Who is our Father according to the Bible?
Elohim, the God of Israel, is revealed as our Father throughout the Tanakh and Brit Chadashah, not merely as a distant creator but as a relational progenitor.
Quick Answer
Who is our Father according to the Bible? Quick Answer Quick Answer: According to the Bible, our Father is Elohim, the God of Israel, who is both the Creator of all and the relational Father to His chosen people, Israel, and through Yeshua, to all who are adopted into His family. This fatherhood is spiritual…
Who is our Father according to the Bible?
Quick Answer
Quick Answer: According to the Bible, our Father is Elohim, the God of Israel, who is both the Creator of all and the relational Father to His chosen people, Israel, and through Yeshua, to all who are adopted into His family. This fatherhood is spiritual and covenantal, not biological, and was understood long before Yeshua's advent.
The Scholarly Case
The question of "Who is our Father according to the Bible?" reveals a foundational truth of Hebraic faith that has been consistently affirmed from the Tanakh through the Brit Chadashah. Elohim, the God of Israel, is clearly presented as the ultimate Father, not merely in a metaphorical sense, but as the source of all life and the covenantal head of His people. This understanding is deeply rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures, long before the advent of Yeshua. The concept of Elohim as Father is not a New Testament innovation, as some modern counter-apologetics, particularly from Islamic worldviews, may suggest (Sam Dawah, "Came to DESTROY Muslims... DESTROYED HIMSELF Denis Speakers Corner"). The Tanakh explicitly identifies YHWH as Father to Israel. In Exodus 4:22, YHWH declares to Moses, "Then tell Pharaoh that this is what the LORD says: ‘Israel is My firstborn son," This foundational declaration establishes a unique, familial relationship between Elohim and His chosen nation. This is further reinforced in Isaiah 63:16, where the prophet cries out, "Yet You are our Father, though Abraham does not know us and Israel does not acknowledge us. You, O LORD, are our Father; our Redeemer from Everlasting is Your name." This verse powerfully demonstrates that the Jewish people, even in times of distress, recognized YHWH as their Father. Furthermore, the Psalms speak of this divine fatherhood. Psalm 2:7 records a divine decree concerning the Davidic King, "I will proclaim the decree spoken to Me by the LORD: “You are My Son; today I have become Your Father." The Brit Chadashah applies this verse to Yeshua's resurrection and exaltation, as seen in Acts 13:33, demonstrating a continuity of this "Son" language. This does not imply a biological fatherhood in the human sense, but a unique, divine begetting and appointment, a concept that may contrast with strict Greek philosophical thought but is inherent in Hebraic understanding of divine election and relationship. Yeshua Himself, in His teachings, frequently referred to YHWH as "My Father" and encouraged His disciples to address Elohim as "Our Father." This was not a departure from Jewish tradition but an intensification and personalization of an existing truth. His intimacy with the Father was unique, as He stated in John 5:19, "So Jesus replied, “Truly, truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing by Himself, unless He sees the Father doing it. For whatever the Father does, the Son also does." This indicates a profound unity and dependence, not a mere analogy. While Yeshua tells Mary Magdalene in John 20:17, "“Do not cling to Me,” Jesus said, “for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go and tell My brothers, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God.’"", this does not diminish His unique Sonship. Rather, it extends the privilege of calling Elohim "Father" to those who follow Him, through spiritual adoption, as Romans 8:15 affirms, "For you did not receive a spirit of slavery that returns you to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!”" The term "Abba" (אבא) itself is an Aramaic term of endearment, signifying an intimate, familial relationship, not a newly invented concept. The Hebraic understanding of "Father" (אב) encompasses more than just biological progenitor. It denotes the source, sustainer, and authoritative head. For instance, in Genesis 45:8, Joseph tells his brothers, "Therefore it was not you who sent me here, but God, who has made me a father to Pharaoh—lord of all his household and ruler over all the land of Egypt." Here, "father" clearly signifies a position of authority, counsel, and provision, not biological parentage. This nuance is critical when understanding Isaiah 9:6, which describes the Messiah as "Everlasting Father." This title, in its Hebraic context, can refer to the Messiah's role as a perpetual, benevolent ruler and provider, a "father" to His people, consistent with the Targum Jonathan's interpretation of the passage, which identifies the child as the Messiah. This does not necessarily conflate the persons of the Father and the Son, but highlights the Messiah's divine attributes and enduring reign. The unity of Elohim, as declared in Deuteronomy 6:4, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD," is not a monolithic singularity but a compound unity, an "echad." This concept allows for the plurality of expression within the divine nature without compromising His oneness. The "two powers in heaven" doctrine, attested in rabbinic literature like b. Sanhedrin 38b and b. Chagigah 14a, suggests that ancient Jewish thought grappled with divine plurality within unity, prior to Nicene formulations. This Hebraic framework, acknowledging Elohim as the ultimate Father, the source of all being, and the one to whom Yeshua, the Messiah, is uniquely related as Son, offers a consistent biblical answer to this vital question.Adversary Teardown: Modern Counter-Apologetics
