"You shall not call anyone Father"

[Janet_S]

I found this on a non-Catholic Christian site. The man who wrote this is a Nazarene. Here’s an excerpt:

crivoice.org/titlefather.html

The instructions are given both “to the crowds and to his disciples”:

Matt 23:8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all students. 23:9 And call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father–the one in heaven. 23:10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Messiah. 23:11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 23:12 All who exalt themselves will be humbled, and all who humble themselves will be exalted.

The point of this instruction is not the legalism of forbidding the use of titles, but the last two verses that focus on humility and servanthood. In the very next section of this chapter, Jesus launches into one of his most stinging condemnations of self-serving religion, of which the pompous claim of titles (or perhaps today the rejection of titles) is but one symptom.

Note that on one occasion (Jn 10:17-18) Jesus rejects the title “Good Teacher,” most likely because in that context it is associated with the kind of status that he is here rejecting. Yet on other occasions, Jesus frequently accepts the titles “Teacher” and “Rabbi” (Mt 8:19, Mk 12:14, 19, Lk 21:7, Jn 20:16, etc.). On one notable occasion, he follows that acceptance with one of the most profound lessons on humility in Scripture, the footwashing:

John 13:13 You call me Teacher and Lord–and you are right, for that is what I am. 13:14 So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. 13:15 For I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you.

It seems that this dimension of “example” as opposed to status is what Jesus sees as a proper use of “Teacher.”

I think a modern analogy might be a politically shrewd denominational church leader who has no graduate education but has been given an honorary doctorate, and yet who publicly insists on being called “doctor.” I think that is probably the kind of thing Jesus had in mind in Matthew 23. And the same would apply to Pastor, Father, or any other title that is claimed for self-glorification. Likewise, the claim that Jesus forbids all titles while placing oneself in a more righteous role by claiming the same rejection, saying or implying that those who do use titles are not biblical or spiritual, falls into a similar category of self-glorification. The functional result is a great deal of pride in how humble they are because they do not take titles. Either example is about status, which Jesus’ teachings in Matthew 23 aims to reject.

So, by the principle of John 13, I am quite comfortable in referring to “Mother Theresa” (and perhaps even “Saint Theresa” soon), not because she had the title, but because she lived the example of Jesus.

 

[djrakowski]

Yes, yes.

I already know the “if it’s not dogma it is not worthy for me to even consider” argument.

It is one of the worst arguments, and very arbitrary, but it is popular.

Ineed, it would be a bad argument if I had actually done what you’ve claimed. I never said “if it’s not dogma it is not worthy for me to even consider.” What I actually said was this:

The evidence you supplied from the footnotes of a Catholic Bible are the opinions of its editors, and not dogma that binds the conscience of Catholics. Whether they’re bishops makes absolutely no difference as they’re not speaking in a position that binds our behavior.

That’s a far cry from saying that what they’ve written “is not worthy for me even to consider.” All I’ve said is that what they’ve written is an opinion - one among several, actually - and isn’t to be imposed upon Catholics in a dogmatic manner, which is what you’ve attempted to do here.

It would give you more credibility if you were to actually interact with what we’ve said, rather than your twisting of what we’ve said.

Other Catholic Bibles have either no footnote, or a different one, associated with the disputed passage. Why have you chosen to place primacy on the notes in the NAB?

The note on Matthew 23:9 in my Oxford Revised Standard - Catholic Edition, as well as my Ignatius RSV-2nd Catholic Edition, says the following:

“i.e., ‘Do not use the title without reference to God’s universal fatherhood.’ He cannot mean that the title is never to be used by a son to his father.”

The note on Matthew 23:9-10 in my Baronius Douay-Rheims (Challoner Revision) says the following:

“Call none your father - Neither be ye called masters, &c. The meaning is, that our Father in heaven is incomparably more to be regarded, than any father upon earth: and no master to be followed, who would lead us away from Christ. But this does not hinder but that we are by the law of God to have a due respect both for our parents and spiritual fathers (1 Cor. 4.15,) and for our masters and teachers.”

The Haydock Commentary on Matthew 23:9-10 says the following:

“Ver. 9-10. Call none your father … Neither be ye called masters, &c. The meaning is, that our Father in heaven is incomparably more to be regarded, than any father upon earth: and no master is to be followed, who would lead us away from Christ. But this does not hinder but that we are by the law of God to have a due respect both for our parents and spiritual fathers, (1 Corinthians iv. 15,) and for our masters and teachers. (Challoner) — This name was a title of dignity: the presidents of the assembly of twenty-three judges where so called; the second judge of the sanhedrim, &c. (Bible de Vence) — Nothing is here forbidden but the contentious divisions, and self-assumed authority, of such as make themselves leaders and favourers of schisms and sects; as Donatus, Arius, Luther, Calvin, and innumerable other of very modern date. But by no means the title of father, attributed by the faith, piety, and confidence of good people, to their directors; for, St. Paul tells the Corinthians, that he is their only spiritual Father:* If you have 10,000 instructors in Christ, yet not many Fathers*. (1 Corinthians iv. 15.)”

