What do you think?
Rate this book
The Promise of the Father: Jesus and God in the New Testament
Marianne Thompson surveys the portrayal of God as Father in the Old Testament and Second Temple Judaism, in the ministry of Jesus, in the Synoptic Gospels, and in the writings of Paul and John. Thompson argues that, rather than rooting the image of God in a debate about gender, "Father" terminology really identifies an ancestor who grants inheritance.
196 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 2000
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
February 2, 2019
This book is extremely insightful and well argued. Thompson concludes that, rather than seeing God as Father in a some full, direct analogy to all that it means to be a human father, and, rather than seeing God as Father as some statement of his ontology or using father as a name for God - instead - God as Father is functional language that connotes God's relationship to the whole of his people, Israel and the Church, based on very specific functions of God that draw analogy to very specific functions of human fathers in the time in which the Scriptures were written. So, God as Father refers to his granting of an inheritance to his people, his protection of his people, and the obligation of his people to obey - and not as some fuller identifier of God as father in every way that humans are fathers. Thompson emphasizes the corporate nature of God's fatherhood over and against the way people often describe God as father based on some sense of intimacy.
On the whole, I agree with the vast majority of Thompson's conclusions, but I found the final 10 pages of the book to be lacking and even confusing. Thompson went to great lengths in the book to show that God as Father drew upon analogy to specific functions of fathers in the cultural milieu, and that this is where the title "Father" finds its meaning, but then spent much time at the end insisting that one cannot draw upon God as Father in order to find "standards" for what it means to be a father in a human way. So, the analogy to call God, Father, is based on human activity, but one cannot use the descriptions of God as Father in the other direction to create norms of what it means for a father to perform that role in a godly way. I get the distinction, but it is a distinction that lacks clarity as to WHY that analogy would not work. Thompson suggests that to avoid thinking of God as "male," one cannot also think he is both male and female and therefore dual gendered, and therefore one can only view God as non-gendered and therefore not at all a model of fatherhood and motherhood. But, why? Why can it not both be true that God is non-gendered, but also reflective of traits described as both fatherly and motherly in a way that can be modeled? I don't think her point here was clear enough.
Overall, despite the lack of clarity at the very end, I thought this was a fantastic book full of excellent exegesis of relevant texts. I'll revisit this often in my own work.
On the whole, I agree with the vast majority of Thompson's conclusions, but I found the final 10 pages of the book to be lacking and even confusing. Thompson went to great lengths in the book to show that God as Father drew upon analogy to specific functions of fathers in the cultural milieu, and that this is where the title "Father" finds its meaning, but then spent much time at the end insisting that one cannot draw upon God as Father in order to find "standards" for what it means to be a father in a human way. So, the analogy to call God, Father, is based on human activity, but one cannot use the descriptions of God as Father in the other direction to create norms of what it means for a father to perform that role in a godly way. I get the distinction, but it is a distinction that lacks clarity as to WHY that analogy would not work. Thompson suggests that to avoid thinking of God as "male," one cannot also think he is both male and female and therefore dual gendered, and therefore one can only view God as non-gendered and therefore not at all a model of fatherhood and motherhood. But, why? Why can it not both be true that God is non-gendered, but also reflective of traits described as both fatherly and motherly in a way that can be modeled? I don't think her point here was clear enough.
Overall, despite the lack of clarity at the very end, I thought this was a fantastic book full of excellent exegesis of relevant texts. I'll revisit this often in my own work.
March 2, 2021
Thompson is probably one of the best expositors for the goodness of "Father" language in reference to God. This book carefully explains the biblical passages to note what the function of the Father is as the first member of the Trinity in the dramas of the Gospels and Paul's writings, as well as in the OT.
Having said that, she takes a line of argumentation that is very similar to Hammerton-Kelly and Ricoeur before them still. The problem with this line of argumentation is that it essentially argues that if Father language is doing a good function in the New Testament, it therefore is exclusive and cannot be supplemented.
Her argument is problematic then along two lines: She spends time interacting with Mary D'Angelo's work that argues that a historical critical approach casts down as to whether Jesus actually used the title "Abba." D'Angelo's argument is pretty strained, but she also argues that "Abba, Father" language is NOT original to Jesus, and in fact, is quite common in inter-testamental literature for upholding God as the father of the Jews and the father to the persecuted, both of which are central to how Jesus applies this. Thompson does not really want to admit that D'Angelo's work demonstrates that Jesus had rhetorical purposes for using God as Father as the symbol by which he was the messianic son and Israel was the children of God. If Jesus is using "Father" as a convention to rhetorically communicate the nature of the kingdom and to show that he is in relationship to the God of Israel, the fact that the God of Israel uses mother language to communicate with Israel could in other contexts be rhetorically viable.
In this regard, second, the strategy of the Father-only approach tends to neglect that there are other ways of referring to God in the Bible, and these need not be seen as in competition to one another. This approach focuses exclusively on defending Father language, but neglects consideration of other female and motherly language, as pointed out by Elizabeth Johnson.
Having said that, she takes a line of argumentation that is very similar to Hammerton-Kelly and Ricoeur before them still. The problem with this line of argumentation is that it essentially argues that if Father language is doing a good function in the New Testament, it therefore is exclusive and cannot be supplemented.
Her argument is problematic then along two lines: She spends time interacting with Mary D'Angelo's work that argues that a historical critical approach casts down as to whether Jesus actually used the title "Abba." D'Angelo's argument is pretty strained, but she also argues that "Abba, Father" language is NOT original to Jesus, and in fact, is quite common in inter-testamental literature for upholding God as the father of the Jews and the father to the persecuted, both of which are central to how Jesus applies this. Thompson does not really want to admit that D'Angelo's work demonstrates that Jesus had rhetorical purposes for using God as Father as the symbol by which he was the messianic son and Israel was the children of God. If Jesus is using "Father" as a convention to rhetorically communicate the nature of the kingdom and to show that he is in relationship to the God of Israel, the fact that the God of Israel uses mother language to communicate with Israel could in other contexts be rhetorically viable.
In this regard, second, the strategy of the Father-only approach tends to neglect that there are other ways of referring to God in the Bible, and these need not be seen as in competition to one another. This approach focuses exclusively on defending Father language, but neglects consideration of other female and motherly language, as pointed out by Elizabeth Johnson.
June 14, 2016
While I find the conclusion a bit lacking, overall the book successfully describes the role of God as Father in Scriptural tradition and meticulously explains the ways in which we project our own constructions of this Biblical designation into the text, as well as how the text points to a different and meaningful image of God's Fatherhood in terms of His desire to bequeath blessing and inheritance to His people and inspire His children to show kindness, forgiveness, and mercy towards each other.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews