Rabbi, Father, Teacher?

[drfuss]

Matthew 23:7-10 “They love to be greeted in the marketplace and to have men call them ‘Rabbi’. But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi’, for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father’, for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called ‘teacher’, for you have but one Teacher, the Christ.”

Jesus was talking to His disciples about the pride of the Pharisees. He specifically said not to call each other by ‘Rabbi’, ‘Father’, of ‘Teacher’. Yet the RCC have addressed their priest as ‘Father’ for centuries. Isn’t this in direct violation of scripture?

I believe Jesus is only talking about addressing each other in the first person, not referring to people in the third person such as: Apostle Paul, Father John Doe, or Rabbi John Doe.

The RCC has taught layman to address their priest as ‘Father’ for centuries. Have the RCC laymen been violating scripture all these years? Should the RCC correct their teaching?

Perhaps someone can justify the RCC teachings in this area.

 

[gekko]

why would anyone want to justify a cult's teachings about what they call their leaders?

 

[drfuss]

why would anyone want to justify a cult's teachings about what they call their leaders?

Cult? I don't look on the RCC as a cult. Anyway, anytime a church appears to knowingly violate scripture, I think the explanation would be interesting. It may be something I had not thought of.

 

[mojoala]

Call No Man "Father"?

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).

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).

 

[mojoala]

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.

 

[mojoala]

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 grasping 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.

 

[mojoala]

The Apostles Show the Way

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.

 

[mojoala]

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.

 

[drfuss]

My orginial post included the following:

"Matthew 23:7-10 “They love to be greeted in the marketplace and to have men call them ‘Rabbi’. But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi’, for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father’, for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called ‘teacher’, for you have but one Teacher, the Christ.”
Jesus was talking to His disciples about the pride of the Pharisees. He specifically said not to call each other by ‘Rabbi’, ‘Father’, of ‘Teacher’. Yet the RCC have addressed their priest as ‘Father’ for centuries. Isn’t this in direct violation of scripture?
I believe Jesus is only talking about addressing each other in the first person, not referring to people in the third person such as: Apostle Paul, Father John Doe, or Rabbi John Doe.
The RCC has taught layman to address their priest as ‘Father’ for centuries. Have the RCC laymen been violating scripture all these years? Should the RCC correct their teaching?"

Majoala, thank you for responding.

You only addressed calling someone Father in the third person. Jesus was talking about how Christians address other Christians in the first person. The idea was that on a one to one basis, Christians are not to address each other with titles that elevate one Christian over an other Christian, i.e. "and you are all brothers".

IMHO, the best point you made was Paul calling other Christians his children implying that he was their father. Had they called Paul "Father" while talking directly to him, that would have violated Jesus teaching.

I know of no N.T. scripture where one Christian addresses another Christian as "Father".

 

[mojoala]

We don't know what they called Paul.

If it says call no man father, then you can't call yourself father either, which Paul did do.

Jesus say call no one Teacher/Rabbi either but we have the disciples calling him Rabbi/teacher.

Joh 1:38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?

Joh 1:49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

Joh 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

Joh 3:26 And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.

Joh 6:25 And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?

We are called to be teachers but we can't be called teachers? So Jesus meant something other than what most protestants claim.

1Co 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

1Ti 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

Paul is calling himself a teacher here.

1Ti 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

What is meant by Matthew 23?

This is one of those passages in Scripture where it's sometimes easier to discover what Christ did not mean than what He meant. We can rule out the idea that He meant literally not to call human beings "father," because we have so many examples of the apostles and even the Lord himself doing exactly that.

In Acts 7:2, we see the young deacon Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, addressing the very same men whom Christ denounced in Matthew 23 as "brethren and fathers". Throughout his sililoquy to the Sanhedrin, Stephen repeatedly refers to various men as "father".

Not only was the Holy Spirit inspiring Stephen to utter these words, but the Holy Spirit later inspired Luke to record them in the Book of Acts.

If Jesus Christ intended us to understand His words literally "call no man....father", then how do you explain the fact that the Holy Spirit, the Third Perosn of the Blessed Trinity, in Acts 7, violates what Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, said not to do? Clearly, since God is not the author of confusion, the only solution is to recognize that Jesus did not mean what you think He meant.

Paul echoes Stephen in Acts 22:1 when he addresses the Jewish leaders saying, "Brethren and ftahter, here the defense which I now make before you.". Why would Paul do such a thing if he knew -- as he most certainly would have to have known -- that Christ had literally forbidden that?

Finally, here's one additional point for you and all those who argue against the RCC practice of calling priests "father" to ponder. Remember what else the Lord said in Matthew 23: Call no one "teacher" and call no one "master" If non-Catholics who object to Catholics calling priests "father" are doctors, they are, by their own logic, violating this passage, for the word "doctor" is simply Latin word for teacher. Similarly, if you have a master's degree, you're out of luck. Better tear that up diploma if you intend to persist in thinking Catholics are wrong for calling priests "father".

