Matt 23:9 And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
I believe it to mean don't give Glory and Honor worthy only of God to any man.
Glory and HOnor and Praise to God the Father in Heaven, only.
Glory and HOnor and Praise to God the Father in Heaven, only.
Matthew 23:9 "Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven."
The key word "your" is in most Bible versions including the King James. The use of this word "your" signifies that only the creator, as Father of the spirit -- that which lasts for all eternity -- is the true "Father." All other references to "father" refer to human beings who in one way or another serve as foster fathers. The argument that "dad" or "pa" or "pop" bears a different significance than the word "father" is to be considered as being close minded. If one calls someone "dad" with the notion that dad is his creator, and believes that this is okay because it does not go against the literal interpretation contained in Scripture, then many messages of Jesus must be considered as rendered useless. The spirit is of God the Father. The material body (that which is mortal) has a human father.
It should be noted that there are 1,511 references to father, fathers. etc. in the King James version of Sacred Scripture. Most of these do not refer to God the Father. There is no admonition by Jesus or anyone else that these usages were wrong. When Jesus used the reference your father it would have had little meaning if the basic concept of father was not clearly understood by being in common usage.
The use of the word "father," in regards to priests, only means that a priest acts as a spiritual guide under the authority of God the Father. No one in their right mind thinks that each priest is God the Father or that any human being is their creator. Jesus made this statement to help us focus on our true origins and upon that which has lasting value. This type of message is called a metaphor. It is figurative language used as a method of teaching and not meant to be taken literally. It is a way of getting across a message.
One's human father provides for the needs of this life during growth and also acts as teacher and moral guide for the mind and the spirit. A priest is called father because he is intended to act as a link to spiritual values that otherwise would be without authoritative foundation.
The key word "your" is in most Bible versions including the King James. The use of this word "your" signifies that only the creator, as Father of the spirit -- that which lasts for all eternity -- is the true "Father." All other references to "father" refer to human beings who in one way or another serve as foster fathers. The argument that "dad" or "pa" or "pop" bears a different significance than the word "father" is to be considered as being close minded. If one calls someone "dad" with the notion that dad is his creator, and believes that this is okay because it does not go against the literal interpretation contained in Scripture, then many messages of Jesus must be considered as rendered useless. The spirit is of God the Father. The material body (that which is mortal) has a human father.
It should be noted that there are 1,511 references to father, fathers. etc. in the King James version of Sacred Scripture. Most of these do not refer to God the Father. There is no admonition by Jesus or anyone else that these usages were wrong. When Jesus used the reference your father it would have had little meaning if the basic concept of father was not clearly understood by being in common usage.
The use of the word "father," in regards to priests, only means that a priest acts as a spiritual guide under the authority of God the Father. No one in their right mind thinks that each priest is God the Father or that any human being is their creator. Jesus made this statement to help us focus on our true origins and upon that which has lasting value. This type of message is called a metaphor. It is figurative language used as a method of teaching and not meant to be taken literally. It is a way of getting across a message.
One's human father provides for the needs of this life during growth and also acts as teacher and moral guide for the mind and the spirit. A priest is called father because he is intended to act as a link to spiritual values that otherwise would be without authoritative foundation.
Hi B,
True, there are many references to human "fathers" in the Bible -- but, none, not one single reference to a priest being called father.
There are biological fathers and a spiritual Father. We can have only one of each.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
True, there are many references to human "fathers" in the Bible -- but, none, not one single reference to a priest being called father.
There are biological fathers and a spiritual Father. We can have only one of each.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
Attachments
Images (1)
The verse alone can not be explained. To understand any verse you must read enough to understand;
Who was talking?
Who were they talk to?
Why were they talking to them?
What were they talking about?
What was the outcome or results of the talk?
ONLY When you can answer all these, can you understand and you must understand before you can explain it. You can't answer all these questions from one verse.
Who was talking?
Who were they talk to?
Why were they talking to them?
What were they talking about?
What was the outcome or results of the talk?
ONLY When you can answer all these, can you understand and you must understand before you can explain it. You can't answer all these questions from one verse.
How about this then seadaddy:
Seems to me he was talking about hypocrites.
quote:Matthew 23 (Worldwide English (New Testament))
Matthew 23
1Then Jesus talked to the people and to his disciples.
2He said, `The scribes and Pharisees have taken Moses' place.
3So obey and do everything they tell you to do. But do not do what they do. They say what should be done, but they do it not.
4They make heavy loads and put them on people's backs. But they themselves will not put up even one finger to help carry the loads.
5They do all their work to be seen by people. They wear bigger and bigger boxes with God's word in. And they make wider and wider borders on their gowns.
6They want to sit in the best places at the feasts. They want to have the front seats in the meeting houses.
