in Judaism since for Judaism “God was primarily the Lord…the Creator.”33 Although “Judaism had a great wealth of forms of address to God at its disposal…Nowhere, however in the Old Testament do we find God addressed as ‘Father,’” Jeremias concludes.34 He also refers to the evidence in the Targum, which suggests that “Jew deliberately avoided applying the word abba to God even outside prayers.”35 It is proposed that the Jews avoided such a description of God due to its frequent use in fertility cults of the Ancient Near East with sexual overtones.36

Outside of the OT, there a few isolated references to God as “Father” in the intertestamental post-canonical Jewish sources, e.g. Apocrypha (Wis. 2:16; 14:3; Tob. 13:4; Sir. 4:10; 23:1, 4; 51:10); Pseudepigrapha (Jub. 1:24, 28; 19:29; 3 Macc. 5:7; 6:3-4, 8; T. Levi 18:6; T. Judah 24:2); and Dead Sea Scrolls (1 QH 9:35f.).37 However, they are seen as lacking clarity.38 Jeremias suggests that they may be due to the Greek influence upon the diaspora Hellenistic Judaism.39

The evidence in the OT suggests that although “Father” as a description for God or references to the Fatherhood of God are surprisingly few, the concept was known to the people of God in the OT and was understood in the context of their redemption and God’s covenantal relationship with Israel as a chosen nation. Hence, in the OT the idea of Covenantal or Theocentric Fatherhood of God is more prominent than God’s Creational or General Fatherhood to all.40

It appears that “Father” was not a popular term to address God among the Jews in the OT and during the intertestamental period. It could be because the OT lays a greater emphasis on the distance between God and His people where God seems to be more separate and less intimate due to his holiness. The sacrifices and the priesthood in the OT imply the same. The general emphasis of the OT is upon God’s holiness and the reverence that His people are to show toward him being their powerful Creator and High King and Judge.

It can be said that in the OT, as Medved says, “God sees himself and proclaims himself as the Father of Israel. Moreover, his acts toward Israel clearly exhibit his fatherhood.”41 Hence, while the Fatherhood of God in the Old Testament is present, it is taken to a new level in the NT.42

III. Fatherhood of God in the New Testament

The theme of the Fatherhood of God in relation to his people is significantly and most characteristically taught and expanded in the NT by Jesus himself in the gospels and later by Paul in his epistles.43 As pointed out earlier, almost every NT canonical book mentions God as “Father.” It is the third most frequently used term for God in the NT and probably the most theologically significant description of God in the NT. Proportionally, the frequency of references to God’s fatherhood in the NT (almost 250 times)44 is greater than in the OT (15 direct, 9 indirect), which indicates that it becomes a major doctrine in the NT, primarily because of Jesus.45 It almost appears, as Bray says that “when Jesus called God his Father and taught his disciples to do the same he was doing something new.”46 The reaction of the Jews to Jesus’ statement in John 5:18 seems to indicate that they were neither comfortable, nor familiar with addressing God as Father.47

Undoubtedly, the Fatherhood of God takes a decided turn with Jesus since it was his favorite term for addressing God (almost 65 times in the synoptic Gospels and over 100 times in John’s gospel).48 In fact, Jesus’ teaching on God’s Fatherhood and his special relationship with God opens a whole new way for his disciples and the believers to connect to God as Father like never before. Jeremias agrees that “for the disciples of Jesus, God is the Father.”49 This is indicated from his use of “your Father” statement in the gospels (Matt. 5:16, 45; 6:1, 4; 10:29; Mark 11:25; Luke 6:36; 12:30, 32; John 20:17).

As such, while the OT view of God as the Creator (Mark 2:27; 10:6; 13:19), Lord, King (Matt. 18:23–25) and Judge (Matt. 10:28) is affirmed and maintained in the NT, it is not the center of NT view of God. Instead, the Fatherhood of God dominates the description of God both in the gospels and the epistles.