Among these English-language translations, the NAB footnote is in the minority. Why have you placed primary importance on the footnotes of the NAB in exclusion of these other English-language translations?

 

[ltravis]

Atemi, by not accepting the literal reading that no man, even birth fathers, can be called “Father”, you open the door to the logical plausibility of the Catholic position. By not accepting the literal, you admit that the passage “does not really mean exactly what it says”. It may seem logically clear to you that, when restricted to spiritual leaders, the text is straightforward. However, the fact is you have already implied the text does not mean exactly what it says. Therefore, we cannot just accept your position at face value. We must look at the validity of the context claimed and the plausibility of the position.

That said, I would like to explore your position. Assume you are dead-on correct. Now, why would God feel the need to prohibit fatherhood titles of spiritual leaders? Specifically, what is the inherent evil in addressing a priest as Father as Catholics do: out of humble respect with the sober understanding God is the supreme Father of all? What moral law is broken here? What do you understand the reasoning to be behind the need to not call spiritual leaders “Father”? So far I have seen no reason demanding obedience to your position other than “because God said so”. But again, even that is questionable because, taken out of the literal, we don’t know *what *God was really saying (I could claim we shouldn’t call birth dads “Father” because - well because “God said so” (taken literally). Now, “because God said so” would certainly be enough reason to obey, but I submit that Catholics have better reasons for their understanding than just “because God said so”. The understanding is that God saw the Jewish leaders assuming glory in their positions in a way that made them the supreme authorities, expecting glory by their own virtue, rather than from the grace of God. Pax gave an even more detailed **and thus far unrefuted **explanation that this was an issue of unity at that particular time and place. Either of these explanations is much richer than simply “because God said so”. This is one thing I truly love about Catholicism. For every issue, the Church always has very good reasoning behind the way it interprets God’s revelation.

Please consider this, now and long after this thread’s time has come to an end. You certainly don’t agree, but I think you are missing so much richness here, and that would be a shame for someone as scholarly and with such passion as you have. Seriously.

LT

 

[Atemi]

Jesus says “call no man father.”

Are the following references violations of the instruction?

Acts 7:2
And Stephen said: "Brethren and fathers, hear me. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia…

Acts 4:24-25
And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, "Sovereign Lord, who didst make the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, who by the mouth of our father David,

Acts 22:1
“Brethren and fathers, hear the defense which I now make before you.”

Romans 4:12
…and likewise the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but also follow the example of the faith which our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

James 2:25
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?

None of these are violations as none of these men are addressing these folks with the title of “Father.”

Now it seems pretty obvious that the apostles referred to Abraham and others as father.

There is no foul there.

It is also clear that Stephen clearly called some people father. This common reference to Abraham is an expression that the Jews and early Christians would use in a very direct sense toward Abraham. This is evidenced quite clearly in the dialogue between the rich man and Abraham. When the rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus to speak to his brothers he addresses Abraham two different times saying, “Father Abraham”[see Luke 16:24-30]. Jesus himself relates this story and he does not indicate that this was improper.

Some important distinctions:

1. The Jews regularly referred to Abraham as “Father Abraham.” Lazarus was a Jew.
2. Abraham did not take this title upon himself to be addressed by as the Pharisees did.
3. This term of endearment was given long after Abraham died.
4. Christ told His disciples that He expected many different things from them than He got from the Jews before them.

To either hold Lazarus or Abraham to a standard that Christ only set for His disciples at a particular moment in time is bad form and uncalled for.

Likewise, the other references quoted above show that the apostles were still calling Abraham father and the Jewish way of addressing Abraham was unchanged from the way it was explicitly used in the exchange between rich man and Abraham. Abraham has a title as “the father of us all”

That is not a title, but the reality of who he is.

Now, granted, we indeed can make it a title, but Christ was not addressing Abraham in Matt 23, but His disciples.

Atemi, if your understanding and strict interpretation of the passage were correct, then none of this would be in scripture.

Not so at all.

Actually, the results of this reasonable interpretation is that NONE of the apostles or any of Jesus’ disciples all through 260+ chapters of the NT are ever addressed as “Father,” “Master,” or “Rabbi.”

And if you look at the record of the early church, the very same pattern continues.

I would consider it a mistake to think this is merely some crazy coincidence.

They were simply called Paul, Peter, John, or Matthew.

Amazing, isn’t it?

Why is the apostolic witness and example so difficult to follow?

…

 

[Techno2000]

What do you call a really,really,really Good Chess Player… (A Grand really,really,really Good Chess Player ) ?

 

[Milliardo]

None of these are violations as none of these men are addressing these folks with the title of “Father.”

By each post, your position grows weaker and weaker. Now you wouldn’t offer much of an explanation except for this excuse.

Some important distinctions:

1. The Jews regularly referred to Abraham as “Father Abraham.” Lazarus was a Jew.

It is still a title–again, we shall repeat for this discussion, Abraham was given the title as father of all nations; thus his title as Father Abraham. Again, by your own criteria, this is a violation, yet you say now it isn’t? I will repeat: your position grows weaker each time.