7They want people to greet them in the market, and to call them "Teacher".
8But people should not call you "Teacher". You have one Teacher. And you are all brothers.
9`Do not call anyone on earth your "Father". You have one Father. He is in heaven.
10People should not call you "Master". You have one Master. He is the Christ.
Seems to me he was talking about hypocrites.
Hi B,
In this passage, Jesus was speaking to the multitude and warning them against the Pharisees who set themselves up as lawmakers and rulers over the people. Jesus tells the people, "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;"
Then, Jesus goes on to tell the people that the only One who is their Father is God in heaven -- and the only One who is their Leader is Christ.
In other words, the Pharisees had built their religious hierarchy and set themselves and their laws above the Law of God -- just as we see in the Vatican where they set themselves and their Traditions above the Word of God.
I believe we can see a clear parallel between the two which can be seen in this Scripture verse.
Just my thoughts.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
In this passage, Jesus was speaking to the multitude and warning them against the Pharisees who set themselves up as lawmakers and rulers over the people. Jesus tells the people, "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;"
Then, Jesus goes on to tell the people that the only One who is their Father is God in heaven -- and the only One who is their Leader is Christ.
In other words, the Pharisees had built their religious hierarchy and set themselves and their laws above the Law of God -- just as we see in the Vatican where they set themselves and their Traditions above the Word of God.
I believe we can see a clear parallel between the two which can be seen in this Scripture verse.
Just my thoughts.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
Attachments
Images (1)
quote:The use of this word "your" signifies that only the creator, as Father of the spirit -- that which lasts for all eternity -- is the true "Father."
I totally agree with that, B50.
If we were to take that verse literally, we shouldn't be calling our Dads "Father"...
I agree that He is telling us that God is the Creator, and to call anyone else the Creator or God the Father is wrong.
And more:
"Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel (1 Corinthians 4:15)."
: "But you know that Timothy has proved himself, because as a son with his father he has served with me in the work of the gospel." (Phil 2:22).
What about this from Romans 4:11, "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them." Paul is referring to Abraham as the "father of all who believe."
"Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel (1 Corinthians 4:15)."
: "But you know that Timothy has proved himself, because as a son with his father he has served with me in the work of the gospel." (Phil 2:22).
What about this from Romans 4:11, "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them." Paul is referring to Abraham as the "father of all who believe."
once again I bring up translations... If we all knew Hebrew and Greek we would understand the Bible a lot better...
I mentioned on another thread that love has different words in other languages, but that word "love" has multiple meanings for us in the English language.
Same was with the word "heavens" from that other thread... and the same is here with "father".
You must study the circumstance of the passage you desire meaning for... unfortunately our English language leaves us short on words. lol
I mentioned on another thread that love has different words in other languages, but that word "love" has multiple meanings for us in the English language.
Same was with the word "heavens" from that other thread... and the same is here with "father".
You must study the circumstance of the passage you desire meaning for... unfortunately our English language leaves us short on words. lol
quote:Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi B,
True, there are many references to human "fathers" in the Bible -- but, none, not one single reference to a priest being called father.
There are biological fathers and a spiritual Father. We can have only one of each.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
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.
I agree.
And this can also be used to discount the theory that Jesus had other siblings.
AND allows the doctrine that Mary was ever-Virgin to remain intact.
And this can also be used to discount the theory that Jesus had other siblings.
AND allows the doctrine that Mary was ever-Virgin to remain intact.
if you take the verse before and after matt 23:9, i think he is talking about Priests.
Matt 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren.
Matt 23:9 And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven.
Matt 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, even the Christ.
Matt 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren.
Matt 23:9 And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven.
Matt 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, even the Christ.
Ancient Hebrew Word Meanings
Priest ~ kohen
By Jeff A. Benner
While the priests of Israel were the religious leaders of the community this is not the meaning of the word kohen. The Hebrew word for the priests of other nations is komer from a root meaning burn and may be in reference to the priests who burn children in the fires of Molech (2 Kings 23:10). The word kohen comes from a root meaning a base such as the base of a column. The koheniym (plural of kohen) are the structure support of the community. It is their responsibility to keep the community standing tall and straight, a sign of righteousness.
Priest ~ kohen
By Jeff A. Benner
While the priests of Israel were the religious leaders of the community this is not the meaning of the word kohen. The Hebrew word for the priests of other nations is komer from a root meaning burn and may be in reference to the priests who burn children in the fires of Molech (2 Kings 23:10). The word kohen comes from a root meaning a base such as the base of a column. The koheniym (plural of kohen) are the structure support of the community. It is their responsibility to keep the community standing tall and straight, a sign of righteousness.
quote:b50m
I want interpret verses for anyone else, it is the responsibility of each to do for themselves.
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).
