Call No Man "Father"?
Many Protestants claim that when Catholics address priests as "father," they are engaging in an unbiblical practice that Jesus forbade: "Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9).
Ive done some deep studying on this and I would like to address why I believe this is a false teaching as the Protestant portray it.. I will post a couple of different areas that I feel need to be touched upon...
Ive done some deep studying on this and I would like to address why I believe this is a false teaching as the Protestant portray it.. I will post a couple of different areas that I feel need to be touched upon...
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Disciple Mike on -
To understand why the charge does not work, one must first understand the use of the word "father" in reference to our earthly fathers. No one would deny a little girl the opportunity to tell someone that she loves her father. Common sense tells us that Jesus wasn’t forbidding this type of use of the word "father."
In fact, to forbid it would rob the address "Father" of its meaning when applied to God, for there would no longer be any earthly counterpart for the analogy of divine Fatherhood. The concept of God’s role as Father would be meaningless if we obliterated the concept of earthly fatherhood.
But in the Bible the concept of fatherhood is not restricted to just our earthly fathers and God. It is used to refer to people other than biological or legal fathers, and is used as a sign of respect to those with whom we have a special relationship.
For example, Joseph tells his brothers of a special fatherly relationship God had given him with the king of Egypt: "So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt" (Gen. 45:8).
Job indicates he played a fatherly role with the less fortunate: "I was a father to the poor, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know" (Job 29:16). And God himself declares that he will give a fatherly role to Eliakim, the steward of the house of David: "In that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah . . . and I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and will commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah" (Is. 22:20–21).
This type of fatherhood not only applies to those who are wise counselors (like Joseph) or benefactors (like Job) or both (like Eliakim), it also applies to those who have a fatherly spiritual relationship with one. For example, Elisha cries, "My father, my father!" to Elijah as the latter is carried up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kgs. 2:12). Later, Elisha himself is called a father by the king of Israel (2 Kgs. 6:21).
Some Fundamentalists argue that this usage changed with the New Testament—that while it may have been permissible to call certain men "father" in the Old Testament, since the time of Christ, it’s no longer allowed. This argument fails for several reasons.
First, as we’ve seen, the imperative "call no man father" does not apply to one’s biological father. It also doesn’t exclude calling one’s ancestors "father," as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to "our father Abraham," or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of "our father Isaac."
Second, there are numerous examples in the New Testament of the term "father" being used as a form of address and reference, even for men who are not biologically related to the speaker. There are, in fact, so many uses of "father" in the New Testament, that the Fundamentalist interpretation of Matthew 23 (and the objection to Catholics calling priests "father") must be wrong, as we shall see.
Third, a careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be understood literally. The whole passage reads, "But you are not to be called ‘rabbi,’ for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called ‘masters,’ for you have one master, the Christ" (Matt. 23:8–10).
The first problem is that although Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term "teacher," in Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7); "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher" (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: "God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers" (1 Cor. 12:28); and "his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as "teachers."
Fundamentalists themselves slip up on this point by calling all sorts of people "doctor," for example, medical doctors, as well as professors and scientists who have Ph.D. degrees (i.e., doctorates). What they fail to realize is that "doctor" is simply the Latin word for "teacher." Even "Mister" and "Mistress" ("Mrs.") are forms of the word "master," also mentioned by Jesus. So if his words in Matthew 23 were meant to be taken literally, Fundamentalists would be just as guilty for using the word "teacher" and "doctor" and "mister" as Catholics for saying "father." But clearly, that would be a misunderstanding of Christ’s words.
-
Permalink Reply by Disciple Mike on
-
So What Did Jesus Mean?
Jesus criticized Jewish leaders who love "the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called ‘rabbi’ by men" (Matt. 23:6–7). His admonition here is a response to the Pharisees’ proud hearts and their grasping after marks of status and prestige.
He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers.
Christ used hyperbole often, for example when he declared, "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell" (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47). Christ certainly did not intend this to be applied literally, for otherwise all Christians would be blind amputees! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). We are all subject to "the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life" (1 John 2:16).
Since Jesus is demonstrably using hyperbole when he says not to call anyone our father—else we would not be able to refer to our earthly fathers as such—we must read his words carefully and with sensitivity to the presence of hyperbole if we wish to understand what he is saying.