IV. Fatherhood of God in the Gospels

The term “Father” is constantly used by Jesus to address God, particularly in the gospels of John and Matthew (among the synoptics).50 Although it is unevenly distributed in the gospels (4 times in Mark, 44 in Matthew, 15 in Luke, and 109 in John),51 Jesus repeatedly calls God as “my Father”52 (e.g., Matt. 7:21; 10:32, 33; Luke 10:22; 22:29; John 2:16; 5:17) or “the Father” (Matt. 11:27; 24:36; Mark 13:32; Luke 10:22; John 1:14) or “your Father”53 (Matt. 5:16; 10:20; Mark 11:25; Luke 6:36; John 20:17), particularly in the gospels of John and Matthew (among the synoptics).54 Being Jesus’ favorite term to address God, particularly in prayer, he also teaches and encourages his disciples to do same by relating to God as their Father (e.g., Matt. 6:9). Hence, Jesus’ teaching on the fatherhood of God portrays his own intimacy with God that he opened to believers to enjoy and have access to as part of His mission (John 14:7). Hurtado puts it well that Jesus “became the pioneer and catalyst for a special filial relationship to God to be enjoyed by his disciples.”55 With Jesus’ coming, the idea of the Fatherhood of God emerges into greater depth and emphasis with a view of God portraying the most intimate relationship believers have with God i.e., parent children).56

Significantly, Jesus sees the Fatherhood of God as a privilege enjoyed by His disciples and later believers only, and not by everyone in general (cf. John 8:19, 38, 41–42, 44) because this relationship is only made possible through the redemptive work of Christ.57 While in line with the OT, Jesus acknowledges that all people are God’s children by creation and are objects of his providential kindness (Matt. 5:45), he also sees them as fallen and sinful and are now objects of his wrath requiring rebirth and reconciliation with God (John 3:3; 8:42; 14:6). Jesus’ response to the Jewish opposition in John 8:37–59 confirms the same. He challenges the Jewish assumption that God was their Father in the covenantal sense (v. 41) because they were Abraham’s children (v. 53). To their surprise, Jesus calls them the children of the devil, and not of God (v. 44) because they had rejected the Son of God. According to Jesus, only those who accept his Sonship and put their trust in his redemptive work may truly call God “Father.”58 Hence, the idea of Adoptive Fatherhood is central to Jesus’ teaching on Fatherhood.

V. Fatherhood of God in the Pauline Corpus

The Fatherhood of God is also clearly seen in Paul’s letters. His theology of God is dominated by it. The opening salutations in Paul’s letters describe God repeatedly as Father of believers through Christ (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; Eph. 1:2; Phil. 1:2; Col. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:3; 2 Thess. 1:1, 2; Phil. 3). Paul has more than forty references describing God as “Father” or referring to his “Fatherhood” in blessings (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3), doxologies (Rom. 15:6), thanksgiving (2 Cor. 1:3), exhortations (Eph. 5:20), and creeds (Eph. 4:6).

Paul too points out the Generative Fatherhood of God in relation to Jesus (Rom. 15:6; 1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 1:3; Col. 1:2), Adoptive Fatherhood of God in relation to believers in Christ (Rom. 1:7; 8:15; 1 Cor. 8:6; 1 Cor. 6:18; Gal. 1:1, 3, 4; 4:6; Eph. 1:2; 2:18; 3:14; 5:20; Phil. 4:20; Col. 1:12; 1 Thess. 3:11, 13; 2 Thess. 2:16), and Creational Fatherhood of God in relation to all creation (1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:6).59 However, it is the Adoptive Fatherhood of God to believers that takes a pivotal place in Pauline theology since it is made available through Christ’s redemptive work, which is the center of Paul’s Christology. Hence, Paul also calls God, “Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6 ; 2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31 ) since it is through the work of Christ that God invites believers to call him “Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). And it is through Christ that believers have become God’s children (Rom. 8:14; cf. Gal. 4:5). Thayer’s lexicon notes that “this conception, common in the New Testament epistles, shines forth with especial brightness in Romans 8:15 and Galatians 4:6.”60

In Paul’s view the Fatherhood of God is not derived from human fatherhood but is the basis of it (cf. Eph. 3:14–15). It shows that God’s Fatherhood is to be understood as “inherent in the nature of God,” and not a result of a human analogy.61