The modern landscape of apologetics and counter-apologetics is rife with distortions regarding the biblical concept of God's fatherhood. A significant fault line emerges from certain protestant and Islamic counter-apologetic camps that either diminish or misrepresent the Hebraic understanding of "Father" when applied to Elohim. One prevalent distortion, championed by figures like Sean Griffin of Kingdom In Context, attempts to redefine "father" (אב) in Hebrew primarily as an "authoritative ruler," citing examples like Joseph's relationship with Pharaoh in Genesis 45:8 or Job as a judge (Kingdom In Context, "Is Elijah One of The Two Witnesses? - Milk & Meat Livestream!"). While it is true that "father" can denote authority and provision, as Joseph's role illustrates, reducing its meaning *solely* to "ruler" is an oversimplification that may deviate from the primary and most frequent biblical usage of the term. This approach may sidestep the familial, relational, and progenitor aspects that are central to Elohim's fatherhood throughout the Tanakh. The primary meaning of אב is indeed a male parent, and while authority is an attribute of a father, it is not the exhaustive definition. This rhetorical maneuver is often employed to either distance Yeshua's unique Sonship from a familial connection or to downplay the intimacy of Elohim's relationship with Israel. An even more pronounced distortion comes from certain Islamic apologists, such as Sam Dawah, who challenge believers to "show me that in your Bible" where Jews called God 'Father' in the Old Testament, asserting it was a new revelation by Yeshua (Sam Dawah, "Came to DESTROY Muslims... DESTROYED HIMSELF Denis Speakers Corner"). This claim appears to be contradicted by the Hebrew Scriptures. As cited earlier, Isaiah 63:16 explicitly states, "Yet You are our Father, though Abraham does not know us and Israel does not acknowledge us. You, O LORD, are our Father; our Redeemer from Everlasting is Your name." This verse, among others (e.g., Exodus 4:22), indicates that the concept of Elohim as Father was present in Jewish thought centuries before Yeshua. The perceived error here may lie in projecting a foreign theological framework onto the biblical text, potentially assuming that if the term isn't used with the same frequency or emphasis as in the Brit Chadashah, it must be absent. This may be a tradition-driven reading that overlooks primary biblical evidence. Furthermore, some literalistic interpretations, such as those promoted by DawahWise Gold, push the concept of God's fatherhood to an extreme, arguing for a "literal biological fatherhood of God for believers" based on Yeshua's statement "my Father and your Father" (DawahWise Gold, "Christian Leaves Muslim Speechless | Mansur | Speakers C"). This doctrine may not fully distinguish between Yeshua's unique divine Sonship and the spiritual adoption offered to believers. It may overlook the distinction made in passages like John 1:12-13, which speaks of being "born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God," and Romans 8:15, which speaks of receiving "the Spirit of sonship." This hyper-literalism may disregard certain theological nuances of biblical language and the spiritual nature of divine sonship for believers, potentially conflating it with human biological reproduction. These adversary traditions, whether by redefining, denying, or distorting, may not fully grasp a holistic and Hebraic understanding of Elohim as our Father.Counter-Arguments Anticipated
Objection 1: Yeshua's statement "My Father and your Father" in John 20:17 means His relationship with God is the same as ours.
This objection, often used to diminish Yeshua's unique divine Sonship, selectively quotes John 20:17. While Yeshua indeed says, "“Do not cling to Me,” Jesus said, “for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go and tell My brothers, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God.’”", this does not necessarily equate His Sonship with ours. The Gospel of John itself begins by establishing Yeshua's pre-existence and unique divinity (John 1:1-18). Yeshua's relationship with the Father is consistently presented as one of eternal co-existence and inherent deity (John 17:5, "And now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world existed."). Our sonship is one of spiritual adoption, a gracious gift through Yeshua, as Romans 8:15 confirms. Yeshua's statement extends the privilege of intimate address to the Father, but it does not erase the ontological distinction between the eternally begotten Son and adopted children.
Objection 2: Isaiah 9:6 calling the Messiah "Everlasting Father" contradicts the idea of Elohim as the Father.
This objection might stem from a misunderstanding of the Hebraic use of "father" as a title of authority and provision. While Isaiah 9:6 states, "And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace," the term "Everlasting Father" (אֲבִי-עַד) in this context appears to refer to the Messiah's role as a perpetual, benevolent ruler and provider to His people, rather than as the first person of the Godhead. As seen in Genesis 45:8, "father" can denote a position of authority and care. The Targum Jonathan, an ancient Aramaic paraphrase of the Hebrew Scriptures, interprets Isaiah 9:5 (which is 9:6 in English Bibles) as referring to the Messiah. This title highlights the Messiah's divine attributes and His enduring, father-like care for His kingdom, consistent with the compound unity of Elohim (Deuteronomy 6:4) and the "two powers in heaven" concept found in rabbinic texts like b. Sanhedrin 38b.
Objection 3: The concept of God as Father is a post-biblical invention, not found in ancient Judaism.
This claim may not align with historical and textual evidence. The idea of Elohim as Father is indicated in the Tanakh. Exodus 4:22 explicitly calls Israel "My firstborn son," suggesting a covenantal father-son relationship. Isaiah 63:16 directly addresses YHWH as "our Father." While the intimacy and frequency of addressing Elohim as "Father" were certainly emphasized by Yeshua, the foundational concept appears to have been present in ancient Jewish thought and scripture. This may not be a "new" invention but an ancient truth brought to fuller expression.