In his tract 10 Reasons Why I Am Not a Roman Catholic, Fundamentalist anti-Catholic writer Donald Maconaghie quotes this passage as support for his charge that "the papacy is a hoax."
Bill Jackson, another Fundamentalist who runs a full-time anti-Catholic organization, says in his book Christian’s Guide To Roman Catholicism that a "study of Matthew 23:9 reveals that Jesus was talking about being called father as a title of religious superiority . . . [which is] the basis for the [Catholic] hierarchy" (53).
How should Catholics respond to such objections?
The Answer
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).
A Change with the New Testament?
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.
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 g.asping 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.
Spiritual Fatherhood
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.
In his tract 10 Reasons Why I Am Not a Roman Catholic, Fundamentalist anti-Catholic writer Donald Maconaghie quotes this passage as support for his charge that "the papacy is a hoax."
Bill Jackson, another Fundamentalist who runs a full-time anti-Catholic organization, says in his book Christian’s Guide To Roman Catholicism that a "study of Matthew 23:9 reveals that Jesus was talking about being called father as a title of religious superiority . . . [which is] the basis for the [Catholic] hierarchy" (53).
How should Catholics respond to such objections?
The Answer
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).
A Change with the New Testament?
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.
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 g.asping 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.
Spiritual Fatherhood
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.
Hi Kraven,
Did you write this -- or, did you post the writing of another person? Common courtesy, to the original author for his/her writings, is to give the proper credit when using the works of another.
And, common courtesy to your readers is to show both the information about the original writer and the source, i.e., URL link to your source.
However, if this is truly your writing, this is all moot -- and I apologize for bringing it up.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
Did you write this -- or, did you post the writing of another person? Common courtesy, to the original author for his/her writings, is to give the proper credit when using the works of another.
And, common courtesy to your readers is to show both the information about the original writer and the source, i.e., URL link to your source.
However, if this is truly your writing, this is all moot -- and I apologize for bringing it up.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
Attachments
Images (1)
quote:Originally posted by b50m:
Seems to me he was talking about hypocrites.
Hey!! I know some of those.
Kraven, great post- great explanation.
Thank you for posting that.
Thank you for posting that.
quote:Originally posted by vplee123:
Kraven, great post- great explanation.
Thank you for posting that.
Wow, VP!
What a surprise! Kraven plagiarized a Roman Catholic web site -- and you love it. You believe every word to be Holy Writ. Now who would have guessed?
http://www.catholic.com/librar...ll_No_Man_Father.asp
Yet, you deny the sole authority of the Bible. It would seem that your Tradition and Roman Catholic articles have higher authority than the Bible in your mind.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
Bill
Attachments
Images (1)
Bill,
I don't think Kraven was attempting to plagiarizer. He/she was probably focused on the content of the article and forget to add the URL. It's a bit presumptuous of you to just haul off and say he or she is plagiarizing.
Veep,
catholic.com is a really great website, lots of great information.
Kraven,
Could Snoopy's lifeless body be hanging in front of the URL??
I don't think Kraven was attempting to plagiarizer. He/she was probably focused on the content of the article and forget to add the URL. It's a bit presumptuous of you to just haul off and say he or she is plagiarizing.
Veep,
catholic.com is a really great website, lots of great information.
Kraven,
Could Snoopy's lifeless body be hanging in front of the URL??
quote:Veep,
catholic.com is a really great website, lots of great information.
YES! I love that website too. Thank God there are so many great resources available.
They (apologetics) are always the same few areas that fundies and the like attack. I'm thankful that we have a solid and sound foundation. These arguements against the Catholic faith have been around forever, and our answers never change. They get re-hashed every once in a while, but when confronted with Scripture or reasonable explanations, the challenger usually remains quiet. hmmmm.....do you think???
Has Mr.Benadik got all the Pedofiles out of the Catholic Church yet?
Big Al,
C.S. Lewis had at least one insight. He suggested that either Jesus was truly the Son of God or he was insane.
Lewis, to his discredit, chose son o' god.
Still, his premise is the best yet presented.
nsns
C.S. Lewis had at least one insight. He suggested that either Jesus was truly the Son of God or he was insane.
Lewis, to his discredit, chose son o' god.
Still, his premise is the best yet presented.
nsns
I could agree with Catholic theology on this except for one thing...
We don't call our college professor "Father."
We don't call our coach "Father."
I could go on, but you get the point. When one calls a Catholic priest "Father," it is in a religious context, nothing less, and is displeasing to God.
We don't call our college professor "Father."
We don't call our coach "Father."
I could go on, but you get the point. When one calls a Catholic priest "Father," it is in a religious context, nothing less, and is displeasing to God.
quote:Originally posted by Bama Bunny:
Bill,
I don't think Kraven was attempting to plagiarizer. He/she was probably focused on the content of the article and forget to add the URL. It's a bit presumptuous of you to just haul off and say he or she is plagiarizing.
