No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
Did Jesus believe in a doctrine of Universal Fatherhood? Such a belief not many years ago was almost axiomatic in Liberal Christian circles. ‘In the combination of these ideas—God the Father, Providence, the position of men as God's children, the infinite value of the human soul—the whole Gospel is expressed.’ But lately, after an examination of the gospel evidence, it has been denied that Jesus believed that God was the Father of all men. ‘In spite of what is commonly supposed, there is no ground whatever for asserting that Jesus taught a doctrine of “the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of man”…There is no hint anywhere, either that he himself believed, or that he taught a doctrine of Universal Fatherhood.’ Professor Sparks arrives at this conclusion by considering all the times that Jesus is recorded as having used Father as a word for God. ‘The bulk of his recorded references to God as Father are Messianic; and apart from one, at the best ambiguous, reference in Matthew, all his references to God as the Father of men are in passages where he is speaking to his disciples’ (p. 260). With this we may compare the words of Dalman: ‘Much rather is God regarded as the Heavenly Father of His own disciples or else as the Heavenly Father of Jesus himself.’ Dalman indicates the unique personal relationship which subsists in the first place between God and Jesus himself, and also between God and those who are his, who can be spoken of as ‘sons of the theocracy’ (Matt. xiii. 38).
Page 31 note 1 Adolf Harnack, What is Christianity?, p. 60.
Page 31 note 2 Sparks, H. F. D., ‘The Doctrine of the Divine Fatherhood in the Gospels, p. 260 in Studies in the Gospels, ed. Nineham, D. E..Google Scholar
Page 31 note 3 Matt. xxiii. 9.
Page 31 note 4 Dalman, G., Words of Jesus, p. 190.Google Scholar
Page 32 note 1 Manson, T. W., The Teaching of Jesus, p. 91.Google Scholar
Page 32 note 2 Ibid.
Page 32 note 3 Op. cit, p. 92.
Page 32 note 4 C. G. Montefiore and H. Loewe, in their Rabbinic Anthology, give thirty-nine instances.
Page 32 note 5 G. Dalman, op. cit. pp. 191f.
Page 32 note 6 Moore, G. F., Judaism, vol. II, p. 211.Google Scholar
Page 32 note 7 Hence the theological conception of Fatherhood is grounded for the Jews in the Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants, with their promise of God's special protection, rather than in the earlier Noachine covenant (Gen. ix. 1–17) in which the doctrine of Universal Fatherhood is implicit.
Page 33 note 1 Wisd. xiv. 3.
Page 33 note 2 iii. 550; cf. iii. 604; v. 360, 550.
Page 33 note 3 Luke ii. 49.
Page 33 note 4 Mark xi. 25, 26. See Professor Sparks's admirable discussion, op. cit. pp. 243f
Page 33 note 5 Mark viii. 38; xiii. 32; xiv. 36.
Page 34 note 1 Mark x. 18; xii. 26 (bis), 27, 29, 30; xiii. 19 xv. 34.
Page 34 note 2 Mark ii. 26.
Page 34 note 3 Mark ii. 7; vii. 8, 9, 13; viii. 33; X. 18, 27; xii. 14, 17.
Page 34 note 4 The fact that Matthew actually has here ‘my Father which is in Heaven’ shows that he was so fond of this Rabbinic expression that he was able to go to absurd lengths in order to use it (Matthew xii. 50).
Page 34 note 5 Mark xi. 22.
Page 34 note 6 Mark xi. 9; xii. II, 29, 30, 36, 37.
Page 34 note 7 Mark v. 19, cf. Ps. cxxvi. 4.
Page 34 note 8 Mark xiii. 20.
Page 34 note 9 Mark iv. 9; vii. 16.
Page 35 note 1 Mark ii. 17.
Page 35 note 2 Mark ix. 41–8.
Page 35 note 3 Mark x. 14.
Page 35 note 4 Mark x. 25.
Page 35 note 5 Cf. Mark vii. 29.
Page 35 note 6 H. F. D. Sparks, op. cit. p. 260.
Page 35 note 7 Cf. Sections III and IV.
Page 35 note 8 It is unlikely that Mark xi. 23 originally followed v. 22. Cf. T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus, p. 140, and A. R. George, Communion with God in the N.T. pp. 58f.
Page 36 note 1 Jeremias, J., The Parables of Jesus, pp. 13f.Google Scholar
Page 36 note 2 Ibid. p. 15.
Page 36 note 3 Mark viii. 30.
Page 36 note 4 Cf. T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus, pp. 101 ff.
