God Is Not Your Daddy!

In the attempt to make people feel more “comfortable” with God, we have again reduced God to our level. This goes right along with the “come as you are” cultural swing we are currently enduring so that we can all just come and “hang out with Jesus” for a while.

Gone are the days of the feeling of awe when entering the presence of God. Gone is the sense of God’s holiness. Gone is the knowledge of His power. Gone is the attitude of the once doubting Thomas who stated falling on his knees….”My Lord and My God.” No sir!! Now we “stand and give Jesus a hand!”

At the forefront of this “Youth Minister” mentality of God is the new mantra of referring to God as “Daddy.” I call it the “Youth Minister” mentality because this is where it first started in the 1980’s. The problem is that those guys were never taught any better and now they are preachers in pulpits.

The oft quoted verse for justification is Romans 8:15….”For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out ‘Abba! Father!”

The word “Abba” is actually used two other times in the New Testament and we will discuss those latter.

The mistake made concerning “Abba” is a major violation of two axiomatic hermeneutical rules (actually a number….but I will focus on two). Hermeneutics are the rules that are supposed to guard interpretation. The false view of “Abba” is that it is akin to our word “daddy” and, therefore, we are to relate to God in the same we relate to our earthly daddies.

The two rules violated by this view are the “Rule of the Priority of Original Languages” and the “Rule of Historical Priority.”

This discussion is not going to be the “sound byte” of interpretation that so many people want today. This discussion will be in depth with plenty of evidence. So buckle your chinstraps!

First, we must begin by discussing the context of the Roman's passage. We must look at immediate context, and, even before that we have to look at the context of the entire book of Romans.

The purpose for which Paul wrote to the church of Rome was to answer the question, “Who are the sons of God?” This question was causing division in the church between the Jews and the Gentiles. The Jews were claiming they were still the people of God. The Gentiles were claiming that God had rejected the Jews, and in fact, they were now the people of God. It is kind of hard to enjoy a good potluck when you look down your nose at each other.

This type of division should not be surprising. For years and years these two groups had lived in absolute hatred of each other. Now, they were coming into the same church and worshipping together. It was a cultural shock that is addressed by quite a few incidents and books of the New Testament (discussed later).

So Paul writes to bring an end to the division in the church. In chapter one he points out that the Gentiles have no reason to boast because they are guilty of sin. Even though they did not have the Law they did have the natural revelation and, yet, rejected it. Therefore, they were condemned because of their sin.

You can just see the Jews, as they read this, saying “Amen!!!” However, in chapter two Paul tells the Jews they had the Law and broke it. Therefore, they were condemned by their sin.
Then in chapter three we have the all encompassing verse 23 which states that, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” In other words both Jew and Gentile are under the penalty of sin and no one has a reason to boast.

He proceeds in chapters four and five to show that all have been justified by faith in Christ.
Chapter six actually begins the discussion that continues in chapter eight concerning being released from slavery. The slavery that is being referred to is the Law. The purpose of the Law was never to save but rather to condemn, i.e., to enslave. Therefore, everything that was done under the Law was done out of a feeling of slavery to the Law. It was done out of a sense of “have to” in order to escape condemnation.

This would be a good time to introduce one of the other two instances of the word “Abba.” That would be Galatians 4:5-6: “……so that He might redeem those under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. Because you are sons, God has sent forth the spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying “Abba Father.” (Parenthetical Note: There are no capital letters in the Greek language. The word “spirit” here is unfortunately capitalized in our modern translations. It stands to reason, though, since most translation teams are largely made up of Calvinist who operate from the faulty theological perspective that man can do nothing good unless God enables them. Whether to cap or not to cap is determined by context. In this context, the small “s” is in order as the word should be properly translated “attitude.” You will see why later.)

Again, notice from the context of the Galatians passage, Paul is discussing the release from slavery (i.e., the Law) and adoption as sons. This is appropriate, again, in light of the context of the book. The letter to the Galatian churches was written to combat the false teachers known as Judaisers. The basic theological premise of the Judaisers was that, yes, one becomes a Christian by accepting Christ. They remain a Christian by obedience to the Law. In short, Paul calls this a perversion of the Gospel, and in fact, states that anyone who teaches this is to be “anathematized” (Greek), i.e., “consigned to hell.” (Try using that kind of language from the pulpit in this culture!)

Alright, let’s reflect on what we have learned so far. The use of the word “Abba” in both Romans and Galatians is in the context of being set free from slavery (i.e., the Law) and being received as sons (i.e., by faith in Christ).

Now, let’s move on to one of the rules of hermeneutics broken by the “God is daddy” folks. It is the rule of “The Priority of the Original Languages.” One of the dumbest things I ever hear coming from pulpits is when a Preacher gives the definition of a biblical word from “Webster’s Dictionary.” It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that words change meaning in just a generation…..let alone thousands of years. The only definition that is important for the understanding of the text is the definition that comes from the original language (in this case….Greek/Aramaic).

Here is the official Greek definition of the word “Abba” from Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Greek Words: “In the Gemara (a rabbinical commentary on the Mishna, the traditional teaching of the Jews) it is stated that slaves were forbidden to address the head of the family by this title.” In other words, there was a way that slaves referred to the head of the house (i.e., the father) and there was a way that those who were a part of the family addressed the father.

Note, there is not a translation of the word anywhere that has the word “daddy” in it. In fact, entomologically speaking, the word “daddy” dates back to only the 1500’s. If you trace the word’s entomology you will note that it has nothing to do with a “feeling” but rather the fact that often the first two sounds uttered by an infant is “da-da” which then lead to the development of the word “daddy.”

