FATHER. This word, besides its obvious and primary sense, bears, in Scripture, a number of other applications, most of which have, through the use of the Bible, become more or less common in all Christian countries.
1. The term Father is very often applied to God hirnself (Exod. iv. 22 ; Deut. xxxii. 6 ; 2 SaM. vii. 14 ; Ps. lxxxix. 27, 28 ; Is. lxiii. ; I'd-v. 8). It is strongly contended by Dr. Lee that it is only applied to God as having adoptej the chosen people as his children ; and he denies, with some harshness, that it is applied to him in the general sense as the Creator, and thence the Father of all mankind (Lex. s. v. ZN). Nevertheless, he admits that man's creation is occasionally mentioned in connection with this use of the word ; and this, coupled with the clearer intimations of the N. T., leaves little room to question that it is the intention of the sacred record to set God before us as the Father of all men, in the general sense of creator and preserver of all men, but more especially or believers, whether Jews or Christians. Indeed the analogy of language would point to this, seeing that in the O. T., and in all the Syro-Arabian dialects, the originator of anything is constantly called its father. To the same effect is also a pas sage in Josephus's paraphrase of the law (Dent.
xxi. 18-21), respecting rebellious sons, nal at)rbs (0e6s) variip TOO 7raprds civOpthx-cov rygpous, '41tecause he (God) is himself the father of the whole human race ' (Ayztiq. iv. 8. 24) Without doubt, however, God is in a more especial and intimate manner, even as by covenant, the Father of the Jews (Jen xxxi. 9 ; Is. ; lxiv. 8 ; John viii. 41 ; v. 45 ; 2 Cor. vi. 118); and also of Christians, or rather of all pious and be lieving persons, who are called sons of God ' (John i. 12 ; Rom. viii. 16, etc.) Thus Jesus, in speaking to his disciples, calls God their Father (Matt. vi. 4, 8, 15, t8 ; x. 20, 29 ; xiii. 43, etc.) The Apostles, also, for themselves and other Christians, call him Father' (Rom. i. 7 ; Cot i. 3 ; 2 Cor. i. 2 ; Gal. i. 4 ; and many other places).
2. Father is applied to any ancestor near or re mote, or to ancestors (‘ fathers ') in general. The progenitor, or founder, or patriarch of a tribe or nation, was also pre-cminently its father, as Abra ham of the Jews. Examples of this abound. See, for instance, Dent. i. r ; Kings viii. ; Matt iii. 9 ; xxiii. 3o ; Mark xi. 10 ; Luke i. 32, 73 ; vi. 23, 26 ; John vii. 22, etc.
3. Father is also applied as a title of respect to any head, chief, ruler, or elder, and especially to kings, prophets, and priests (Judg. xvii. ro ; xviii.
; I Sam. x. 12; 2 Kings ii. 12 ; V. 13 ; Vi. 21; xiii. 14 ; Prov. iv. r ; Matt. xxiii. 9 ; Acts vii. 2 ; XXii. I ; I Con iv. 15, etc.) 4. The author, source, or beginner of anything is also called the Father of the same, or of those who follow him. Thus Jabal is called the father
of those who dwell in tents, and have cattle ;' and Jubal, the father of all such as handle the harp and the organ ' (Gen. iv. 20, 21; comp. Job xxxviii. 28 ; John viii. 44 ; Rom. iv. 12). This use of the word is exceedingly common in the East to this day, especially as applied in the formation of proper names, in which, also, the most curious Hebrew examples of this usage occur [AB].
The authority of a father was very great in patri archal times ; and although the power of life and death was virtually taken from the parent by the law of Moses, which required him to bring his cause of complaint to the public tribunals (Dent. xxi. 18-21), all the more real powers of the pater nal character were not only left unimpaired, but were made in a great degree the basis of the judicial polity which that law established. The children and even the grandchildren continued under the roof of the father and grandfather ; they laboured on his account, and were the most submissive of his servants. The property of the soil, the power of judgrnent, the civil rights, belonged to him only, and his sons were merely his instruments and as sistants. If a family be compared to a body, then the father was the head, and the sons the members, moving at his will and in bis service. There were exceptions, doubtless ; but this was the rule, and, with some modifications, it is still the rule through out the East.
Filial duty and obedience were, indeed, in the eyes of the Jewish legislator, of such high import ance that great care was taken that the paternal authority should not be weakened by the with- I drawal of a power so liable to fatal and barbarous abuse as that of capital punishment. Any outrage against a parent—a blow, a curse, or incorrigible profligacy—was made a capital crime (Exod. xxi. 15, 17 ; Lev. xx. 9). If the offence was public it was taken up by the witnesses as a crime against Jehovah, and the culprit was brought before the magistrates, whether the parent consented or not ; and if tbe offence was hidden within the paternal walls, it devolved on the parents to denounce him and to require his punishment.
It is a beautiful circumstance in the law of Moses that this filial respect is exacted for the mother as well as for the father. The threats and promises of the leg,islator distinguish not the one from the other ; and the fifth commandment associates the father and mother in a precisely equal claim to honour from their children. The development of this interesting feature of the Mosaical law belongs, however, to another head [WomAti]. See Celle rier, Esprit de la Le'gislation Mosaique, ii. 69, 122 129.