1. Abraham did not take this title upon himself to be addressed by as the Pharisees did.

Not the point; the point is the title is still there; now you admit it’s a title. It’s used in Jesus’ time. Jesus knows it. He used it Himself. By your own notion, Jesus is in violation of His own words.

To either hold Lazarus or Abraham to a standard that Christ only set for His disciples at a particular moment in time is bad form and uncalled for.

Incredible to even assume that Jesus would not hold His own Disciples to the standard of Abraham, nor Abraham to the standard of the Disciples. We might as well say that Abraham is not an example of a worthy follower of God, by this thinking.

That is not a title, but the reality of who he is.

You admitted above it is a title, then backtrack? It seems you cannot even distinguish what a title is, or you simply avoid the obvious because of the implications it will place on your position.

See, the examples given here and in previous pages only show that Jesus and His followers used the title; they were not averse to its use. Knowing the context of the passage, by reading it in its entirety instead of focusing on a particular verse, will give you its true meaning.

Having said that, I am still interested how you address Jewish clergy and your doctors–do you use their titles?

 

[Enter]

Poor Paul, I guess he got it wrong too…

Paul wasn’t perfect either. He didn’t understand how wrong people would take his use of describing himself as one giving birth to their belief in Jesus, by calling himself their father. Though he never called another man his father.

 

[Techno2000]

Paul wasn’t perfect either. He didn’t understand how wrong people would take his use of describing himself as one giving birth to their belief in Jesus, by calling himself their father. Though he never called another man his father.

And you know that, Because you followed him around 24\7 ?

 

[Enter]

And you know that, Because you followed him around 24\7 ?

If it were to be allowed, the Holy Spirit would have had it placed in the Word of God.

 

[djrakowski]

If it were to be allowed, the Holy Spirit would have had it placed in the Word of God.

Where in the Bible does it say that everything a Christian is permitted to do must be written in the Bible?

Does your church have Sunday school? That’s not in the Bible.

Are there Bibles in your church? The Bible doesn’t say churches must have copies of the Bible available.

Do the pastors of your church perform weddings inside your church’s building? The Bible doesn’t specify where weddings must take place, or who must be present in order for them to be performed.

John 21:25 (NASB) says: “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.”

The Bible doesn’t contain a complete record of every word spoken and deed committed by Jesus and His followers. Arguments from silence are hardly convincing.

 

[Techno2000]

If it were to be allowed, the Holy Spirit would have had it placed in the Word of God.

I don’t see
the word Trinity in the Bible.

 

[djrakowski]

I don’t see the word Trinity in the Bible.

:yup:

There’s lots of things churches and Christians do on which the Bible is silent.

 

[Enter]

Where in the Bible does it say that everything a Christian is permitted to do must be written in the Bible?

Does your church have Sunday school? That’s not in the Bible.

Are there Bibles in your church? The Bible doesn’t say churches must have copies of the Bible available.

Do the pastors of your church perform weddings inside your church’s building? The Bible doesn’t specify where weddings must take place, or who must be present in order for them to be performed.

John 21:25 (NASB) says: “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.”

The Bible doesn’t contain a complete record of every word spoken and deed committed by Jesus and His followers. Arguments from silence are hardly convincing.

If anything contradicts the Word of God it is wrong. Jesus told us: (Matthew 23:8-9) “You, however must not allow yourselves to be called Rabbi, since you have only one Master, and you are all brothers. You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven.”

 

[Milliardo]

If anything contradicts the Word of God it is wrong. Jesus told us: (Matthew 23:8-9) “You, however must not allow yourselves to be called Rabbi, since you have only one Master, and you are all brothers. You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven.”

Backread; we’ve dealt with this for 15 pages already. It would help to review the whole thread first since this is the premise of the whole thread.

 

[djrakowski]

If anything contradicts the Word of God it is wrong.

But earlier you said: “If it were to be allowed, the Holy Spirit would have had it placed in the Word of God.”

That’s quite different from “If anything contradicts the Word of God it is wrong.”

So, does it have to be spelled out in scripture to be allowed, or does it simply not have to *contradict *scripture (or at least your understanding thereof)?

Jesus told us: (Matthew 23:8-9) “You, however must not allow yourselves to be called Rabbi, since you have only one Master, and you are all brothers. You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven.”

We’ve already gone over the faulty logic of picking this verse out of context. If you’re to read this completely literally, you’ll stop calling your biological father ‘father.’

This is really quite easy… the principle applies to those seeking inordinate honor with the title, as the context of the rest of the chapter makes abundantly clear.

Catholics know that they’re not supplanting the Fatherhood of God by calling their priests ‘Father,’ so the objection as you and others have worded it doesn’t apply.

 

[djrakowski]

Backread; we’ve dealt with this for 15 pages already. It would help to review the whole thread first since this is the premise of the whole thread.

Indeed… I think this thread has run its course. There are basically two sides to this argument. Now we’re just going 'round and 'round, saying exactly the same things over and over again. Neither side is going to be moved.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Good point. Thread closed.