Page 37 note 1 Westcott, B. F., The Epistles of St John, p. 29. Westcott, in an additional note on I John i. 2, has a long discussion on the Divine Fatherhood. He reaches, by a somewhat different route, the same general conclusion as this article. ‘It will be seen how immeasurably the conception of Fatherhood is extended by the Lord beyond that in the O.T…It suggests thoughts of character, of duty, of confidence which belong to a believer as such and not peculiarly to those who stand in particular outward circumstances’ (p. 28).Google Scholar
Page 37 note 2 Where Q appears in this article it simply refers to those passages which Matthew and Luke have in common, and which do not appear in Mark.
Page 37 note 3 Matt. xi. 25–7; Luke x. 21–2.
Page 37 note 4 For the many different theological interpretations of this passage cf. specially C. G. Montefiore, Synoptic Gospels, vol. u, pp. 178–87 and A. R. George, op. cit. pp. 64f.
Page 37 note 5 Matt. v. 48=Luke vi. 36; Matt. vi. 9=Luke xi. 2; Matt. vi. 32=Luke xii. 30; Matt. vii. 11 =Luke xi. 13.
Page 38 note 1 Matt. v. 1 b, 2. It is possible that Matthew was emphasizing that the Beatitudes were spoken to disciples. Cf. Luke vi. 20–6.
Page 38 note 2 Matt. xi. 1; xiii. 54; xviii. 1; xxvi. i.
Page 38 note 3 Taken from Mark i. 40 ff.
Page 38 note 4 Matt. xi. 2.
Page 38 note 5 For similar changes of context, cf. Luke's treatment of the Lamp on the Lampstand (Luke viii. 16; xi. 33) and Mark's main group of parables (Mark iv. to addressed to ‘those who were round about him with the Twelve’, and Mark iv. 33 f., where the parables are said to have been addressed to the crowd).
Page 39 note 1 Exod. xix. 25; Deut. v. i.
Page 39 note 2 Luke vi. 17.
Page 39 note 3 Luke vi. 20.
Page 39 note 4 Luke vii. i.
Page 39 note 5 Evans, C. F., ‘The Central Section of St Luke's Gospel’, in Studies in the Gospels, ed. Nineham, D. E., PP. 37ff.Google Scholar
Page 39 note 6 A. M. Farrer, ‘On dispensing with Q’, ibid. p. 78.
Page 39 note 7 Matt. v. 48; Luke vi. 36.
Page 39 note 8 Even if the setting is not original, there is no reason to doubt that the sayings are genuine verba Christi.
Page 40 note 1 Matt. vi. 9; Luke xi. 2.
Page 40 note 2 And also the more original form of the prayer. ‘Father’ is to be preferred to ‘Our Father’. Matthew shows signs here of liturgical tradition. Cf. A. R. George, op. cit. pp. 73ff.
Page 40 note 3 Abrahams, Cf. I., Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels (second series), pp. 98 ff.; C. G. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teaching, pp. 125 ff.Google Scholar
Page 40 note 4 Matt. vi. 32; Luke xii. 30.
Page 40 note 5 Matt. vii. II; Luke xi. 13.
Page 40 note 6 The whole passage, especially in the Matthaean version, has an authentic ring and translates well into prophetic poetry (cf. C. F. Burney, Poetry of Our Lord, pp. 67, 82, 114f.). The kal wahomer argument of Matt vii. 11 is typical of contemporary Rabbinic style.
Page 40 note 7 Matt. vii. 9f., cf. Luke xi. 11f.
Page 40 note 8 Matt. v. 45=Luke vi. 35; Matt. vi. 26=Luke xii. 24; Matt. vii. 21 =Luke vi. 46; Matt. x. 20 =Luke xii. 12; Matt. x. 29 = Luke xii. 6; Matt. x. 32f. = Luke xii.8f.; Matt. xviii. 14 = ? Luke xv. 7.
Page 41 note 1 Matt. vii. 21= Luke vi. 46; Matt. x. 32f.= Luke xii. 8f.; Matt. xvii. 14=? Luke xv.7.
Page 41 note 2 Matt. x. 20=Luke xii. 12.
Page 41 note 3 Matt. vi. 26=Luke xii. 24.
Page 41 note 4 Matt. x. 29; cf. Luke xii. 6.
Page 41 note 5 Matt. x.27.
Page 41 note 6 Cf. Luke vi. 35.
Page 41 note 7 Matt. xvi. 27; xxiv. 36; xxvi. 39.
Page 41 note 8 Matt. xii. 50; xx. 23; xxvi. 29. 42.
