Jesus and Hyperbole

[mt_gooseberry]

When asked why Catholics call priests “Father” even though Jesus commanded, “Call no man ‘Father,’” the response is that Jesus was using hyperbole, which makes sense. But then why do we take Jesus words, “This is my body, this is my blood” literally? How do we know that one is a hyperbole but not the other?

This seems to be a point that could easily be attacked by those arguing against Catholic theology. You can’t just take Him literally and then turned right around and argue that He frequently used hyperboles.

Help me understand this.

 

[Rhuarc]

When asked why Catholics call priests “Father” even though Jesus commanded, “Call no man ‘Father,’” the response is that Jesus was using hyperbole, which makes sense. But then why do we take Jesus words, “This is my body, this is my blood” literally? How do we know that one is a hyperbole but not the other?

This seems to be a point that could easily be attacked by those arguing against Catholic theology. You can’t just take Him literally and then turned right around and argue that He frequently used hyperboles.

Help me understand this.

I am so hungry I could eat an elephant.
You would not serve me elephant to eat.

I broke my leg I need to go to a hospital.
You would drive me to a hospital.

One is a hyperbole the other is not, it is simple. Besides when Jesus said this some people were disgusted, if you look at the original text the words Jesus used were specific when he said EAT. The word used was more of like how an animal eats and gnaws, rather graphic no? We can tell he was being serious by context like this.

 

[TimothyH]

Jesus was using the belief among the Jews that because one was of a certain genealogy - a child of Abraham or a son of David - or simply because one was Jewish, that God loved them more than others or would judge them differently than others as a teaching tool.

*And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God can raise up children to Abraham from these stones. (Matthew 3:9)

For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother. (Matthew 12:50)*

The chief priests, scribes and Pharisees taught that Jews were special just because they were born Jewish. The line “Call no man father” is part of Jesus’ discourse in Matthew 23 where Jesus preaches condemnation on the scribes and the Pharisees who were hypocrites, insisting that other’s behave in ways that they themselves would not, and who thought that just because they were Jews - sons of Abraham - that they were entitled to blessing on earth and entry into heaven upon death.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. (Matthew 23:23)

Remember that Jesus is speaking to Jews. Always remember that the Bible was written by Jews. Jews were very concerned with genealogy because genealogy determined your postion in society, your inehritance, and had many other cultural implications. We have to look at the scriptures through the eyes of a Jew to understand it correctly, and Jesus is using the idea of the Jews being God’s chosen people to teach that it is not your nationality or genealogy which makes you righteous in God’s eyes, but that each one of us would be judged on our own personal merits and judged on how we treated other people.

In Jewish culture, the son was equal to the father, and the sin and guilt of the father was passed to his sons.

Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. (John 8:42-44)

Jesus is teaching less about calling someone a father but who you claim to be a son of? Are you a child of the devil or a child of God?

See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. (1 John 3:1)

-Tim-

 

[Porknpie]

When asked why Catholics call priests “Father” even though Jesus commanded, “Call no man ‘Father,’” the response is that Jesus was using hyperbole, which makes sense. But then why do we take Jesus words, “This is my body, this is my blood” literally? How do we know that one is a hyperbole but not the other?

This seems to be a point that could easily be attacked by those arguing against Catholic theology. You can’t just take Him literally and then turned right around and argue that He frequently used hyperboles.

Help me understand this.

Jesus spoke in a lot of different ways including parables. Being the Good Shepherd, he knew how to teach his flock.

 

[ahs]

How many times is “father” used in Scripture being applied to someone other than God?
biblegateway.com/keyword/index.php?search=father&searchtype=all&version1=49&language1=en&spanbegin=1&spanend=73&resultspp=500&displayas=long&sort=bookorder (If you scroll down to the bottom, you’ll see there are 4 pages of results here…1564 references you can look at…NT references begin in Page 3 of the results.)

The key, as mentioned above, is knowing who wrote and who the audience was. Is God in contradiction when He says, “…honor thy father and thy mother…”? Or was Paul going against Christ when he refers to himself as the “father” of the Gentiles (1 Cor 4:15)?

Focus on the verb, “call”. “Call” no man father. Define “call” as it is used in this passage.