 

[drfuss]

Quote:
"Jesus say call no one Teacher/Rabbi either but we have the disciples calling him Rabbi/teacher.

Joh 1:38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?

Joh 1:49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

Joh 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

Joh 3:26 And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.

Joh 6:25 And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither"


Of course they called him Rabbi and Teacher. He is Christ and not just one of the Christians. I don't understand what your point is.

If Jesus would have called them Rabbi or Teacher, then I would understand your point.

 

[mojoala]

disregard that. I was off in la la land when i pasted that.

 

[mojoala]

BUT TAKE THIS TO HEART:

What is meant by Matthew 23?

This is one of those passages in Scripture where it's sometimes easier to discover what Christ did not mean than what He meant. We can rule out the idea that He meant literally not to call human beings "father," because we have so many examples of the apostles and even the Lord himself doing exactly that.

In Acts 7:2, we see the young deacon Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, addressing the very same men whom Christ denounced in Matthew 23 as "brethren and fathers". Throughout his sililoquy to the Sanhedrin, Stephen repeatedly refers to various men as "father".

Not only was the Holy Spirit inspiring Stephen to utter these words, but the Holy Spirit later inspired Luke to record them in the Book of Acts.

If Jesus Christ intended us to understand His words literally "call no man....father", then how do you explain the fact that the Holy Spirit, the Third Perosn of the Blessed Trinity, in Acts 7, violates what Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, said not to do? Clearly, since God is not the author of confusion, the only solution is to recognize that Jesus did not mean what you think He meant.

Paul echoes Stephen in Acts 22:1 when he addresses the Jewish leaders saying, "Brethren and ftahter, here the defense which I now make before you.". Why would Paul do such a thing if he knew -- as he most certainly would have to have known -- that Christ had literally forbidden that?

Finally, here's one additional point for you and all those who argue against the RCC practice of calling priests "father" to ponder. Remember what else the Lord said in Matthew 23: Call no one "teacher" and call no one "master" If non-Catholics who object to Catholics calling priests "father" are doctors, they are, by their own logic, violating this passage, for the word "doctor" is simply Latin word for teacher. Similarly, if you have a master's degree, you're out of luck. Better tear that up diploma if you intend to persist in thinking Catholics are wrong for calling priests "father".

 

[drfuss]

Quote:
"We are called to be teachers but we can't be called teachers? So Jesus meant something other than what most protestants claim.

1Co 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

1Ti 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

Paul is calling himself a teacher here.

1Ti 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity."


These have nothing to do with Christians calling each other "Teacher" while addressing each other. It only deals with talking about those who are teachers. Jesus did not say don't be teachers, He said don't address each other with elevated titles such as Rabbi, Teacher or Master because we are all brothers.

Talking about teachers is not applicable to Matt. 23:7-10

 

[drfuss]

Quote:
"This is one of those passages in Scripture where it's sometimes easier to discover what Christ did not mean than what He meant. We can rule out the idea that He meant literally not to call human beings "father," because we have so many examples of the apostles and even the Lord himself doing exactly that.

In Acts 7:2, we see the young deacon Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, addressing the very same men whom Christ denounced in Matthew 23 as "brethren and fathers". Throughout his sililoquy to the Sanhedrin, Stephen repeatedly refers to various men as "father".

Not only was the Holy Spirit inspiring Stephen to utter these words, but the Holy Spirit later inspired Luke to record them in the Book of Acts.

If Jesus Christ intended us to understand His words literally "call no man....father", then how do you explain the fact that the Holy Spirit, the Third Perosn of the Blessed Trinity, in Acts 7, violates what Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, said not to do? Clearly, since God is not the author of confusion, the only solution is to recognize that Jesus did not mean what you think He meant.

Paul echoes Stephen in Acts 22:1 when he addresses the Jewish leaders saying, "Brethren and ftahter, here the defense which I now make before you.". Why would Paul do such a thing if he knew -- as he most certainly would have to have known -- that Christ had literally forbidden that?

Finally, here's one additional point for you and all those who argue against the RCC practice of calling priests "father" to ponder. Remember what else the Lord said in Matthew 23: Call no one "teacher" and call no one "master" If non-Catholics who object to Catholics calling priests "father" are doctors, they are, by their own logic, violating this passage, for the word "doctor" is simply Latin word for teacher. Similarly, if you have a master's degree, you're out of luck. Better tear that up diploma if you intend to persist in thinking Catholics are wrong for calling priests "father"."


