This whole passage also shows how the figure of God's marriage to Israel served an important pur-
pose, in elevating the notion of the relationship trom a merely physical to a moral and spirituaJ one. The heathen peoples, csp. in the Semitic race, conceived themselves as children of the deity in a grossly physical sense, as apjiears even here (Jer 2^ ' which say to a stock, Thou art my father ; and to a stone, Thou hast begotten me '). The conjugal relation, as founded, not on nature, but on a covenant of love, involving duties and responsibilities, gave a foundation for the moral appeals of the prophets, and made possible such a transition as we see in Jeremiah's teaching, to a higher view of sonship to God as an individual ]irivilege.
A similar and perliajis more direct transition, from the collective to the individual relation, is made in Dt 14' ' Ye are the children of (lit. sons to) the I.OI'.D your God . . .,' v.- ' For thou art an holy peoi>le unto the LoRD lliy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people (i.e. a people of his own possession), above all jjcoples that are on the face of the earth.' Here sonship is ascribed to the I.sraelites individually on the ground that the people as a whole is hol^', i.e. separated to God by his sjjecial choice of them to be his own possession (see E.\ li)^-"). The notion of birth or origin is here entirely absent, and that of privilege and corresponding duty is the one conveyed by the name ' .sons of God.'
Dt also contains a passage remarkably rich in ref. to the sonship of Isr. in the song ascribed to Moses in ch. 32. Here God is called the people's Father because he bought, made, and established it (vv.""), begat, gave birth to (v."), led and nourished it (w.'""'''). These expressions refer to the divine action in forming Israel into a nation by delivering it from Egypt and training it in the wilderness. On the ground of this, the individual Israelites are called 'his sons and his daughters' (v.'"), 'cliildren' (v.^) ; and they are blamed for their provoeatiop. But it is indicated that they who deal corruptly with God are not his children (v.'), and that iJod will take others to be his people so as to provokr them to jealousy (v.-'), while the nations are called to rejoice with (or as being) his people (v.''^). Here we see distinctly a moral signilitance attached 1 1 the title 'sons' or 'children of God.' Though it belongs properly to Israelites, it is forfeited by them if they are not faithful to God, and it may be given to men of other nations as well. Hence it is sometimes given specially to the godly, as in Ps 73'^ 'the generation of thy children' ; Pr 14-' ' In the fear of the Lord is strong confidence ; and his children shall have a place of refu";e.' See also the comparison in Ps 103'^ On the other hand, the privilege is ascribed to Gentiles, especially in the jiropheeies of their calling in the later book ot Isaiah. God still calls Israelites ' my sons ' (la 45"), because they are sons of Zion (49"), who has been married to J" though put away for a time (50' and 54). But she is to receive children of whom she shall say, ' Who hath borne me these ? ' (49-'), i.e. God and his Church are to have people from among the Gentiles sharing the blessings of Israel and enhancing her glory. Or, if those unexpected children are merely the exiled and forgotten Israelites, their sonship is now entirely independent of pliysical descent. ' For,' they say, ' thou art our Father, though Abraham knoweth us not, and Israel doth not acknowledge us : thou, 0 Lord, art our F'ather : our Redeemer from everlasting is thy name ' (Is 63"', cf. 64^ 65' 66'»--'). Even if sonship is not here directly extended to the Gentiles, the principle is laid down which implies that. But it is not on the ground of nature or creation that this is done, but expressly on that of redemption and grace, only a redemption not merely external and national, like that of Israel from Egj'pt, but spiritual ' and therefore universal.
GOD, CHILDREN OF
GOD, CHILDEEX OF
217
In Mai 1', J", appealin" sjiecially to the priests, calls liiiiiself a father and a master, as looking for the lionour and fear given to eartldy fathers and masters. In ch. 2'" the prupliet ask^, ' Have we not all one Father '! hat!i not one God created us ? ' as a basis for a rehuke to the Jews for marrying heathen wives, V." ' Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord which he lovetli, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.' Here plainly the fatherhood is not conceived as extending to all men, and the creation spoken of is the formation of Israel as a nation, as in Is 43' 44^ and elsewhere. In the time of Malachi it was necessary to insist on the sei)aration of the restored Jewish community from the surrounding idolaters, and he makes no mention of the calling of the Gentiles. But he indicates (ch. 3'"- ") that the true children of God are tlicy that fear him, of whom tlie Lord says, ' I will »j>are them as a man spareth his own son that Bcrveth him.'