 

[Dorothy]

When asked why Catholics call priests “Father” even though Jesus commanded, “Call no man ‘Father,’” the response is that Jesus was using hyperbole, which makes sense. But then why do we take Jesus words, “This is my body, this is my blood” literally? How do we know that one is a hyperbole but not the other?

This seems to be a point that could easily be attacked by those arguing against Catholic theology. You can’t just take Him literally and then turned right around and argue that He frequently used hyperboles.

Help me understand this.

In the Bread of Life discourse in John 6, Jesus makes it quite clear about Himself being the Bread of Life. This happened before the last supper.

Jesus also gave teaching authority to the Church, and She (the Church) cannot teach error in faith or morals to us, by the power of the Holy Spirit.

In reading the early Church Fathers there is much to be said about the Eucharist being our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[10gr8kids]

In John 6 it says that many of His disciples left because of His teaching. If Jesus was using hyperbole I don’t think He would have left his disciples confused so that they walked away. When Cornelius was confused about Jesus’ teaching about being born again Jesus explained it to him and didn’t leave him confused.

 

[ahs]

In John 6 it says that many of His disciples left because of His teaching. If Jesus was using hyperbole I don’t think He would have left his disciples confused so that they walked away. When Cornelius was confused about Jesus’ teaching about being born again Jesus explained it to him and didn’t leave him confused.

Exactly! The Jews in John 6 understood Jesus to be speaking literally…and they were agast and left Him because of it. He did not correct them for their misinterpretation, or for wrongly taking Him literal. He turned to the Apostles and asked if they were going to also leave.

“OH, but wait!!” will cry some. “Jesus then says that the flesh profits nothing and He speaks in spirit…” Yep…“THE flesh profits nothing…”, not “My Flesh…”. “The flesh” can be found in Scripture a number of times referring to a human way of thinking…trying to understand things according to our own understanding…according to “the flesh”. IF Jesus meant HIS Flesh…then the Incarnation, earthy Life, and Crucifixion were for naught…because He would just have said that His own Flesh profits nothing.

I find it fairly easy to see where Christ speaks in hyperbole or not based on the reaction of His audience…they always seem to know and react accordingly.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

We (the Catholic Church) were there when He said it so we know what He meant.

Ok, well maybe the Church wasn’t quite established at that point in time, but I think you know what I mean. We are not a religion based solely on an interpretation of Scripture, an interpretation which can be twisted to one’s own destruction. No, we are based on what has been handed down to us by Jesus and the Apostles. This includes Scripture and Tradition. Because the Apostles were there and handed down by word of mouth and written word, the Church understands what was hyperbole and what is literal.

Remember that when Jesus spoke in parables, he would often, if not always, explain to the Apostles privately what He meant when He spoke. Well, when it came to the bread of life discourse, He simply asked them (after many disciples had left Him in disbelief) if they were going to leave too. He didn’t sit them down and explain “what He really meant”… that is because He had already said what He really meant. And, of course, we all know Peter’s answer “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” Interestingly, the other ancient Church which dates back to the Apostles, the Orthodox, have the same understanding of the literal meaning of the Eucharist as we do. It is only some 1500 years after Christ ascended to heaven that it began to be misunderstood as symbolic. Now if we just think logically for a second: what makes more sense? That the Apostles misunderstood what Jesus meant… or that the people who came along 1500 years later misunderstood what He meant?

 

[Mystophilus]

When asked why Catholics call priests “Father” even though Jesus commanded, “Call no man ‘Father,’” the response is that Jesus was using hyperbole, which makes sense. But then why do we take Jesus words, “This is my body, this is my blood” literally? How do we know that one is a hyperbole but not the other?

This seems to be a point that could easily be attacked by those arguing against Catholic theology. You can’t just take Him literally and then turned right around and argue that He frequently used hyperboles.

Help me understand this.

Generally speaking, we read comments which people make as being literal unless there is some reason why they cannot be literal. The most pressing reason why His comment cannot be simply literal in this case is that it would then be a direct violation of the fifth commandment, “Honour your father and mother” (see also Jesus’ words in Mark 7:10-13).

