DeoOmnisGloria.com

Agree. Glad you said that.

joe,
i like this. now what Paul was saying is that he laid the groundwork (planted the seed of the Word in Corinth), not Apollos and we all know the parable of the sower, plus read 2 Corinthians 9, it's nice too. i'm not against you calling priests father, sometimes we call our pastor daddy. he adminsters the seed planting (God's Word) at our church 2Timothy 4 style and he is truly an indescribable gift. he is truly a shepard of the flock that God has entrusted him with. so like husbands and wives we are called fathers because we plant seeds.

that's peace,
Paul

Can someone please get back to me about this? Can someone give me the practical application of this verse for TODAY? Is it no longer relevant? If it is not an exhortation to realize that, first and foremost, one's relationship is with God the Father, and Jesus the Teacher (and thus don't address others with this title), then what is it for? The defense of calling individuals "Father" seems to imply the verse no longer is meant to teach us anything.

Anyhow, I am curious here. A problem when I try to study and reconcile this verse (and its context), I end up with innovative explainations, like "of course, they were first generation Christians, so thus it makes perfect sense that they wouldn't call anyone else father or teacher, because that is who these people were. Future generations would have other Christians as their spiritual parents". And I thought maybe there was a congregational issue involving this.

Anyhow, can someone PLEASE email me regarding this?

- Richard Hutnik (richardhutnik@hotmail.com)

Richard,

The verse is definitely still applicable. Compare with the spot where Jesus tells the man who called Him "good teacher", "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." Is Jesus really saying that He is not good? Of course not. He is admonishing the speaker to refrain from empty, vainglorious, and flattering titles. "Good teacher" and "father" were two such common titles. They were used to address a respected person in a flattering way to grab them by the ego. They elevate the individual to a level of superiority over others. Jesus is teaching that no individual is superior to others, and that only God is superior to all.

So what about the Pope, Mary, etc.? This can be understood by considering the relationship between a husband and wife. The husband is definitely not superior to the wife. He is, however, the head of the wife. That is, he occupies a role that is above the wife. Nonetheless, both are equally necessary parts of the marriage and equally valuable human beings. The same is true of Mary, the Pope, etc. The roles that they occupy (especially that of Mary) are unique and highly significant. However, in terms of their value as individuals, they are no more valuable than you or I. God loves us all equally. (I believe this is the teaching of the Church.)

Personally, I do see the problem Jesus was addressing even in the Church today. We do have a tendency to idolize certain people. And I will go out on a limb here by saying that in my opinion many Catholics place Mary on a level that she ought not be placed. Mary is and was no less or more human than any of us. She simply enjoyed a supremely unique role with the Trinity that has never been (nor ever will be) shared by any other human. The same could be said of the Pope, Peter, Paul, etc. and so on. Protestants are really no less guilty of this when they place the latest preaching guru (Rick Warren, Chuck Smith, James Dobson, Billy Graham, etc.) on a pedestal. In short, I definitely see the applicability of Jesus' point today. The important point is to remember that Jesus was not really taking issue with the words themselves (else no one could call their own dad "father"), but rather the manner in which they were used.

In Christ,
Dave

I differ with you on this matter. I believe the titles you named (Master, Abba, and Teacher) are Holy titles, supported in Mt 19:19 and Mk 10:17, whereas the word father as used in Mt 9:21 and Lk 9:59 is an earthly title. I refer to the man who fathered me as my father, but that title doesn't represent anything more than that he fathered me. In Mt 23:9 Jesus is telling us not to give any man on Earth the HOLY title. Even though His admonishishing was toward one set of people, I think you'll agree that His words in general are directed at all believers, and are as applicable today to ALL of us. And even though Paul calls himself "Father" in 1 Cor 4:14, there is no evidence that anyone ELSE ever referred to him by that title, or that he ever stated he should be called that. In fact, in 1 Pet 2:9 Peter, the so-called "first Pope" said God's chosen people are ALL priests. This is again stated by John in Rev 5:9,10.

