Ehilosopliy of the time, but its substance cannot e any otlier than that which has been so deliber- ately adopted and ratified.
LiTBRATl'RB. — No considerable monogrraph on the doctrine of God as Triune haa appeared sini-e Ilaur"s OU rhrigthchf L^hre von der Dreieiniijkeil u. Sleiuc/ttivrdujuj Gutter, 3 vols., Tiibinj^en, 18-11-1643, and G A. .Meier, Dit Lehre ron der Trinitnt in i/irer hiittorischfn Entwurkeiuntjt 2 vo\s., Hiniburg u. Gotha, 1S44. A thorough discussion of the bi-tfinnini:^ of the doctrine in English is still a deMderattim. There is an instructive chai'V on the Holy Spirit in .Milli::an, The Aseen- gion of Our Lord (1S9-), pp. lV^220. [Tlie literature on the previous sections of this art. has been ^veo under each section).
\V. Sanday. GOD. CHILDREN (SONS, DAUGHTERS) OF, are
biblical phrases for near and blessed relations to God, but used with various ajiplications and mean- ings. In NT the words 'children' (T^Kva) and 'sons' [viol) are distinguishable in meaning ; the former, in which the idea of origin is most prominent, is the favourite expression of St. John ; while the latter, emjihasizing rather the notion of relation and privilege, is the one used by St. Paul. But even in NT the distinction is not an absolute one ; and in OT, though lioth ideas are found, the words are not definitely marked oil".
It is therefore advisiible to consider both phrases together, while markinj^ their various shades of meaning: and their significance may l>est be under- stood by examining the places where they occur, as nearly as possible in thoir historical order.
A. IN THE OT.— In OT this cannot be done with certainty, because of the doubts and dillVr- ences of opinion among scholars lus to the dates of manj' of its books. But a jiretty sure starting- point can be found in the Bk. of Hosea, the date of which, in the reign of Jerol>oain II. of Jsrael, is universally admitted. In this prophecy the relation of Israel to God is depicted, first, as tliat of a wife to her husband (chs. 1-3). This describes the nation or land as a whole, and individual I.sraolites are represented as her children, who a.s born to God are children of God. The unfaithful wife is re- pudiated ('i') ; but when led to re|wntance, u described in that parable (2*-''), M> i\oiidcrfullir
21G
GOD, CHILDREN OF
GUI), CIIILDEEX OF
parallel to our Lord's of the Prodigal Son, sho p.yaiii obtains mercy, and is once more the people of Ciod {2'-'^). In anticipation of that blessed restoration, it had been declared (1'") that the children of Israel would be called 'sons of the living God.' They are so named as born of her whose husband is J ', i.e. who is in covenant with God.
So, when the same ri"ure of the conjugal relation of God to Israel is used by Ezk, the actual cliildren of the nation are called liod's children for the same reason (Ezk lU-"- -' 'thy sons and thy dau,;,'hters whom thou hast borne unto me . . . niy children,' 23'' ' their sons whom thej' bare unto me '). In these and similar passages, the notion of birth or origin is evidently tlic prominent one ; and in Ezk lli"', though the lleb. word is 'sons' as in tlie pre- ceding verse, tlie LXX like the EV liave rendered it by riKva, ' cliildren.' As thus conceived, to be chililren of God is the same thing as to be horn nuiiibcrs of the natitm or community that is in covenant with God. Tliis notion of being God's children may probablj' be traced in the words of the I'liarisees to Jesus, ' \Ve were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God' (Jn 8^'), i.e. we are members of a people in covenant with God and true to him.
I'lUt llosea also gives another conception of Israel's relation to God in 11' ' When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.' With this must be taken Ex 4^2. -a^ where Goil says to Pharaoh, ' Isr. is my son, my firstborn : and I have said unto thee, Let my son go that he may serve me ; and thou hast refused to let him go : behold, I will slay thy son, thy firstborn.' Here 'my son'='my people' in God's previous words to Moses ; and there is no emphasis on the {"tea of birth or origin ; for ' firstborn ' evidently conveys the notion simply of most precious or beloved, as in Zee 12'". It is the relation of Israel to God, and the value God puts on him, that is indicated : and so appropriately ' son,' noli ' child,' is the word employed. The context that follows in Hos IP- ■* shows that fatherly training and teach- ing are included in the notion, and in '• ' fatherly pity and love. But throughout it is the people as a whole that is here called God's son. The relation that was before depicted as that of a wife to her husband, is now spoken of as that of a son to his father.
These two figures are still more closely connected in the first great discourse of Jer (chs. 2. 3), where the fundamental idea is that Israel has been J"'s unfaithful wife, while yet on her repentance she is invited to say, ' My father, thou art the guide (or companion) of my youth ' (Jer 3'). The phrase, ' guide, companion, or friend of youth,' is used in Pr 2" for a husband, and prob. that is its signifi- cance also in Jer 3* ; and the employment of the words ' my father,' as parallel, is not unnatural in a state of society when the head of the house stood almost in the same relation to his wife as to his chUdren. In Jer 3'* ' Return, O backsliding chil- dren, saith the Lord, for I am a husband unto you : and I will take you one of a citj-, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion,' we have the people as a whole viewed as J'"s wife, and its members as his children ; and so also in vv. '"• ^•^. But here the Israelites are called children of God, not, as in Hos and Ezk, simply as born of the people which is J"'s wife, but as taken bj* him one by one, and returning to him with personal re- pentance. The idea of physical origin has passed away, and the notions connected with sonsliip seem to be mainly divine pardon, protection, and in- heritance.