VI. Abba, Father

The use of the Aramaic term Abba (translated as the Greek Pater in other occurrences) both by Jesus (Mark 14:36)62 and later by Paul (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6) further confirms the Adoptive Fatherhood of God, central in the Pauline letters.63 It is an intimate term that was thought to be used often by young children carrying the notion of the English “daddy.”64 However, it has been pointed out that both Abba and its Greek equivalent, Pater were also used by both older children and adults to address their father.65 Jesus’ use of this term to address God is unique and rare since it finds no parallels either in OT or in Jewish literature as an address to God.66 Mark retains the Aramaic Abba (Mark 14:36) indicating that it was Jesus’ distinctive way of addressing God that he wants his readers to remember.67 The context of the use of this term is Jesus’ agonizing prayer in view of the impending suffering on the cross that awaited him. Jesus calls out to his beloved father in the poignant moment, addressing him Abba, which shows Jesus’ intimate relationship with the Father.68 It was also the way the disciples were taught by Jesus to address God in prayer (Luke 11:2).

Jeremias points out that “He spoke to God like a child to its father, simply, inwardly, confidently. Jesus’ use of abba in addressing God reveals the heart of his relationship with God.”69

Distinct from any Jewish antecedent and following Jesus (Mark 14:36), Paul also introduces Abba to his predominantly Gentile congregations (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Although Greek-speaking, Paul wants the Gentile Christians to address God using the Aramaic term Abba because it was taught by Jesus himself.70 Hence, Paul cites it in its Semitic formulation to keep the original sense intended by Jesus in Mark 14:36 where it serves as a unique expression of Jesus’ relationship to the Father. Significantly, in both places (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6), Paul introduces it in the context of the believers’ adoption into God’s family where the Spirit enables believers to recognise and acclaim God as their “Abba! Father!” Hence, the term in Paul’s usage serves as a mark or proof of believers’ adoption as “sons of God” (Rom. 8:14; Gal. 4:5).71 In fact, it implies that the doctrine of adoption assumes the Fatherhood of God as an unchangeable and eternal reality since believes’ adoption as God’s children is an unchangeable and eternal reality.

VII. Conclusion

The above discussion shows that the description of God as “Father” and his Fatherhood, are present both in the Old and New Testaments. The references to Fatherhood of God in the OT are linked with the idea of redemption expressing God’s covenantal relationship with Israel as his chosen people. People in the OT were aware of God as “Father” being their Creator and Redeemer but did not generally address God as “Father” in their prayers, nor did they experience the level of intimacy with God based on this relationship as do the NT believers.

It is important to note that while there is both continuity and progression of the Fatherhood of God in the NT from the OT, it is taken to a new level in the NT with the coming of Jesus and his teaching on it. Jesus inaugurates a new depth to the relationship between God the Father and believers as his adopted children that was not experienced or emphasized earlier in Judaism. The basis of this renewed relationship was the redemptive work of Christ, which is a key theme in NT theology. Paul relates the Fatherhood of God with his adoption of believers in and through Christ (Rom. 8:14–16; Gal. 3:26) Hence, the Fatherhood of God is at the forefront of NT Theology since it is closely associated with the doctrine of adoption in the NT. This is beautifully expressed by J.I. Packer:

You sum up the whole of New Testament religion if you describe it as the knowledge of God as one’s Holy Father. If you want to judge how well a person understands Christianity, find out how much he makes of the thought of being God’s child, and having God as his Father. If this is not the thought that prompts and controls his worship and prayers and his whole outlook on life, it means that he does not understand Christianity very well at all. For everything that Christ taught, everything that makes the New Testament new, and better than the Old, everything that is distinctively Christian as opposed to merely Jewish, is summed up in the knowledge of the Fatherhood of God. ‘Father’ is the Christian name for God. Our understanding of Christianity cannot be better than our grasp of adoption.”72

The pervasiveness of the “Fatherhood of God” in the Scripture points to its essential immutable character specifically in its relationship to the theme of redemption in the Old and the New Testaments which is theological in nature. Being of theological nature in essence, it is neither cultural, nor time bound. Therefore, it is imperative to emphasize its necessity both in theology and worship. To reject or avoid or modify the biblical description and designation for God as “Father” would be to lose sight of the fact that Jesus chose it to address God and taught his disciples to do the same. Replacing “Father” with “Mother” or “Parent” or anything else also loses sight, as Stein accurately points out, of the continuity and fraternity “with those who have called God “Father” over the centuries. These include the disciples of Jesus; the earliest congregations; the earliest church councils (‘I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth’); and Christian churches all over the globe who over the centuries have prayed together, “Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed by thy name.”73