Jesus is not forbidding us to call men "fathers" who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. (See below on the apostolic example of spiritual fatherhood.) To refer to such people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it.
As the apostolic example shows, some individuals genuinely do have a spiritual fatherhood, meaning that they can be referred to as spiritual fathers. What must not be done is to confuse their form of spiritual paternity with that of God. Ultimately, God is our supreme protector, provider, and instructor. Correspondingly, it is wrong to view any individual other than God as having these roles.
Throughout the world, some people have been tempted to look upon religious leaders who are mere mortals as if they were an individual’s supreme source of spiritual instruction, nourishment, and protection. The tendency to turn mere men into "gurus" is worldwide.
This was also a temptation in the Jewish world of Jesus’ day, when famous rabbinical leaders, especially those who founded important schools, such as Hillel and Shammai, were highly exalted by their disciples. It is this elevation of an individual man—the formation of a "cult of personality" around him—of which Jesus is speaking when he warns against attributing to someone an undue role as master, father, or teacher.
He is not forbidding the perfunctory use of honorifics nor forbidding us to recognize that the person does have a role as a spiritual father and teacher. The example of his own apostles shows us that.
-
Permalink Reply by Disciple Mike on
-
The New Testament is filled with examples of and references to spiritual father-son and father-child relationships. Many people are not aware just how common these are, so it is worth quoting some of them here.
Paul regularly referred to Timothy as his child: "Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ" (1 Cor. 4:17); "To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (1 Tim. 1:2); "To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (2 Tim. 1:2).
He also referred to Timothy as his son: "This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare" (1 Tim 1:18); "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 2:1); "But Timothy’s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel" (Phil. 2:22).
Paul also referred to other of his converts in this way: "To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior" (Titus 1:4); "I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment" (Philem. 10). None of these men were Paul’s literal, biological sons. Rather, Paul is emphasizing his spiritual fatherhood with them.
Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul’s statement, "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).
Peter followed the same custom, referring to Mark as his son: "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark" (1 Pet. 5:13). The apostles sometimes referred to entire churches under their care as their children. Paul writes, "Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you; for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children" (2 Cor. 12:14); and, "My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!" (Gal. 4:19).
John said, "My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 John 2:1); "No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth" (3 John 4). In fact, John also addresses men in his congregations as "fathers" (1 John 2:13–14).
By referring to these people as their spiritual sons and spiritual children, Peter, Paul, and John imply their own roles as spiritual fathers. Since the Bible frequently speaks of this spiritual fatherhood, we Catholics acknowledge it and follow the custom of the apostles by calling priests "father." Failure to acknowledge this is a failure to recognize and honor a great gift God has bestowed on the Church: the spiritual fatherhood of the priesthood.
Catholics know that as members of a parish, they have been committed to a priest’s spiritual care, thus they have great filial affection for priests and call them "father." Priests, in turn, follow the apostles’ biblical example by referring to members of their flock as "my son" or "my child" (cf. Gal. 4:19; 1 Tim. 1:18; 2 Tim. 2:1; Philem. 10; 1 Pet. 5:13; 1 John 2:1; 3 John 4).
All of these passages were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and they express the infallibly recorded truth that Christ’s ministers do have a role as spiritual fathers. Jesus is not against acknowledging that. It is he who gave these men their role as spiritual fathers, and it is his Holy Spirit who recorded this role for us in the pages of Scripture. To acknowledge spiritual fatherhood is to acknowledge the truth, and no amount of anti-Catholic grumbling will change that fact.
-
Permalink Reply by tom ryder on
-
Mike, what's up brother? No bashing here just questions.LOL! I don't really disagree with anything you've said but I do have a couple of questions. Like you said people are simply mortals and they can, will, and have let me and everyone else down. Why would you (not you personally of coarse)trust your spiritual guidance to anyone other than God. I have faith in but one thing and that is in God. Whether in be the inspired word of God in the bible or devine revalation from the Holy Ghost..that is all I put stock in. After all..Paul himself thanked God(I will have to look up the scripture) that the knowledge he had came from no man but from devine revelation from God. He called out Peter for doing something wrong and because he was led by the Holy Ghost Peter accepted the correction. We have the same avenues today as the apostles did. The same Holy Ghost guides and directs us as did the apostles. I can't imagine trusting anyone on this earth with my spritual well being. I will stand with anyone who stand by and aligns themselves with the word of God but will stand with noone who does not. Padre or not. God Bless!!