The second hermeneutical rule broken by the “God is Daddy” crowd is the “Rule of Historical Priority.” One the biggest wastes of time in the world is any Bible study where people sit around in a circle, read a passage of Scripture, and then go around to each person and ask, “What does that passage mean to you?”

Let me be clear about this. “What it means to you” has absolutely nothing to do with proper interpretation. Only when one has done the work to understand what the writer of the text (in this case Paul) meant when he wrote it can it be truly said that you have interpreted the text. “What it means” to you is “application”…..not “interpretation.”

So what did Paul mean when he used the phrase “Abba?” Again, it is imperative to notice the contrast…..i.e., slavery vs. adoption. One of the biggest mistakes of the “God is daddy” view is it forces a modern understanding of the term “daddy” on a first century culture that would not have the faintest idea of what you were talking about.

Keep in mind, both Romans and Galatians were written to a Roman culture. (Note: The other use of the word “Abba”, which we will look at later, is in the Gospel of Mark….also written to Romans. Are we beginning to see the trend?) In Roman culture, they lived under the Roman law known as “Patria Potestas” (Latin for….father/power). The father had absolute authority over the child including the very power of life and death. This was eventually done away with in the Roman Empire, largely due to the influence of Christianity.

In Roman culture, just because a child was born to you did not mean they were yours. They were not officially recognized as your children until an official adoption took place, usually around age 11. Shortly after the child was born, the father would hire a tutor to train the child to have the spirit and attitude of the father. At about age 11, there would be a day of testing. The father would test the child to see if the tutor had done his job. If the child demonstrated the spirit and attitude of the father he would be officially adopted. They also had the power to sell the child into slavery or even kill them. It was all legal. Once the father adopted the child he was a full member of the family with all the rights/privileges thereof.

Now, does any of that sound like our modern concept of “daddy?” I didn’t hire someone to train my child. I cannot legally sell my child into slavery (I used them at home….ha!). I certainly cannot legally kill my children (unless they are in the womb, but that is another blog). I never had to adopt my kids. They MADE me take them home!

If I was a betting man, I would bet you all are starting to piece this together. It is so obvious once you understand the context, the historical background, and the meaning of the words. So let’s pull it all together.

In Romans and Galatians Paul is saying the same thing (just for different purposes). The Law has nothing to do with our salvation. In Romans Paul said the purpose of the law was to condemn us so we would look to God for grace. In Galatians Paul used the Roman concept of “tutor” in 3:24 to describe the role of the Law, i.e., the law was the Roman tutor who brought us to our day of testing or readiness for adoption as sons. The law is the “tutor.” It is not that which makes us sons.

Instead, we are now adopted as sons!!! We no longer have a slave relationship with God. We have a relationship with God that allows us to use the name that slaves could not use. In fact, there are only four instances in all of the Old Testament where God is referred to as Father. When Jesus taught us how to pray in the model prayer He made it clear that this would now be the cornerstone of our relationship with God, i.e., God as Father, when He said, “Pray in this way, Our Father….”

This brings us to our third and final use of the term “Abba” in the New Testament. It is found in the Garden Prayer of Jesus in Mark 14:36 where Jesus, in His prayer said, “Abba, Father.” In Romans and Galatians Paul makes it clear we have entered into the same relationship with God that Jesus has. We pray as sons!! We are not THE Son….but we are sons…joint heirs with Christ.

So Paul’s argument in Romans is, “Why do you boast of your confidence in the law? The law made you a slave. However, because of the blood of Christ we are no longer slaves but sons and therefore have a different relationship with God. We do not have the spirit/attitude of slavery but of father/child.” He goes on to explain that this applies to Jew or Gentile. Therefore, the answer to the question of Romans “Who are the sons of God?” is……ANYONE (Jew or Gentile) by faith in Christ.

Paul’s argument against the Judaisers in Galatians was, “The Law had nothing to do with salvation. All it does is enslave. It was the tutor. Since you are now adopted as sons, why would you choose to go back and live under the tutor?”

So it becomes very obvious to those who do the homework. The term “Abba” in the text is not meant to be used as a proper name, but is simply descriptive of our relationship with God in contrast to the enslavement of the law.

There is nothing that even be remotely construed to mean “daddy.” If you want to refer to God as “Abba”….FINE!! Use a Bible name. I have no problem with that.

Problems and divisions in Christianity come when people go beyond what the text actually says. Those of us in the Restoration Movement try to the best of our ability to live by this principle laid out by our founding fathers, Campbell, Stone, et. al….”Where the Bible Speaks, We Speak!....and Where the Bible is Silent, We Are Silent.”

The biggest problem I have with the term “daddy” is the irreverence it shows toward God. Remember, in Patria Potestas….even after adoption…the father was the head and held the power.

God is in control! He is in charge! He dwells in unapproachable light which no man has seen nor can see.

The next time you are in church, ask yourself this question…and answer it honestly. If Jesus walked into your assembly…..would you stand and give Him a hand? Would you yell out….”Yo daddy!”

My guess is…if you are honest….you would have the same exact response I would have. It’s the same one Thomas had. We would fall down at His feet and cry out….”My Lord….and My God!” The great thing is that as sons/daughters, His response to us would be, “My child!”

So if you use the term “daddy”…I guess that’s your business (unless you teach at the school I administrate or the church I preach at). In those cases, it would be my business.

However, do you not use the aforementioned scriptures to justify it. You are not even in the ball park and you actually have to ignore everything the text says to come to that belief. That alone ought to be a concern to any true student of the Word.