So, look at the immediate context:
Mat 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:
Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
Mat 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
Mat 23:5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
Mat 23:6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
Mat 23:7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
Mat 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
Mat 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Mat 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
Mat 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
Mat 23:12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

See also this similar comment:
Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
Mat 20:27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

What He is discussing here is the all-too-human habit of people loving power over others: the scribes and Pharisees of his day were enamoured of their positions of honour, but He warns His disciples neither to be like this themselves nor to encourage one another to be like this. Note, however, that He does talk about people being great and being first (“chief” in the KJV) among believers: He is not saying that everyone is going to be on the same level, that the believers will not have leaders. Instead, He is telling those who must lead his followers to learn to be servant leaders, and to remain humble.

 

[fhansen]

When asked why Catholics call priests “Father” even though Jesus commanded, “Call no man ‘Father,’” the response is that Jesus was using hyperbole, which makes sense. But then why do we take Jesus words, “This is my body, this is my blood” literally? How do we know that one is a hyperbole but not the other?

This seems to be a point that could easily be attacked by those arguing against Catholic theology. You can’t just take Him literally and then turned right around and argue that He frequently used hyperboles.

Help me understand this.

It’s perfectly plausible that one was meant as hyperbole while the other was meant to be taken literally. And this is exactly why we need the Church-she, alone can resolve such questions because she, alone, was given the authority to do so.

 

[TimothyH]

It’s perfectly plausible that one was meant as hyperbole while the other was meant to be taken literally. And this is exactly why we need the Church-she, alone can resolve such questions because she, alone, was given the authority to do so.

It wasn’t hyperbole.

Geneology and nationality were extremely important to the Jews, and punishment for sins of the father often fell to his sons. To call someone a Father meant that you were like your father.

Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. (John 8:42-44)

Not claiming that you were saved or righteous because you were Jewish. The Jewish leadership had killed the prophets sent by God for centuries.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the memorials of the righteous, and you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have joined them in shedding the prophets’ blood.’ Thus you bear witness against yourselves that you are the children of those who murdered the prophets; now fill up what your ancestors measured out! (Matthew 23:39-22)

It is Jesus’ way of teaching that if you think you are righteous because you are a Jew, or because you were a descendant of Abraham, then you would have to accept the punishment of the sins of Abrham, and you would have to accept the punishment for all the sins of all your ancestors.

Jesus is simply teaching that it is better to “Call no man father” and that in his new kingdom we will be judged on our own merits.

-Tim-

 

[fhansen]

It wasn’t hyperbole.

Geneology and nationality were extremely important to the Jews, and punishment for sins of the father often fell to his sons. To call someone a Father meant that you were like your father.

Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. (John 8:42-44)

Not claiming that you were saved or righteous because you were Jewish. The Jewish leadership had killed the prophets sent by God for centuries.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the memorials of the righteous, and you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have joined them in shedding the prophets’ blood.’ Thus you bear witness against yourselves that you are the children of those who murdered the prophets; now fill up what your ancestors measured out! (Matthew 23:39-22)

It is Jesus’ way of teaching that if you think you are righteous because you are a Jew, or because you were a descendant of Abraham, then you would have to accept the punishment of the sins of Abrham, and you would have to accept the punishment for all the sins of all your ancestors.

Jesus is simply teaching that it is better to “Call no man father” and that in his new kingdom we will be judged on our own merits.

-Tim-

Protestants often use the verse to accuse Catholics of breaking Jesus’ commands when we call priests ‘father’. My point was that, taken out of context and apart from the faith as it was handed down to the Church, we often can’t resolve such matters; Scripture, alone, can be an ambiguous source.

 

[Actaeon]

When asked why Catholics call priests “Father” even though Jesus commanded, “Call no man ‘Father,’” the response is that Jesus was using hyperbole, which makes sense. But then why do we take Jesus words, “This is my body, this is my blood” literally? How do we know that one is a hyperbole but not the other?

This seems to be a point that could easily be attacked by those arguing against Catholic theology. You can’t just take Him literally and then turned right around and argue that He frequently used hyperboles.

Help me understand this.

When Jesus tells us to “call no man Father”, it is NOT hyperbole at all. However, we must recognize that ancient languages often use multiple words to describe different senses of words that English doesn’t have multiple words for (example: love… there is caritas, and philial love, as well as romantic love, etc).

