Help with Mt 23:9

[Luigi_Daniele]

I’ve asked in Ask the Apologist, but no answer

Hoping you all can help.

The passage

[BIBLEDRB]Mt 23:9[/BIBLEDRB]

I have heard it explained that our Lord was using hyperbole. I get that. That isn’t the question

My question is why would He make Scripture “tricky”? It could surely be misinterpreted by a not very well scripturally educated person. Even some well educated Catholics get thrown off by this passage (and a few others, too).

I am aware of:

[BIBLEDRB]Mt 13:13[/BIBLEDRB]

But I still keep going back to "why make it tricky? " I’m dumb enough spiritually without throwing me curveballs.

I hope this makes sense

 

[COPLAND_3]

Its not tricky in general, only seems tricky after anti-Catholics try and use that as a “gotcha” technique. The ancient Christians never seemed to hesitate a second on what Jesus was meaning. Here is the words from Church Father Theophylact, “In saying “Call no man your father,” He is not prohibiting the honor given to parents, since He desires that we should honor our parents and especially our spiritual fathers; rather He is inducing us to acknowledge the true Father, namely, God, for He is chiefly and essentially our Father. Fathers in the flesh are not the authors of procreation, but rather, servants and accessories.”

You will notice that those who try to use that passage against Catholicism draw their own line to what the prohibition of calling anyone father means. They will usually say that Jesus did not mean we can’t call our natural father “father.” But who gave them authority to decide that but they themselves? Why do they say you cannot call a spiritual father “father” but we can call our natural father “father?” Their private interpretations are the reason they have the 30,000 flavors of protestant denominations.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Agree completely

Again, I understand what He meant. I don’t understand why it would be “tricky”. It would be tricky for me, even if there were no Protestants.

Put another way, why not make the passages crystal clear to everyone, or at least to everyone sincerely trying to follow our Lord?

Clarifiers:

1. I am a fully committed Roman Catholic in full union with our Holy Father. I want to be clear on that.
2. I understand the Bible (to the best of my ability). There are very few passages that I find “tricky”. I trust the Church’s explanation of these passages, completely. (Hey, maybe He made some of the passages tricky, so that we would realize that we truly do need a Church-the Church- to explain them???)

 

[Julian0404]

Suggest Scott Hann’s book: MANY ARE CALLED, REDISCOVERING THE PRIEST HOOD

 

[Incomplete]

Agree completely

Again, I understand what He meant. I don’t understand why it would be “tricky”. It would be tricky for me, even if there were no Protestants.

Put another way, why not make the passages crystal clear to everyone, or at least to everyone sincerely trying to follow our Lord?

Because God uses mediators (us) and we’re not perfect. People who wrote this didn’t realize they were writing scripture, and God wasn’t whispering the words to them. Also remember that what you are reading wasn’t originally written in English. But having said that,using the language of their time, I’m certain they felt they were being clear to some degree. Try reading authors from centuries ago and you’ll find it can be difficult. I’d bet as well that they would have difficulty understanding language of our time.

Remember, too, that it can be difficult to find the right words when trying to understand God. He is so much bigger than we can describe. Even the Bible itself talks about needing help for interpretation. It’s not intentionally tricky, but it can be difficult.

 

[JRKH]

I recognize that your question here is not about the particular passage but on the clarity of Scripture. “Why make it tricky?”

In some of my research and discussions here I have discovered that there are issues in the language (translations) as well as the cultures and ways of communicating that can seem odd to us, but be much more clear to those people of that time and place.

Just a few days ago I was involved in a conversation about another passage, Mt 12:46-50. We are taught that Jesus held his mother in high esteem yet this passage seems to say something quite different.
It was explained to me, by someone of Jewish background, that while the passage may seem to say one thing to me, it reads very different to a Jew…It has to do with the manner of speaking…
I still don’t understand it, but I have no reason to doubt the person who was explaining it to me either…

Anyway, my point is not about the specific passage, but about how Jesus might have been speaking clearly to his audience and the writers of the Gospel likewise wrote clearly, but over time our ability to clearly understand becomes muddled.
It’s yet another reason to rely on Holy Mother Church.