-
Permalink Reply by Randee Sewell on
-
There is nothing wrong with a father-son relationship, or with teaching. Jesus was talking about titles here, and that those titles belong to the Father only.
You are right when you said, "Jesus criticized Jewish leaders who love "the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called ‘rabbi’ by men" (Matt. 23:6–7). His admonition here is a response to the Pharisees’ proud hearts and their grasping after marks of status and prestige."
One should realize that the Hebrew word for "father" is also the word for "forefather" or "ancestor." So when a Hebrew speaker uses "our father Abraham" he is not using "father" as an honorific title but is referring to Abraham as an arch-ancestor of the nation. It is unlikely that Jesus intended to prohibit the use of "father" in this sense.
Abba, which literally means "the father" in Aramaic, but also can mean "our father" or "my father," was brought into Hebrew and used in the endearing sense of "Daddy." Abba also came to be used to respectfully address a sage, a practice which Jesus opposed. This usage probably developed because of the special relationship in which the sage became like a father to his disciple. Later, apparently after the time of Jesus, Abba became common as a title for all sages. Linguistically, almost the same thing happened to the word rabbi (my teacher, my master), which was a polite form of address to a sage in the time of Jesus, and only later (around 90 A.D., or later) became a title.
"Father" and "rabbi" are synonyms, and Jesus is opposed to their being used as titles of honor. Jesus' reasoning regarding "father" is clear. He is concerned that no one seem to usurp the heavenly Father's title.
"Rabbi" comes from the Hebrew word "Rav", which also means teacher and master. In Jesus' opinion, the terms rav and abba should be reserved for God alone. God is the Rav and the Abba. No one else can have these titles.
-
Permalink Reply by Art Fontaine on -
Very nice Randee!
You are right when you said, "Jesus criticized Jewish leaders who love "the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called ‘rabbi’ by men" (Matt. 23:6–7). His admonition here is a response to the Pharisees’ proud hearts and their grasping after marks of status and prestige."
The irony is that the Cardinals and Bishops and the Pope where the colorful robes and rings and symbols of prestige. Like I have said 30 times, it is an amazing that a third of the population on the planet was Roman Catholic but yet with 2 Billion they don't even produce half the fruit of 160 million Christians. That in itself is solid, undenyable truth. The RC are the epitome of the modern day pharisees. The majority (SOLID FACT) do not have a strong faith, they are more proud to be a Catholic than they are to be a Christian. There is no joy in their Gospel or no peace either. To think you are gonna die and go to temporary hell to be purified. I cannot believe that some would fall so far as to claim that Christ wasn't enough to pay for our sins. The thief on the cross was a sinner and yet Jesus said "TODAY YOU WILL BE WITH ME IN PARADISE!" So that in itself is proof that purgatory is not real!...but why not pervert the Gospel, they already have the largest, most pathetic excuse for a powerless group of believers and what baffles me is I have some friends who are charismatic catholics and they admit that the RC has fallen, they are working to restore it. Too bad it will never happen. HolyPal's resident clowns must be totally blinded to the world around them. It is a common stereotype that the Roman Catholic is the fair weather Christian who comes to church once a week and goes back to being the same old scumbag til next week. I never said priests had to be married either. It isn't the Popes right to make a man choose between his calling to the pulpit and a calling to have a family. What if it is God's plan for both. Romans 1 Is commonly looked at as the homosexual chapter but when their minds were given over to obscene things and they fosook what was natural and right, it was the end result of forsaking the Word. What is the count of Child molesting priests? 288 or close to that? That is a lot of people falling to sexual sin for someone who supposedly "knows the way" They traded in the real Gospel for a semi-real doctored up fairy tale Gospel and because the HS is obviously not in any of them, the HS will not stand by while some POS devil worshipper in disguise rapes a child. Really think about what they did to those kids all of you suck on the teet of the perverbial whore of babylon. How many non catholic child molesters have their been in Christian churches....only several.....if that....way more than 200 have come out against the RC and chances are hundreds more haven't come forward out of shame. That is wrong and God specifically said to watch out for those who forbid marriage and it is funny that the side effects for not having God and perverting the Gospel are the fruits of the church accused of perverting the Gospel...go figure. Which is also why more than 90% of Catholics that have left the church after having a personal experience with God, all agree that God is not there and they are not producing fruit the way the bible says they would, but the real Christian church is and they don't question the Word, we just submit in obedience so we are blessed and blessed and blessed again. This is such a stupid conversation that Randee has to go this far and you will still deny the truth she has spoken..I suggest that we just kill this since the local heretics wont even read what anyone says except in parts just enough to distort it. I am trying so hard to walk away but my flesh really wants to argue because you are soooooo wrong and you mock and defame the Lord's sacrifice with every word.