When Jesus says “call no man Father”, the original language is a command to call no man ABBA. Abba is a singular honorific a- (from aramaic) combined with the -ba from greek (for father), which basically makes the word Abba not merely a title, but a proper name (singular, and hence why Abba is properly spelled capitolized). Abba is a term which can only apply to God, because it means THE Father (not just “father”).

Why would Jesus mention this? Because at the time, pagan emperors were under the belief that they must be part God to rule over such a vast empire. As a result, they often sought to be worshipped as Abba Caesar. What Jesus says here is that we are not even remotely allowed to pay worshipful homage to men by calling them THE Father (and thus supplanting the role of God the Father, Abba Adonai).

One thing that Jesus words here do not condemn: any use of the title of father, to include father, dad, daddy, papa, etc.

So, understanding that Jesus was not being hyperbolic here, it kinda renders the idea of carrying that argument to communion as hyperbolic moot anyway…

 

[TimothyH]

Protestants often use the verse to accuse Catholics of breaking Jesus’ commands when we call priests ‘father’. My point was that, taken out of context and apart from the faith as it was handed down to the Church, we often can’t resolve such matters; Scripture, alone, can be an ambiguous source.

I understand your point.

My point is that scripture is mostly ambiguous to modern westerners because we havn’t a clue about Jewish culture.

Scripture is a jewish document, and understanding a little about Jewish culture at the time it was written goes a long way toward clearing up many of the misconceptions about what it means, including “Call no man father”. On way for non-Catholics to understand the true meaning of scripture - the Catholic meaning - without going to the magesterium of the Church and other sources which they reject, is to explain the context of the passage in light of Judaism and Hebrew culture at the time the passage in question was written.

My point was that when we understand the Jewish/Hebrew meaning behind what is being said, most of these issues clear themselves up and much of the ambiguity goes away. Once we understand the Jewish context, it becomes clear that dismissing Jesus teaching about calling no man father as hyperbole is not correct. It simply was not hyperbole. Jesus teaching about calling no man Father had a clear message and a Jew in the first century would have understood it.

It does no one any good to dismiss Jesus teaching as hyperbole when it had a very clear and unambiguous meaning to the people who heard him say it.

-Tim-

 

[fhansen]

I understand your point.

My point is that scripture is mostly ambiguous to modern westerners because we havn’t a clue about Jewish culture.

Scripture is a jewish document, and understanding a little about Jewish culture at the time it was written goes a long way toward clearing up many of the misconceptions about what it means, including “Call no man father”. On way for non-Catholics to understand the true meaning of scripture - the Catholic meaning - without going to the magesterium of the Church and other sources which they reject, is to explain the context of the passage in light of Judaism and Hebrew culture at the time the passage in question was written.

My point was that when we understand the Jewish/Hebrew meaning behind what is being said, most of these issues clear themselves up and much of the ambiguity goes away. Once we understand the Jewish context, it becomes clear that dismissing Jesus teaching about calling no man father as hyperbole is not correct. It simply was not hyperbole. Jesus teaching about calling no man Father had a clear message and a Jew in the first century would have understood it.

It does no one any good to dismiss Jesus teaching as hyperbole when it had a very clear and unambiguous meaning to the people who heard him say it.

-Tim-

That was very good and you’re right, anytime we can definitively clear something up without recourse to “becuz the Church says so”, we only help the cause. Unfortunately, many doctrines or practices aren’t so easily cleared up and at some point a person must learn to trust in the teachings of the magisterium if they’re to receive and accept all Christian doctrine as it was handed down.

 

[stevekehl]

I am so hungry I could eat an elephant.
You would not serve me elephant to eat.

I broke my leg I need to go to a hospital.
You would drive me to a hospital.

One is a hyperbole the other is not, it is simple. Besides when Jesus said this some people were disgusted, if you look at the original text the words Jesus used were specific when he said EAT. The word used was more of like how an animal eats and gnaws, rather graphic no? We can tell he was being serious by context like this.

Gnaws sounds like hyperbole to me. And how is call no man Father hyperbole?