Peace
James

 

[Lancer]

For your consideration…Your premise is in erroneous on two counts:

First…this passage is not tricky…not even close to that. Know why? Because the
Church has given a very clear interpretation of this scripture passage. It is not you or me who has the authority to definitively interpret scripture…but it is the Church…which was founded by Christ. The Church has a gift of infallibility…not you or me. I know that you know this…but if you use words like “tricky”…you imply a lack of faith in Christ’s plan…tending towards telling Him how he should have said something or explained something…maybe how he should have done something…like save us.

CCC:113
2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . .** according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"**81).

Second…its not tricky…God’s mysteries as revealed in and by his Word made Flesh…are deep mystery…because Divine Revelation is deep Truth…on the other hand…tricky is deep confusion…not deep mystery…and there is no confusion in God or his Church on matters of faith and morals.

Pax Christi

 

[Philotheatoo]

And we still are not enlightened. We will know when God wants us to know, exactly what it is that God wants us to know. Trust God.

 

[Jerome98]

Your question is one asked by many, why does Jesus make it hard for people to understand the Bible?? Well, I think the right question would, do you really think that the Bible is really hard to understand?? I think if one is committed to understanding something he will understand it. One century ago no one even had a clue that a theory called the relativity developed by Einstein would even come to existence however, today it is taught in Universities and is one of the foundations of modern physics. What I want to say is that it is nice to have a challenge. Remember, you are never alone, today there are countless commentaries on the Bible approved by the church that eradicate any complexity.

If everything was given out to us on a silver plate then there would be no non-believers, Jesus would have come down the cross in front of everyone and proved his divinity. In school when you are taught something in science class, you don’t really question the facts because you know they are true and you have no choice but to believe in them, your free will to voice your opinion is deprived. The same doesn’t go for the Bible, there is always way for research and deep thought.

 

[jcrichton]

Agree completely

Again, I understand what He meant. I don’t understand why it would be “tricky”. It would be tricky for me, even if there were no Protestants.

Put another way, why not make the passages crystal clear to everyone, or at least to everyone sincerely trying to follow our Lord?

Clarifiers:

1. I am a fully committed Roman Catholic in full union with our Holy Father. I want to be clear on that.
2. I understand the Bible (to the best of my ability). There are very few passages that I find “tricky”. I trust the Church’s explanation of these passages, completely. (Hey, maybe He made some of the passages tricky, so that we would realize that we truly do need a Church-the Church- to explain them???)

“…without Me, you are nothing…”

…don’t remember if this is an exact quote or if iit’s a close rendering… the important effect is that we must depend upon Yahweh God… things that seem quite simple my be very complex and things that seem complex may be very simple… also… the Holy Spirit is the One Person of God that has been Given to the Church to guide her (we, as part of the Mystical Body of Christ, are also guided by the Holy Spirit) into the complete Truth.

…read St. John 14, 15, 16 and compare with 1 Corinthians 2:1-16–it is the other Paraclete that will bestow upon us God’s Wisdom… but each occording to God’s Will and our individual response (humble adherence and obedience to Christ)… so while one person, from Scriptures, can see that God exists as a Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit… another person, perhaps holding on to man’s wisdom, cannot.

…of course, I (being familiar with Scriptures) can quote many passages to you… only in as far as you truly are opened to the Holy Spirit’s Guidance would you be able to embrace anything that I, as a member of Christ’s Body, can share with you…

…as for your query… I am not a historian (nor any other type of scholar), what I understand (I think I heard it from Father Pacua from EWTN’s Live & Threshold of Faith) there existed Rabbinical schools that, as with the incidence with the early Church, taught a variation of thins according to the leader (Jesus touched on this very lighty); they would enjoy recognition, the best possitions in the various social events, and they were called fathers or call their followers their children… it was wall very much geared towards power and status… so Christ warns His Disciples not to emulate them because they wanted the adulation of man and desired to gain all sorts of temporal benefit while ruling the people with a severe and injust reign; Christ’s Disciples were to be different; they would not call anyone father, master, or guide and they would not rule as those outside the Church–the one who wanted to be greater amongst Christ’s followers needed to be the one to serve the rest/more…

Did the Apostle understand this? Quite! …but contrary to simple logic St. Paul brags about how he is the most insignificant of the Apostles (he persecuted the Church) and yet he serves them more than the rest… and while I cannot recall St. Peter talking about a son/child in the Faith, St. Paul (who got a crash course in Christ–by Christ) uses the term of son in the Faith when speaking about some of those he personally indoctrinated…