The Christian understanding of God as “Father” is unique among world religions. In fact, the idea of a divine Fatherhood in other religious traditions is either totally absent or entirely distinct from the Christian idea of God’s Fatherhood. The Romans had Jupiter as father Jove but lacked clarity in what it meant.74 The Platonists in the NT times thought of the divine Father as a hidden deity dwelling above the heavens and without any direct contact with the material world.75 The Gnostics in the early church had a similar idea of a hidden Father. In Buddhism, there are no gods, or if there are, there is no way we can know them. Hinduism has thousands of gods (brahman for creation; shiva for destruction; Ganesh for learning) and behind them one impersonal force, but no idea of God as Father. Islam has 99 names for God but not Father. Judaism had some idea of God as Father but not commonly used in prayers. It is only in Christianity, with Jesus’ coming, “Father” becomes the most important and common address for God in the NT and throughout church history. And that is because of one person, Jesus. Hence, for Christians today, “Father” is Christo-centric because they can pray to God and relate to him as “Father,” not because he is primary their Creator but because he is their Redeemer in and through Christ. Jesus reveals the Father to us (John 14:9–11).

Since the context of the Fatherhood of God in Scripture is covenantal and theological, it does not cease with changing times and cultures. “Father” is his eternal nature. Colin Smothers echoes the words of Herman Bavinck as a great reminder asserting, “Let it be clear: we do not name God. He names himself, and he has named himself Father.”76