Paul and Stephen were not addressing other Christians in Acts 7 & 22. They were addressing the council (who Christ denounced) and it was probably customary to address the council that way. This has nothing to do with Matt. 23:7-10 which only addresses talking directly to other Christians.

Concerning calling people Doctor, Matt. 23:7-10 addresses a Christian talking directly to another Christian using an elevated title setting him above other Christians. Jesus said we are all brothers. Calling someone a title (such as Doctor) that is not related to Him being a Christian is not applicable here.

BTW, I think protestants do the same type of thing when they address ministers and call them Pastor or Reverend setting them above other Christians. So it is not just the RCC. I mentioned the RCC because the word Father is in the scripture. So I am not picking on the RCC.

 

[Eric B]

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.

That's exactly what tends to happen in those churches that call their leaders "fathers" (and if not a cult of one person, then a whole hierarchy of them, at least). This is what Jesus was getting at, and of course, it excluded natural fathers, and perhaps loose usage in the third person, for distant spiritual predecessors.

I would agree that those teachers among us who like to highlight the title "doctor" before their name (as a religious title) should be careful with that. Many often do it in an almost bragging way, like "look at me, I'm all that". And some also point out that titles like "Reverent" are only for God. And when something like "teacher" is used, it is as a generic label, not a title by which they are addressed.

 

[drfuss]

That's exactly what tends to happen in those churches that call their leaders "fathers" (and if not a cult of one person, then a whole hierarchy of them, at least). This is what Jesus was getting at, and of course, it excluded natural fathers, and perhaps loose usage in the third person, for distant spiritual predecessors.
I would agree that those teachers among us who like to highlight the title "doctor" before their name (as a religious title) should be careful with that. Many often do it in an almost bragging way, like "look at me, I'm all that". And some also point out that titles like "Reverent" are only for God. And when something like "teacher" is used, it is as a generic label, not a title by which they are addressed.

I agree. When a pastor projects himself above everyone else, it can lead to Pastor worship by some and resentment by others.

In 1982, we joined a church where the elderly pastor was addressed as Brother "Smith". The elderly pastor retired and the new pastor taught the congregation to call him pastor by continually, in his sermons, referring to people calling him "pastor". Within a few years, the people in the church all call him pastor. It was obvious that he wanted to be called pastor. IMO, he had an ego problem due to his questionable background. For some reason he saw no problem with violating Matt. 23:7-10.

Many people left that church (including us) due to his dictorial policies, his acceptance of immorality within the church, etc.

In the church we have attended for the last 14 years, most people call the pastor by his first name. Our pastor preaches the word and is well respected throughout the church.

 

[Eliyahu]

The RCC has taught layman to address their priest as ‘Father’ for centuries. Have the RCC laymen been violating scripture all these years? Should the RCC correct their teaching?

Perhaps someone can justify the RCC teachings in this area.

Yes, they are wrong and should correct it!

Everyone in Jesus Christ is Priest as we read 1 Pet 2:5-9

Everyone in Christ should be called Brother or Sister. No other title was accepted by Mat 23:8-11

RCC is distorting many teachings of the Bible by human theories and by deriving new theories which are paradoxical.

Peter called Paul as Brother ( 2 Pet 3:15) Paul called Timothy, Titus simply Brother. There is no title called " Father". Even Pastor in Ephesians 4:11 should read Sheperd.

Human beings are so much eager to deviate from the commandments of God, all the time they try to find out how to betray God !, every moment they do so!! in slick and tricky way!
RCC is full of such tricks!

 

[Eliyahu]

We don't know what they called Paul.

If it says call no man father, then you can't call yourself father either, which Paul did do.

Jesus say call no one Teacher/Rabbi either but we have the disciples calling him Rabbi/teacher.

Joh 1:38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?

Joh 1:49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

Joh 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

Joh 3:26 And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.

Joh 6:25 And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?

We are called to be teachers but we can't be called teachers? So Jesus meant something other than what most protestants claim.

1Co 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

1Ti 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

Paul is calling himself a teacher here.

1Ti 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

What is meant by Matthew 23?

Only Jesus Christ deserves Rabbi or Teacher( Mt 23:8), and therefore John 1:38, 1:49, 3:2, 3:26, 6:25 are correct.

1 Cor 12:28-29, Ephesians 4:11 are talking about the Gift of Christ given thru Holy Spirit, and therefore those verses are not talking about the Title at all !
1 Ti 1:7 is talking about the False Prophets!
1 Ti 2:7 is mentioning Paul's assignment, not the title, which was a preacher and teacher for the gentiles.

Catholic minded peopel are very much blinded in interpretting the Bible, which makes them miserable all the time!!

Have you ever dared to call the Father of RCC " Brother" ?

Try it! you will find how many inches he will jump up !

 

[LeBuick]

Why worry about this when they consider the Pope to be on the same level as Jesus?