You can't read scripture. Jesus was not talking literally.
Matt. 23:9 – Jesus says, “call no man father.” But Protestants use this verse in an attempt to prove that it is wrong for Catholics to call priests “father.” This is an example of “eisegesis” (imposing one’s views upon a passage) as opposed to “exegesis” (drawing out the meaning of the passage from its context). In this verse, Jesus was discouraging His followers from elevating the scribes and Pharisees to the titles of “fathers” and “rabbis” because they were hypocrites. Jesus warns us not to elevate anyone to the level of our heavenly Father. (you completely miss the point)
Matt. 23:8 – in this teaching, Jesus also says not to call anyone teacher or rabbi as well. But don’t Protestants call their teachers “teacher?” What about this commandment of Jesus? When Protestants say “call no man father,” they must also argue that we cannot call any man teacher either.
Let's recap together;
Matthew 23:1
Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
That is who He is speaking to.. and it is about...
2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
You say hypocrisy, bit it is what they do is to avoid too.
4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
So does a Catholic priest avoid this? Yes, that is right. The Reformers and Protestants have not exactly pruned themselves from everything Catholic.
Now for how we address others. Is it purely about avoiding calling any one by a title if they are hypocritical? He did also infer abut how we want to be addressed too.
7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
BTW, I do not see "teacher" as being a title to avoid as listed per your version.
Anyway, it is about how we serve Him for why those titles of Rabbi, Father, and Master is to be avoided.
11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
So no. It cannot be as you say for then how can anyone call Peter "Father" when Paul had to rebuke him in Galatians 2:11-14 for behaving as a Jew separating himself from the Gentile believers like that. Peter's hypocrisy would have removed said title then and yet it did not happen because he was never called "father".
Judges 17:10; 18:19 – priesthood and fatherhood have always been identified together. Fatherhood literally means “communicating one’s nature,” and just as biological fathers communicate their nature to their children, so do spiritual fathers communicate the nature of God to us, their children, through (hopefully) teaching and example.
O.T. references are why they were calling priests rabbi and fathers and masters then in Jesus's days. Jesus was teaching the conditions for the New Covenant.
Eph. 3:14-15 – every family in heaven and on earth is named from the “Father.” We are fathers in the Father.
You added that last part. The reference does not infer that. If that was true, then no one is a child.
Acts 7:2; 22:1,1 John 2:13 – elders of the Church are called “fathers.” Therefore, we should ask the question, “Why don’t Protestants call their pastors “father?” (because they don't go by scripture as they claim)
Addressing fathers of families is not addressing them as "Fathers" as men by that title occupying chief ruling places in the churches.
1 Cor. 4:15 – Paul writes, “I became your father in Christ Jesus.” (there is no way around it)
1 Corinthians 4:14 I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. 15 For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. 16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. 17 For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.
Did Paul address those who had instructed him as "Father"? No. Using the position in being a father to the flock as an "example" and not as a ruler is found wanting by you because that would mean there are not to be sons but fathers as well in following his example, but they are not because they are still learning to mature in Christ. That by no means justify calling any one "Father".
1 Cor. 4:17 – Paul calls Bishop Timothy a beloved and faithful “child” in the Lord.
Pointing out Timothy as a young believer in the Lord is not exalting Paul in being called "Father"" by him.
2 Cor. 12:14 – Paul describes his role as parent over his “children” the Corinthians.
2 Corinthians 12:11 I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you:
for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing. 12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. 13 For what is it wherein ye were inferior to other churches, except it be that I myself was not burdensome to you? forgive me this wrong.
14 Behold, the third time I am ready to come to you; and I will not be burdensome to you: for I seek not yours but you: for the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children. 15 And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved. 16 But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile. 17 Did I make a gain of you by any of them whom I sent unto you? 18 I desired Titus, and with him I sent a brother. Did Titus make a gain of you? walked we not in the same spirit? walked we not in the same steps? 19 Again, think ye that we excuse ourselves unto you? we speak before God in Christ: but we do all things, dearly beloved, for your edifying.
It reads to me that Paul consider him nothing and does not wish to burden them, but spend and be spent for their edification. So verse 14 is really about Paul providing for those that follow him; and not the other way around. He still seek to lead by being an example and a servant rather than a ruler with authority when the only authority there is, is the Word of God; Sola Scriptura.
Phil. 2:22 – Paul calls Timothy’s service to him as a son serves a “father.”
Philippians 2:20 For I have no man likeminded, who will naturally care for your state. 21 For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's. 22 But ye know the proof of him, that, as a son with the father, he hath served with me in the gospel. 23 Him therefore I hope to send presently, so soon as I shall see how it will go with me. 24 But I trust in the Lord that I also myself shall come shortly.
Verse 22 is symbolic for assuring the man Paul sends will be like him that cares for their state. Since the son is representing Paul, does that mean they are to address Timothy as Father for being more mature in the Lord than they? No.
1 Thess. 2:11- Paul compares the Church elders’ ministry to the people like a father with his children.
1 Tim. 1:2,18; 2 Tim. 1:2-3 – Paul calls Timothy his true “child” in the faith and his son.
Titus 1:4 – Paul calls Titus his true “child” in a common faith. Priests are our spiritual fathers in the family of God.
Philemon 10 – Paul says he has become the “father” of Onesimus.
Heb. 12:7,9 – emphasizes our earthly “fathers.” But these are not just biological but also spiritual (the priests of the Church).
1 Peter 5:13 – Peter refers to himself as father by calling Mark his “son.”
Thus, your eisegesis of Matt. 23:9 falls apart.
Citing how he will relate to any young believers is not citing Paul is to be called "Father" nor how young believers are to call those that watch over them as the flock in seeking their edification, "Father".
Indeed, it would be hard not to see anyone as a ruler when addressing them by those titles of Rabbi, Father, or Master. It would be hard for those addressed as such not to become rulers rather than examples to the flock.