-
Permalink Reply by Disciple Mike on
-
Art,
you say over and over:
"Like I have said 30 times, it is an amazing that a third of the population on the planet was Roman Catholic but yet with 2 Billion they don't even produce half the fruit of 160 million Christians. That in itself is solid, undenyable truth."
Well Art put your money were your mouth is and prove this statement you have made by your own admission over 30 times...
you say:
"How many non catholic child molesters have their been in Christian churches....only several.....if that"
I say prove this statement as well and while your at it why dont you also figure out the percent in the both. Like how many priest are there totally in the world to how many protestant pastors and then figure out which has a higher percent. You know POUND FOR POUND...
you said:
"To think you are gonna die and go to temporary hell to be purified."
Nobody says its a form of Hell, maybe that is your problem with the whole concept...
Phillipians Chapter 2 verse 6-11
6 Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. 8 He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. 9 For which cause God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names: 10 That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and UNDER THE EARTH: 11 And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.
Jesus name is confessed in heaven, on earth, and UNDER THE EARTH. What could this third place be? It isn't hell because nobody confesses that the Jesus is Lord who have already been condemned. It is purgatory, my friend.
Now before you side tract this post answer those to questions I asked, and I want PROOF to back up your perceptions, show me the difference in fruit and back it up and then show me the difference in tainted religious leaders and back that up.
-
-
Under the earth represents the jewish conception of sheol, the pit, the grave. The tradition of burying someone in the ground is so they can go to sheol quicker.
" That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and UNDER THE EARTH: " represents heavenly beings, alive humans, and the dead. The jews had no concept of purgatory at all.
-
Permalink Reply by Disciple Mike on
-
Tom,,, I think the question should be....
Should the Bible be the final authority of Christianity or the Church?
Well, Christ stated that the Church, not Scripture should be the final authority: "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church: but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." (Matthew 18:17 ) Christ did not state to refer to or consult Scripture for disputes and correction. He said to go to the Church as It is the final authority in Christianity. In addition, St. Paul states that the Church, not Scripture is "THE pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15) Since the Church alone is mentioned as the pillar of truth, then It alone has the right to discern the truth and interpret Scripture. For if individuals could correctly interpret Scripture, then all interpretations would be exactly the same as there can only be one Spiritual Truth for the plural of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. The Church is Christ's bride (Ephesians 5:29) and has "no spot, wrinkle or blemish" (Ephesians 5:27). Christ also stated that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18) so how can the Church commit error? Individual clergy may commit sins, even popes commit sins because in the Church there are both "weeds and wheat" (Matthew 13:30).
So I would say it takes TRUST!!! It takes more Trust in Jesus to beleive in His Words even if they go against our own understandings.. I Trust He will not allow me to be mis-led because I devote everything to Him and the Kingdom. Art claims I walk with no power and that is sad considering he doesnt even know me. He has no idea what God does through me and for me. His statements show me he isnt in Gods rest because if he was there would be no bitterness in his heart. I dont claim anyone outside of the catholic church is condemned or that they are spitting in Gods face and all that other stuff. The only claim I make which I stand on is that if a child of God only remains in the Bible only mentality or sola scripture they will not receive the meat God offers because they dont utilize the instruments God has given us. Its like a carpenter not using all the tools in his bag. The one who uses them all can do a job more sufficiantly and more accurately. If the Master carpenter himself invented the tools then he still is the one responsible for completeing the job perfectly and just because the apprentice was holding them doesnt mean he gets the credit...
Any other questions Tom?
-
-
If the tool goes against the building plans, it's only use is to be tossed away.
-
Permalink Reply by Disciple Mike on
-
Yeh Randee,,
Kinda like the way you threw away all the scripture saying the church is the pillar not the bible, you know all that scripture saying the church is the authority...humm....makes you think or at least it should...
© 2010 Created by yousef.
