(1) Tlii> Fiitherhtxid of Gnil. — li has just been said that the doctrine that God is Father by no means excludes the doctrine that He is also King. This idea, too, is repeatedly put forward ( Mt ;V''' 18--5 :>-2- etc. ). The title ' King ' brings out what in modern language we are accustomed to call the ' tran- scendence' of God. But the recognition of this was, as we saw (p. 60(i" srip.), a strong point in the contemporary .Judaism, and therefore it needed no special empli.asis. It Wiis otherwise with the idea of Fatherhood.
Not that this idea was unknown to the pagan religions, and still less to the religion of Israel. From Hcmier onwards Zeus had borne the name ' Fa'iher of gods and men.' But this was a super- ficial idea: it meant little more than 'originator.' This sense also appears in the older .lewisli litera- ture, but with further connotations added to it. God is more ])articularly the Father of His jieople Israel (cf. l)t 14i 32% .ler Si'-* ?A'-'- -"). in a yet deeper sen.se of the righteous in Israel (Is V)V'), and, thcmgli not with the same wealth of meaning, of the individual (.Mai 2"', Sir 2:5i- ■•).
It is the tenderest side of the teaching of OT (Ts lli:5'*) which is now taken up and developed. It becomes indeed the corner-stone of the NT teaching about God. The name ' F'ather' becomes in NT what the name .lehovah (.lahveh) was in OT, the fullest embodiment of revelation. If it is prominent in the apostolic writings, this is traceable ultimately to the teaching of .le.sus (cf. Ko 8'^ and comms.). The title belongs primarily to Jesus Himself as ' the Son ' (4 Har^p
JESl S (,'HKIST
JESUS CHRIST
Gltt
(101/, csp. Mt 11-'). Tliroui;h Him it desceiuls to llis followers (6 llaTijp vixdv, 6 llar^p ffou, Mt 61(1. «. 48 (ji. i. c. s. IP. 14. i:, ,.t,;.). ]{nt the iove of God as I-'atlier extends beyond these limits even to 'the unthankful and evil' (Lk 0^^ Mt 0"). The presentation of God as Father culminates iu the parable of the Piodifjal Son. Older concep- tions of (Jod find their counterpart in the Elder Hrother of (his parable (Lk lo'-^"- contrasted with V.-'). The application wliich is thus made of the Fatherhood of (iod invests tlie teachinij of Jesus with wonderful tenderness and beauty (Mt 0'- 7" 1U-"'", Lk lL«-etc.).
(2) The Kinydoin of God. — If the conception of Ood as Father does not exclude Ills m.ajcsty a.s KiiifT, no more does the conception of His King- dom exclude that of children gathered together in liis family. Still, the leading term to denote tho.se active relations of God with man, witli which the mission of Jesus is .specially connected, is 17 jiacnXda Tou 8eov or twv ovpavCiv.
The use of these terms suggests a number of questions which are still much debated, (i.) Were both names originally iLsed ? Or if one is to be preferred, whicli ? (ii.) What is the meaning of the phrase ? Does /3o<n\e(o = ' kingdom ' or ' reign ' ? (iii.) When we have determined this, with what order of ideas is the phrase to be associated ? With the later Judaism ? or with the teaching of the prophets? Or does it belong to the more novel element in the teaching of our Lord ? (iv.) Is the Kingdom merely conceived of from the side of ni:in or from the side of (iod? Is it something which man works out or wliieh is bestowed upon Iilin? (v.) Is it present or future? Was it in curse of realization during the lifetime of Jesus Himself, or is it mainly e.scliatological ? (vi.) Is it inward or outward ? A moral reformation or tlie founding of a .society ? (vii.) Was the conception as at first framed national or universal ?
T'hese questions are pu- as alternatives. And they are usually .so regarded. Hut it may be well to say at once that in almost every case there seems to be real evidence for both sides of the proposition ; so that the inference is that the con- ception to wlii(.'h they relate was in ."act many- sided, and included within itself a number of different nnnuces, all more or le.ss valid. And the reason for tliis appears to be, that our Lord took up a conception which He found already existing, and, although He definitely discarded certain aspects of it, left others as they were, some with and some without a more express sanction, while He added new ones. The centre or focus of the idea is thus gradually shifted ; and while parts of it belong to .so much of the older current conception as was not explicitly repealed, other parts of it are a direct expre.ssion of thi^ new spirit introduced into it. The otie element delinitely expelled was that which as.sociated the inauguration of the Kingdom with political violence and revolution.
(i.) Till' Xami'. — It is well known that the phrase 17 /iatrtAc/a twv ovpa^iav for 17 ^atr, t, Oenv is a peculiarity of the First (lospel (where it occurs thirty-two times), and that it receives no sanction from the other .Synoptics. Neither can Jn ;!'', where the reading is distinctly Western, be >|Uoted in support of it. IleiiCf some have thought that it was a coinage of Mt. It occurs, however, also in /•,'t'. .<tec. Ilih. (llandmann, p. 811); and the fact that ^aff. T. ». is found in Mt I2-» 2b"- <■'' would go to show that the evangelist had no real objection to that form, while the corresponding i)hra.se irdrijp 6 if ToTt ovpanU though it disappears from Lk 11- is veritied by Mk 11-''. .Moreover, we know that 'heaven' was a common mclonyinv for 'tJod' in the language of the time (cf. also Mk lo-', Lk lO-'" 12'"), and that the particular phrase 'kingdom of