# Reverent Intimacy



## chbrooking (May 11, 2010)

I was glad to be corrected in a recent thread with regard to the meaning of Abba. It turns out that I have been influenced by modern usage, and so fell easy prey to the old line that it means “Daddy”. Yes, I knew it was the grammatical equivalent in Aramaic of _ho pater_ in Greek or _ha’ab_ in Hebrew, but its modern usage made the notion that it meant “Daddy” plausible. 

But that got me thinking... (almost always dangerous)

I appreciate the sentiment that a certain level of reverence needs to be maintained. I expect my kids to say “Yes sir”, and “No sir”, when responding to me. How much more, then, ought we to be reverential to the Creator and Lord of the universe, Who graciously adopted us to be His children?

But ... Isn’t there a level of intimacy that we shouldn’t lose sight of, too? My behavior as a father ought to be modeled upon His character as my Father. I don’t hold my children at arm’s length. Nor do I expect a formal address. 

As I pondered this, a few passages of scripture came to mind. The first is Heb. 2:11ff. There, Jesus refers to us as brothers. Admittedly, this has to do with his incarnation, and particularly the fact that he was made like us in every way, yet without sin. It is part of the case the author is building for Jesus being our perfect and only adequate High Priest. Nevertheless, he calls us brothers, and Matthew 25:40 uses the same language in quite a different context.

My attention was also drawn to John 15:15, where our Lord says, “No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.” Friendship speaks of familiar association. Now, I realize that, so far, I’ve only spoken of our relation to the Son, but unless we want to denigrate the deity of the Son, this is surely significant -- especially given Jesus’ answer to Phillip in John 14:9.

Indeed, it was this line of thought that led me to 1Jo 2:13-14. Surely there is an intimacy in the word “know”. And in 1Jo 1:3, we are said to have “fellowship” with the Father and with the Son. Leow and Nida calls this “an association involving close mutual relations and involvement.” Likewise, Thayer emphasizes the intimate connotations of the word. Liddell Scott do not. There, it is “communion, association, partnership and fellowship”--though that last just begs for more.

I’m currently searching the TLG to see if I can gain a sense of how much “intimacy” is involved in this word “fellowship.”

At any rate, I’m not sure we should jettison (with the Abba=Daddy equation) the intimacy that is inherent in the Father-son relationship. Neither should we, of course, lose respect and reverence. But I’m brought back to my being a father. My heart is bound to my children. I’m jealous of them. I want their respect. But I also want their affection. Of course, God doesn’t need our affection. But he doesn’t need us at all. He created us. We owe him reverence. But he also redeemed us. HE set HIS affection on us (Deu. 32:10). He is the one who established intimacy between us. He even put his Spirit in my heart crying “Abba, Father.”

All that said, “Daddy” doesn’t quite sound right. It DOES sound a little irreverent. But that doesn’t mean our fellowship is any less intimate. Perhaps we need less familiarity, but not less intimacy. We need a reverent intimacy. Do you disagree?


----------



## louis_jp (May 11, 2010)

Very nice post, Pastor Brooking. I agree with your sentiments.


----------



## Jack K (May 11, 2010)

Well said. I'd suggest too that it's okay to speak to God sometimes with more reverence and at other times with more intimacy. There's much variety in scriptural prayers, and situations differ. The situation and setting and the mood of your heart all matter when you're talking to a real person in real time, and this is what prayer is.


----------



## MW (May 11, 2010)

chbrooking said:


> Perhaps we need less familiarity, but not less intimacy. We need a reverent intimacy. Do you disagree?


 
I don't think either word is better or worse than the other. It is the content being given to those words in the current theological context which is of some concern. We can acknowledge a familiar and intimate relationship is established through the grace of adoption without allowing that familiar and initimate language of equality ought to influence the way we address God. We observe in the Psalms -- which were written in the Spirit of sonship, Ps. 2:7 -- a healthy use of language which both separates God from the worshipper and appropriates God's giving of Himself in covenant to the worshipper. In the midst of this balance we do not see terms of familiarity or intimacy which would characterise a relationship of equality. Even in Ps. 45, where the marriage of God with His people is celebreated, He is set forth as the Lord and King who is to be worshipped and unto whom the virgins are to be brought. Again, there are only a handful of times where "love" is expressed. The predominant idea is that of loyalty of commitment in the oft used "chesed." "Truth" and "righteousness" equally characterise the relationship. The expressions which nearest approximate that of intimacy are to be found in the imagery borrowed from the most holy place -- the shadow of God's wings, the secret place, beauty of the Lord, etc. -- but these are marked by the deepest sense of reverence and accompanied either by strong terms of submission on the worshipper's part or sovereignty on God's part. It is impossible to import concepts of familiarity or intimacy which remove the essential nature of the relationship as it exists between inferior and superior; in fact, between inferior and the Supreme -- "Most High," "Almighty."


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 12, 2010)

When I am having a "serious conversation" with one of my children, I will ask them if they think they have understood my intent, and if they are going to do (or not do) according to my wish.

I want them to respond with Yes or No, honestly. But the precise answer I want is: "Yes (no), *Daddy*."

The verbal assent to my statements is not enough. The "Daddy" is an acknowledgment of our relationship. They understand "children, obey your parents." Tacking on "Daddy" or "Mommy" at the end reinforces that compliance flows from their recognition (or that they are learning) the nature of authority.

The same effect is seen in the "sir" or "ma'am", whether directed to a father or a supervisor. The military functions on an authoritative basis as well.


----------