Vijai Singh Tagore
  1. 01E.g., Mary Daly, Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women’s Liberation (Boston: Beacon, 1973); Paul K. Jewett, God, Creation, and Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991); Eizabeth Johnson, She Who is (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1996).
  2. 02Ronald Pierce and Erin Heim, “Biblical Images of God as Mother and Spiritual Formation” in Discovering Biblical Equality: Biblical, Theological, Cultural, and Practical Perspectives, ed. Ronald Pierce and Cynthia Long Westfall, 3rd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2021), 372–92; Amy Peeler, Women and the Gender of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2022).
  3. 03See the discussion in John Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Chirstian Belief (New Jersey: P&R Pub., 2013), 107–114. The background or the context of the issue concerns the wider issue of gender equality within Christendom, especially the role of women in church i.e., the ordination of women into church ministry. Some Bible translations now also include gender-neutral language – e.g. NIV (2011), TNIV (Today’s New International Version), NRSV (New Revised Standard Bible), REB (Revised English Bible), NLT (New Living Translation), NCV (New Century Version), CEV (Contemporary English Version). Some even hold that the Bible itself affirms transgender ideology (e.g. Mark Sameth, “Is God Transgender” (August 12, 2016). Available at https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/13/opinion/is-god-transgender.html. Accessed on 31/12/23.
  4. 04Daly, Beyond God the Father, 19.
  5. 05E.g., Peeler, Women and the Gender, 17; Pierce and Heim, “Biblical Images of God as Mother,” 385.
  6. 06E.g. The United Church of Christ’s official website, along with the original Statement of Faith, also lists the Robert V. Moss’ adaption of the statement and doxology which do not mention “Father” with references to God available at https://www.ucc.org/what-we-believe/worship/statement-of faith/#:~:text=United%20Church%20of%20Christ%20Statement,ways%20of%20life%20and%20death. Accessed on 30/12/23. A worship service in the 2018 annual conference of the United Methodist Church in Minnesota had removed “Father,” replacing it with “Creator” (available at https://www.christianpost.com/news/umc-minnesota-conference-removes-father-from-apostles-creed-for worship-service.html. Accessed on 30/12/23).
  7. 07E.g. Daly, Beyond God the Father, 19.
  8. 08Peeler, Women and the Gender, 17–19.
  9. 09Frame, Systematic, 107. For a helpful discussion on male and female imageries of God in the Bible and the theological importance of masculine imagery for God, see Frame, Systematic, 105–114.
  10. 10Cf. Robert H. Stein, “Fatherhood of God,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1996), 247 (cf. 247–48).
  11. 11Kyle Claunch, “Theological Language and the Fatherhood of God: An Exegetical and Dogmatic Account.” Available at https://cbmw.org/2023/11/21/theological-language-and-the-fatherhood-of-god-an-exegetical-and dogmatic-account/. Accessed on 30/12/23.
  12. 12Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. II: God and Creation (Baker: Grand Rapids, MI, 2004), 307– 308.
  13. 13Nancy Pearcey, The Toxic War on Masculinity: How Christianity Reconciles the Sexes (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2023).
  14. 14Much has been debated and written on it. See, Kevin Giles, The Trinity and Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate (Downers Grove: IVP, 2002); Bruce A. Ware, Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit: Roles, Relationships, and Relevance (Weaton: Crossway, 2005).
  15. 15R. A. Finlayson and P. F. Jensen, “God,” in New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed (Hyderabad: Authentic Books, 2000), 419–20.
  16. 16The Aramaic Abba and its Hebrew cognate av, as well as the Greek pater carry the notions of originator, progenitor, one who imparts life. See, Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm’s Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1889), 494.
  17. 17Cf. Frame, Systematic, 105.
  18. 18This covenantal context of God’s Fatherhood to Israel is also present in other OT texts even without the word “Father” (Deut. 14:1–2; Ps. 103:13; Jer. 31:20). For a detailed study of the connection of the Fatherhood of God to Israel, see Svetlana Knobnya, “God the Father in the Old Testament,” Evangelical Journal of Theology 20.2 (2011), 139–148; Goran Medved, “The Fatherhood of God in the Old Testament,” Evangelical Journal of Theology 10.2 (2016), 203–214.
  19. 19Gerald Bray, “God as Father.” Available at https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/god-as-father/. Accessed on 28/12/23.
  20. 20Cf. Thomas R. Schriener, New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2008), 130, 136. Bray observes that there is no explanation in the New Testament as to why the Father and the Son are related to each other in this way. They are eternally present in the Trinity, but why one of them is the Father and the other is his Son is a mystery (John 1:1–3). See, Bray, “God as Father.”
  21. 21Cf. Frame, Systematic, 106. Micheal Horton also points out that Christ is the Son “in a qualitatively different sense, by eternal generation. He is God’s Son ontologically (i.e., in his essence) and brings us by adoption into that same intimacy that he enjoys with the Father” (Michael Horton, Pilgrim Theology [Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2013], 206).
  22. 22Cf. W. J. Cameron, “Father, God as,” in Evangelical Dictionary Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1984), 408; also, Frame, Systematic, 106.
  23. 23The regenerating and sanctifying work of the Spirit in believers is also to be understood as a result and privilege of this relationship i.e., adoption into God’s family as they become partakers of the divine nature with all the privileges that belong to this filial relationship (Rom. 8:17).
  24. 24Frame, Systematic, 105; also, Bray, “God as Father.” Also, Gerald Bray, God has Spoken: A History of Christian Theology (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2014), 115–128.
  25. 25For a survey of OT and second Temple Judaism on the Fatherhood of God, see Marianne M. Thompson, The Promise of the Father: Jesus and God in the New Testament (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000), 35–55; idem, The God of the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 21–34.
  26. 26Cf. Frame observes that “Father” as a title or name for God is infrequent in the OT and is closely associated with Jesus in the NT (Frame, Systematic, 102).
  27. 27Bray, God has Spoken, 115.
  28. 28Cf. Stein, “Fatherhood of God,” 247.
  29. 29Chris Wright, Knowing God the Father through the Old Testament (Oxford: Monarch Books, 2007), 24–25.
  30. 30Knobnya has a made a strong case from the OT in favour. See, Knobnya “God the Father in the Old Testament,” 139–148.