Ron,
Keep reading - you'll see that we answer all of your comments on this site. There's actually lots of evidence that others referred to St. Paul as "Father," but it's not in the Bible. I'm not sure why it isn't enough that he referred to himself in that way! We aren't giving priests a "heavenly" title, but an earthly one. They are our spiritual fathers, as Paul clearly stated.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

I have no doubts that you have answers to all my comments. As I've said in other posts, I believe the word of God is the final authority. I believe that everything God wanted us to know and do is written between Gen 1:1 and Rev 22:21. Anything that is written outside of those pages is man's take on things, and while it is good to read such materials for knowledge, our spiritual edification and instruction come from the Bible. The Holy Spirit guides us in truth and reveals God's truths to us through His inspired word. Because you have read in other places that Paul was referred to as Father doesn't mean it was right. I'm a very simple man when it comes to God's word. Jesus Himself said the words not to call any man father...that's good enough for me.

Sorry Jay, I was away for a few days, but I wanted to make an obsevation on your post of July 11 that I neglected. You say you don't give priests a "heavenly" title, but an earthly one because they are your spiritual fathers. (By the way, the Pope is your spiritual father too, and he's referred to as the "Holy Father"...I'm not sure if you're aware of it or not, but that title is only used one time in the entire Bible, referring to God) Calling your biological father "father" is an earthly title, isn't it? I'm assuming your answer is yes, so I'll pose the next question; how can they BOTH be earthly titles? They both don't mean the same thing. Your church is splitting hairs on an issue Jesus was clear on. Regardless of the rationalization, Jesus said not to do it. I'd rather just obey God than to make excuses as to why not obeying is really obeying. If I don't call a priest "father", I don't believe God will question me about it when I get to Heaven. If it was okay to do it, He might say "You know what, I didn't mind it, Ron". But, since the words not to do it came out of Jesus' mouth Himself, God incarnate, I'd rather NOT do it so I don't have to worry about whether or not I'll have to answer for it later. I'm not going to allow sinful men to tell me that I can do something that God in the flesh said not to. That verse of scripture is pretty plain. It doesn't need to be picked apart until we find the loophole that allows us to disobey God.

Ron,
I think you're misunderstanding the point of that verse: this isn't a literal command from Jesus, He's trying to teach us something.

Remember, in the same verse we are told not to call anyone "teacher" as well. Do you really think it's a sin to call someone a teacher?

Jesus was pointing out where all fatherhood comes from. He wasn't passing along a literal commandment. Thank God we have the Catholic Church (the pillar and bulwark of Truth) to clarify on verses just like these!

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

First let me say I don't see in Matthew where Jesus uses the word "teacher". And as I stated in my July 11 post, there are distinct differences in the way the titles he mentioned are used. No, I don't think it's a sin to call someone a teacher. However, I do see a problem with master or father, because Jesus said not to use them, and those words are used to refer to God. That's where they become a problem. I can refer to my father as father, because I'm not assigning a holy meaning to the title. As I said before, that's where the difference lies, in my humble opinion. Obviously, when you refer to a priest as father, it's not an earthly meaning, because unless he's your biological father, it makes no sense. Your biological father is named father....that's an "earthly" title. You said priests are your spiritual fathers...that denotes a "spiritual" title. I believe that's exactly why Jesus said what he said. And I disagree that he didn't mean it literally. He said it literally. When His words were meant to teach, He usually spoke in parables. I may be mistaken, so please explain further how this was not meant literally. And I'll tell you in advance that if your answer cannot be reconciled with God's Word, I will consider it invalid.

Ron,
I'm not sure what translation you are using, but Matthew 23:8 (the verse before) says "teacher" and the verse after says "master."

So you believe that Paul was sinning when he suggested he was our spiritual father (1 Cor 4:15)?

According to your interpretation, Paul was completely wrong, so Corinthians shouldn't be considered infallible, correct? Remember, Paul was a priest (actually a bishop) at that time.