Page 41 note 9 Matt. xv. 13; xvi. 17; xviii. 10, 19, 35; xxv. 34; xxvi. 19.
Page 41 note 10 Matt. xxviii. 19.
Page 41 note 11 Matt. xxiii. 9. See Professor Sparks's discussion of this, op. cit. p. 253.
Page 41 note 12 Matt. xiii. 43.
Page 41 note 13 Matt. v. 16; vi. 1, 4, 6 bis, 8, 18 bis, 14, 15.
Page 41 note 14 Matt. v. 16.
Page 42 note 1 Luke ix. 26; xxii. 42.
Page 42 note 2 See Professor Sparks' admirable discussion of this, op. cit. p. 249.
Page 42 note 3 Luke xxiii. 34, 46.
Page 42 note 4 Luke ii. 49.
Page 42 note 5 Luke xxiv. 49.
Page 42 note 6 Luke xii. 32; xxii. 29.
Page 42 note 7 H. F. D. Sparks, op. cit. p. 255 n. 2. Cf. also p. 250 n.5.
Page 42 note 8 Luke xv. I, 2.
Page 42 note 9 Dodd, C. H., Parables of the Kingdom, p. 120.Google Scholar
Page 42 note 10 Ibid.
Page 42 note 11 Cf. Matt. xxi. 28–32.
Page 43 note 1 Jeremias, J., op. cit. p. 69.Google Scholar
Page 43 note 2 Ibid. pp. 103f.
Page 43 note 3 J. Jeremias, op. cit. p. 103. In particular v. 18, 21: 
; v. 20: 
; v. 29: 
. To condemn these as secondary accretions is to beg the whole question.
Page 43 note 4 No account has been taken here of the use of 
in the Parable of the Vineyard (Mark xii. 6 and parallels) because the form of this allegory is almost certainly not original. In any case it refers to the Divine Sonship of Jesus. Various other phrases are used not dissimilar to ‘sons of God’. Thus, in Matt. viii. 12, ‘sons of the Kingdom’ refers, with irony, to the Jewish race. In Matt. xiii. 38, however, the phrase explains the good seed in the (secondary) explanation of the Allegory of the Wheat and Tares. Matt. xvii. 25 is interesting; here ‘sons’ (of the King) refers to Jesus and Peter only; but the whole pericope is very doubtfully authentic. ‘Sons of the Most High’ in Luke vi. 35 is equivalent to ‘sons of your Father in Heaven’ in Matt. v. 54 (q.v.). Other sayings make use of the semitism b'ne, e.g. Luke xvi. 8; cf. Luke x. 6; Matt. xiii. 38; xxiii. 15.
Page 44 note 1 Mark vii. 27; cf. Matt. xv. 26.
Page 44 note 2 Matt. v. 9.
Page 44 note 3 Cf. Gen. vi. 2, a particularly inappropriate parallel.
Page 44 note 4 Cf. kynariois Mark vii. 27.
Page 44 note 5 Cf. T. W. Manson, Jesus and the Non-Jews. No distinction has been made in this article between Jesus' attitude to Jews and non Jews, as his customary concern for the former and his comparative indifference to the latter is regarded as an evangelistic method rather than a distinction of status. Cf. T. W. Manson, op. cit. supra, p. 5.
Page 44 note 6 Cf. Manson, T. W., The Teaching of Jesus, p. 113Google Scholar
Page 45 note 1 ‘No one cometh to the Father save by me’ (John xiv. 6) is not part of the teaching of the earthly Jesus: it is rather a genuine and ultimately valid deduction drawn from the experience of communion in the Risen Christ.
Page 45 note 2 Quoted by F. Maurice, The Life of F. D. Maurice, vol. 1, p. 155.
Page 45 note 3 No account has been taken here of the Fourth Gospel as, in the opinion of the writer, its author has been influenced by a dualistic outlook which finds expression in much intertestamental literature (cf. Manual of Discipline, viii. 12f.) and which leads the author to a minimizing view of natural man. Nor has any attempt been made in this article to harmonize the rest of the N.T. in the interests of a so-called ‘Biblical Theology.’
Page 45 note 4 Mark ii. 17.
Page 45 note 5 Matt. xxi. 31. This logion forms the conclusion to the parable of the Sons in the Vineyard (Matt. xxi. 28–31), which has the same kind of Sitz im Leben as the second half of the parable of the Prodigal Son (q.v.).
Page 45 note 6 E.g. Luke xviii. 9ff., the Pharisee and the Publican; Luke x. 30ff., the Good Samaritan; Luke xv, the Prodigal Son.
Page 45 note 7 Matt. xi. 5, Luke vii. 22.