…so Jesus is crearly speaking in reference to matters of Faith where one disciple/follower seeks to rule others as underlins not as fellow brothers and sisters in the Faith… just to demonstrate an example: a little while ago our present Pope (Benedict XVI) had been scheduled to appear at a “Catholic” University/School in, of all places, Italy… there, some members of the staff and some student began a revolt and refused to allow the Pope to speak in “their” “Catholic” “higher education” “facility.” Did the Pope demand that he, as the head of the Catholic Church, be allowed to make his speech? Did the Pope demand that that “Catholic” entity be dismantled or did he declare that all true Catholics that allowed their children to matriculate in that “Catholic” entity be excommunicated?

…the Pope simply did not proceed with the proposed visit… interstingly enough, as big as the facilities in that “Catholic’s” higher educational place may have been it could not have been able to accommodate the thousands of people that came to St. Peter’s to hear the Pope’s speach!

True Disciples of Christ knew that our holy father, the servant of the servants of Christ, did not rule Christ’s Church in avarice and whim!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Agree completely

Again, I understand what He meant. I don’t understand why it would be “tricky”. It would be tricky for me, even if there were no Protestants.

Put another way, why not make the passages crystal clear to everyone, or at least to everyone sincerely trying to follow our Lord?

Clarifiers:

1. I am a fully committed Roman Catholic in full union with our Holy Father. I want to be clear on that.
2. I understand the Bible (to the best of my ability). There are very few passages that I find “tricky”. I trust the Church’s explanation of these passages, completely. (Hey, maybe He made some of the passages tricky, so that we would realize that we truly do need a Church-the Church- to explain them???)

…sorry, I didn’t fully read your point #2… correct, Christ instituted His Church and sent the other Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, to Guide and Lead the Church!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I recognize that your question here is not about the particular passage but on the clarity of Scripture. “Why make it tricky?”

In some of my research and discussions here I have discovered that there are issues in the language (translations) as well as the cultures and ways of communicating that can seem odd to us, but be much more clear to those people of that time and place.

Just a few days ago I was involved in a conversation about another passage, Mt 12:46-50. We are taught that Jesus held his mother in high esteem yet this passage seems to say something quite different.
It was explained to me, by someone of Jewish background, that while the passage may seem to say one thing to me, it reads very different to a Jew…It has to do with the manner of speaking…
I still don’t understand it, but I have no reason to doubt the person who was explaining it to me either…

Anyway, my point is not about the specific passage, but about how Jesus might have been speaking clearly to his audience and the writers of the Gospel likewise wrote clearly, but over time our ability to clearly understand becomes muddled.
It’s yet another reason to rely on Holy Mother Church.

Peace
James

…also the grammatical accidents of one language differs with others… in Spanish to pull someone’s leg brings to mind an immediate picture of a physical encounter… no such problem if you were to say “tomar del pelo” (which is the equivalent of the meaning inferred by the English term “…your pulling my leg…”) only brings to mind a picture of someone’s hair being pulled!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Your question is one asked by many, why does Jesus make it hard for people to understand the Bible?? Well, I think the right question would, do you really think that the Bible is really hard to understand?? I think if one is committed to understanding something he will understand it. One century ago no one even had a clue that a theory called the relativity developed by Einstein would even come to existence however, today it is taught in Universities and is one of the foundations of modern physics. What I want to say is that it is nice to have a challenge. Remember, you are never alone, today there are countless commentaries on the Bible approved by the church that eradicate any complexity.

I cannot fully agree with this perspective since many “scholars” and “intellectuals” refuse to Believe in God and they use the Bible as a point of reference… sometimes human will and abilities hinder rather than help the individual seeking to know the Truth… when we rely on emperical knowledge we must reject anything that cannot be placed under the microscope or scrutinized by the math/science known at that particular juncture.

When we seek God only with our temporal means and abilities we are as the fabled four blind men that came across the elephant–science, at least from my perspective, is flawed by both its incapacity to factor everything (the known and the unknown) and by the biased minds that present science as having the final word without accepting that everything is difinitive only to the point that it can be proven and there’s no importan element left unknown (ie: the shroud of Turim).

Maran atha!

Angel