It's interesting to me that you want to consider that verse literally, but try to ignore other verses which are much more serious like John 6:53, where Jesus says "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

Remember, if your translation is correct, then Paul (who wrote a majority of the New Testament) was wrong. How do you reconcile this?

God bless,
Jay

Ron and Rick's comments were very interesting, and quite true regarding using the titles "Master and Father". I grew up Catholic and had no problem using these titles. As a matter of fact, I too, wanted to have people call me this. It elevated me in my estimation and gave me feelings of import. However, after growing up and reading the Bible, I began to have problems with these titles as the system was becoming that of the "Nicolaitans" and putting clergy over the "Lay" people. However, the Catholics are not the only ones installing this system. It appears that all of our churches are doing this. Many of them start out well meaning and wanting to study the Bible and grow in their relationship with God. Then they make themselves "Pastors" or other names to "Lord it over" the "Commoners". Relatively, we should be calling each others "Servants" or "Slaves" as that is our position in this world, no?

As a note, it appeared that Paul would ascribe to himself the work he was doing was the same as the Father did with Jesus. And whenever someone accepted Christ thru Paul's teaching he would become a "father" to him. This is what I believe that you, Jay, may be referring to in how the Catholics use it. However, it was Paul's intimate relationship that he had that gave him the "right" to use it. As I mostly recall, Paul referred to himself as "Chief Sinner".

Jay,

I looked in both the KJV and the Douay-Rheims for the word "teacher". It's not in either one.

I don't ignore Jn 6:53. Taken on it's own it would seem to be a literal comment. However, since the Bible speaks against canibalism, I highly doubt it was meant literally. Read Jn 6:35 and also Jn 6:48-51 and 6:53 (6:54 in the Douay-Rheims) you can see that Jesus is speaking metaphorically. He's telling us to feed off the truth of His words. Do you really think that Jesus was telling the Disciples to eat his actual body and drink his actual blood?

Ron,
You'll have to let me know what those versions say.

If you are correct about John 6, then why does Jesus let all of His followers leave at the end? It's clear that they understood it the way Catholics always have (and all Christians did until the 1,500's) - they believed Jesus was speaking literally (and with good reason). So they all left Him. In Scripture, Jesus typically corrects His followers when they misunderstand Him, but here He doesn't. Why? Maybe they did understand Him correctly?

By the way, each time Jesus uses the word "eat" in the passage, He gets more literal. At the end, the word is best translated as "gnaw my flesh" rather than "eat my flesh." And what was the punishment for cannibalism? You should look into it.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

A friend of mine has the NKJV and in that version it has the word teacher.

Look at Jn 6:63. His WORDS are life...they are spiritual food. Verse 57 (As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me {consumes His words}, EVEN HE SHALL LIVE BY ME) relates to verse 49 (Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.). This is why I believe Jesus was speaking metaphorically.

i grew up catholic and my mom started calling the priest father and i thought it was her real father..lol i got so confused and especially with the whole nun thing too they want people to call them sister
i could never get my self to call that priest father
i would just say hey you!! or like mr.priest

the priests were robes trying to imitate jesus
its kinda creepy

so to get to my point jesus dont want you to call no man father
u call the guy that slept with your mom dad or pop or popa
and call the priest.. priest or sir
anything but FATHER b/c GOD IS OUR ONLY FATHER!!!

Messanger,
The priesthood was designed by God, so you'll have to take up your claims with Him. However, I hope you did read the post: in the Bible St. Paul refers to himself as the spiritual father of his flock (he was a Bishop). Did he make an error?

God bless,
Jay

When Christ said, ''And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven,''to me He meant it in a way by telling us not to put any man higher than God. Therefore,it is very confusing & hard to explain to Protestants. My answer to this would be that we as Catholics call our priests ''father''as of being fathers to the Roman Catholic Church. However, us Catholics do not call our priests ''father''as of saying,''our father'' to them. The priest is there to take the place of Christ on earth. He isn't ''Our Father'', he's our father of the Church.
Erica Edwards.

Post a comment