Hi Bunny,
I am not saying the Kraven purposely plagiarized the article. However, if you drive your car over the speed limit because you are distracted -- and the police give you a ticket -- do you think the judge will buy, "Well, judge, I really did not mean to speed. I was just enjoying the scenery so much -- that I did not notice my speed."
The judge will most likely reply, "That is nice the you take the time to smell the roses. But, do not do it while driving your car. That will be a $200 fine."
The same applies to Kraven getting so distracted that he did not remember to credit the original author.
Since most of us do not personally know one another on the Forum -- we can only relate to what we see written. And, what I saw was an article which was copied verbatim -- without crediting the author. That is plagiarism.
I am not trying to throw rocks -- just suggesting that it would be more kosher to credit the author. And, it would make Kraven's post carry more authority if we are given the sources to verify what he has posted.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
Attachments
Images (1)
quote:I could agree with Catholic theology on this except for one thing...
quote:I could agree with Catholic theology on this except for one thing...
We don't call our college professor "Father."
We don't call our coach "Father."
I could go on, but you get the point. When one calls a Catholic priest "Father," it is in a religious context, nothing less, and is displeasing to God.
It's just a title, though.
We call our prof "Professor"
and our PHDs "Doctor"
and our teachers "Teacher"
so our spiritual leaders are "Father". NOT God the Father, but our Father as in taking care of our needs (Remember what Jesus told St. Peter- feed my sheep). That's the verse I like to think of that helps me to understand the role of "Father" as a priest. We are his children, seeking guidance and the priest is a shepherd. It is certainly not to elevate a priest to the level of our Heavenly Father.
I dont see it as a major point of contention, though.
quote:Originally posted by Bill Gray:quote:Originally posted by Bama Bunny:
Bill,
I don't think Kraven was attempting to plagiarizer. He/she was probably focused on the content of the article and forget to add the URL. It's a bit presumptuous of you to just haul off and say he or she is plagiarizing.
Hi Bunny,
I am not saying the Kraven purposely plagiarized the article. However, if you drive your car over the speed limit because you are distracted -- and the police give you a ticket -- do you think the judge will buy, "Well, judge, I really did not mean to speed. I was just enjoying the scenery so much -- that I did not notice my speed."
The judge will most likely reply, "That is nice the you take the time to smell the roses. But, do not do it while driving your car. That will be a $200 fine."
The same applies to Kraven getting so distracted that he did not remember to credit the original author.
Since most of us do not personally know one another on the Forum -- we can only relate to what we see written. And, what I saw was an article which was copied verbatim -- without crediting the author. That is plagiarism.
I am not trying to throw rocks -- just suggesting that it would be more kosher to credit the author. And, it would make Kraven's post carry more authority if we are given the sources to verify what he has posted.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
So Bill, is the only problem you have with Kraven's post is that he/she didn't give credit to the author?
I have looked into this a little more. Since the pharaohs of Jesus time told their citizens to worship them as gods, I think if we make one small word substitution, those passages will be clearer. Since Jesus was stating call no man your 'Heavenly Father", which of course means God, then a simple word change explains a lot.
"Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9).
If we simply change that to:
"Call no man your god on earth, for you have one God, who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9).
I think that is the true meaning. Worship only God, not any man on earth.
"Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9).
If we simply change that to:
"Call no man your god on earth, for you have one God, who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9).
I think that is the true meaning. Worship only God, not any man on earth.
quote:I think that is the true meaning. Worship only God, not any man on earth.
I totally agree with you, B50.
Imagine- to take this literally..lol...how many of us call(ed) our fathers "FATHER" .
The arguement is laughable,really.
Imagine, I'd introduce my parents as my mother and my paternal figure.....lol
quote:Originally posted by vplee123:quote:I think that is the true meaning. Worship only God, not any man on earth.
I totally agree with you, B50.
Imagine- to take this literally..lol...how many of us call(ed) our fathers "FATHER" .
The arguement is laughable,really.
Imagine, I'd introduce my parents as my mother and my paternal figure.....lol
JUST CURIOUS - HOW DO YOU INTRODUCE YOUR "PRIEST"?
Attachments
Images (1)
quote:JUST CURIOUS - HOW DO YOU INTRODUCE YOUR "PRIEST"?
Do you think????
What???
I've made no bones about it. I call my Priest Father____(insert name)
I also call him pastor, teacher, confidante, and friend.
And it's quite apporopriate to do so.
My friends call theirs John.
I believe
I believe Jesus meant: Give no one the status of God the Father,
Except your God the Father who is in Heaven.
Except your God the Father who is in Heaven.