  31. 31Cf. Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971), 65–66.
  32. 32Bray, “God as Father.” Idem, God has Spoken, 119.
  33. 33Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 178–79.
  34. 34Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 63.
  35. 35Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 65–66.
  36. 36Cf. Stein, “Fatherhood of God,” 247 (cf. 247–48); Frame, Systematic, 112.
  37. 37Cf. Stein, “Fatherhood of God,” 248.
  38. 38Cf. Donald Guthrie and Ralph P. Martin, “God,” DPL, 357.
  39. 39Cf. Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 63.
  40. 40Knobnya’s proposal that the Father-God motif is prominent in OT and second temple Judaism is probably far too fetched than the evidence suggests but she is right to point out the God’s Fatherhood to Israel is closely linked to its redemption and deliverance from Egypt (Knobnya, “God the Father,” 139–148).
  41. 41Cf. Medved, “The Fatherhood of God,” 213.
  42. 42Cf. Medved, “The Fatherhood of God,” 213.
  43. 43Frame observes that Jesus generally does not address God as Lord and as king but as “Father” and he is closely associated with him (Frame, Systematic, 102). Also, Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 129. For a survey of the same see Thompson, The Promise of the Father, 71–86.
  44. 44Horst Robert Balz and Gerhard Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990–), 53.
  45. 45Cf. Stein, “Fatherhood of God,” 247; also, Frame, Systematic, 106; Medved, “The Fatherhood of God,” 203– 214.
  46. 46Bray, God has Spoken, 120.
  47. 47See Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 63–66.
  48. 48Frame points out that “Father” is the name most closely associated with Jesus (Frame, Systematic, 102). When Jesus wanted to explain what God was like, he teaches about the Father’s enduring love for his lost sons even though each of them in their own way had hardened themselves towards him (Luke 15:11–32). When Jesus himself faced his most agonizing moments, he turned to his heavenly Father in Gethsemane and cried out, “Abba, Father” (Mark 14:36). On the cross, he calls out to God as “Father” (Luke 22:46; 23:34).
  49. 49Cf. Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 180.
  50. 50The gospel of John has the most detailed description of Jesus addressing God as “Father” and his teaching on God’s Fatherhood to the disciples. See Medved, “The Fatherhood of God,” 212.
  51. 51Cf. L. W. Hurtado, “God,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 271. Some count 107 occurrences in John’s gospel depending upon the textual variants (cf. Cameron, “Father,” 408).
  52. 52The phrase appears almost 19 times in the synoptics (majority in Matthew) and almost 26 times in John’s gospel alone indicating a distinctive and unique relationship of Jesus with the Father (see Schriener, New Testament Theology, 130.
  53. 53More than 20 times, Jesus describes God as “Your Father” to his disciples and followers in the gospels, indicating that he assumed them to be familiar with the image of God as “Father.” Hence, he was not introducing an entirely new concept of God but an uncommonly used concept from OT to address God. However, it is surprising that Jesus never appeals to OT passages to refer to God’s fatherhood or teach about him as “Father.” It appears that although familiar to OT saints, “Father” appears to be an exclusively Christian address to God introduced by Jesus to his disciples and believers, and later continually used by NT writers and NT church.
  54. 54The Fatherhood of God is central in John’s gospel and is emphasized more in John than in the Synoptics. Also, John’s focus is more on describing God as the “Father” of Jesus than of believers. Hence, the phrase “my Father” appears more in John alone than in the synoptics together. See Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 136.
  55. 55Hurtado, “God,” 276.
  56. 56See Donald Guthrie and Ralph P. Martin, “God,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 357
  57. 57See Guthrie and Martin, “God,” 357; Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 130. The same restrictiveness of God’s Fatherhood is also seen in OT with the nation Israel where God expresses a special relationship only with the chosen ones within the covenant community (see Medved, “The Fatherhood of God,” 203–214).
  58. 58Cf. Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 180–81.
  59. 59Cf. Guthrie and Martin, “God,” 357
  60. 60Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon, 495.
  61. 61Guthrie and Martin, “God,” 357.
  62. 62Mark is unique among the gospels in recording Jesus’ use of abba used elsewhere in the NT only by Paul (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). It could be because Mark’s gospel, like Paul’s letters, is addressing Greek-speaking (i.e., gentile) community who was already familiar with this expression (see, Hurtado, “God,” 273).
  63. 63The use of abba by Paul in the context of prayer (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6) indicates that Christians were already addressing God as “Father” in prayer (probably in corporate worship settings) even before the time of Paul’s letters (50–60 AD). See Hurtado, “God,” 275.
  64. 64Cf. Guthrie and Martin, “God,” 358; Frame, Systematic, 106.
  65. 65Cf. Stein, “Fatherhood of God,” 247; also, G. Kittle, Ἀββᾶ, TDNT 1 (1964), 5–6. Hence, to strictly equate Abba with the term “daddy” may be misleading and since it runs the risk of irreverence in addressing God (see, J. Barr, “Abba Isn’t Daddy,” JTS 39 [1988], 28–47; also, Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 66–67; T. E. McComiskey, “God, Names of,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 466).
  66. 66See Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 63–65.
  67. 67Cf. Morna D. Hooker, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark (London: A & C Black, 1991), 348.
  68. 68Cf. Schriener, New Testament Theology, 129. The term conveys a sense of intimacy and familiarity missing in both OT and Judaism in general, introducing a completely new way to view God distinct from any formal approach that the Jews were familiar with.
  69. 69Joachim Jeremias, ‘Abba,’ in The Prayers of Jesus, SBT II 6 (London: SCM Press, 1967), 62.
  70. 70Stein, “Fatherhood of God,” 247-48.
  71. 71See Guthrie and Martin, “God,” 358; Medved, “The Fatherhood of God,” 212.
  72. 72J. I. Packer, Knowing God (IVP: Westmont, Ill, 1993), 17, 201–202.
  73. 73Stein, “Fatherhood of God,” 248.
  74. 74Bray, God has Spoken, 120.
  75. 75Bray, God has Spoken, 122 (cf. Plato, Timaeus, 28c–34b; 41a–44e).
  76. 76Colin Smothers, “Editorial: The Toxic War on Fatherhood,” in Eikon: A Journal for Biblical Anthropology, vol 5.2 (2023). Available at https://cbmw.org/2023/11/21/editorial-the-toxic-war-on-fatherhood. Accessed on 31/12/23 (cf. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics II: God and Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004), 98–99.

Series • 13 Presentations

The Living God

Explore All
Exploring Divine Providence: Reason, Scripture, Free Will, and the Reality of Suffering

Exploring Divine Providence: Reason, Scripture, Free Will, and the Reality of Suffering

In giving humanity free will, did God take a risk? How does “concurrence” help us understand the relationship between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility? How does our understanding of this relate to our understanding of God’s omnipotence, omniscience, and goodness? These questions are asked and answered throughout the world. In this presentation, Dr. Sherif Fahim explores and articulates, from the Bible, how creation depends on God not just for its origin, but for continuation, and survival. History is not guided by purposeless or random forces or without intention. Rather, it is the wise, holy, all powerful, good and righteous God who leads history to an end that he intended from eternity. The biblical doctrine of God’s providence provides us with a caring, wise, loving, powerful and all knowing God whose purposes can never be thwarted.

11/01/24•Sherif A. Fahim
Sola Media

God’s Sovereignty Amidst Suffering

11/01/24•Keneth Pervaiz
The Self-Revealing and Accommodating God

The Self-Revealing and Accommodating God

In what way can the God who is other be revealed? Must not revelation be received? What, then, is the condition of possibility for the reception of such revelation? Must it not be a revelation that is received secundum modum recipentis recipitur—according to the mode or condition of the receiver? Is it true that if…

11/01/24•Justin Holcomb
Sola Media

Divine Impassibility and Self-Limitation

Anselm of Canterbury writes in Cur Deus Homo (“Why God Became Man”), “For we affirm that the divine nature is undoubtedly incapable of suffering and cannot in any sense be brought low from its exalted standing…” For Anselm, and most of the early Christian theologians, it is paramount to protect the divine nature from any…

11/01/24•David Muthukumar Sivasubramanian
“Something Perfect From Something Perfect”: The Dogmatic and Apologetic Functions of Divine Simplicity

“Something Perfect From Something Perfect”: The Dogmatic and Apologetic Functions of Divine Simplicity

Christian theology has long regarded the attribute of simplicity as part and parcel with the classical understanding of God. However, divine simplicity has fallen out of favor since modernity, and the reasons for its rejection are still being rehearsed even until this very moment. In my Eastern-Asian-Indonesian context within the last few decades, there has…

11/01/24•Wilson Jeremiah
Sola Media

The Aseity of God in the Old Testament Creation Discourses: Implications for Christian Spirituality and Society in Africa

Aseity is a term that derives from the Latin a se, which means “from oneself”: thus, aseity denotes God’s incommunicable attribute of self-existence. God exists apart from and independently of any other being. God is clearly distinguished from creatureliness. John Webster argues that the difference between the Creator and creatureliness is not a “distinction within…

11/01/24•Michael Phiri

Help more people know what they believe and why.

Support trusted articles, podcasts, and resources that deepen faith, point people to Christ, and strengthen the church.

Give Monthly