Do Not Use the Word FATHER??

[Marymog]

We should not address any Church leader as Father. That is what Jesus was saying. Its not that difficult to understand. Only ONE is your father.

Yes, your biological dad is your father. That's fine. We have fore-fathers as did the Jews. That's fine. But in terms of spirituality... God is the only Father. Isaiah foretold that Jesus is the everlasting Father so calling him father is acceptable.

Paul never called homself father. Not even in 1 Cor 4:15. Properly translated he said, " in Christ Jesus I have begotten you [brought you forth] through the gospel". Hr puts more emphasis on what Jesus and the gospel did than he does on himself.
But he never called himself "father".

No... We aren't to call any man Rabbi either. And if you are going to try to bring up a verse that says otherwise... Be careful!

I hold these views and believe them... But I don't dwell on them. I believe that churches who call their leaders "father" are wrong, but I am more interested in their doctrine... Not what they call themselves.

You only partially quoted 1 Corinthians 4:15. You left out "yet have ye not many fathers:" What is Paul talking about when he refers to "many fathers"?

So you don't think Jesus is demonstrably using hyperbole when he says not to call anyone our father?

Mary

 

[Blueberry]

In Mathew 23:9 Jesus tells us not to call anyone by the name Father...

9“Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven."

How can this be understood if the 5th commandment states:

Honor Your Mother and Your Father

Catholics call priests Father.

Here you could refuse to call a priest "Father" and yet not dishonor your earthy father nor your heavenly Father. Note the capitalization. One is a job description, but the other a title. One that apparently God reserves for Himself.

Now... if your earthly father demanded you call your priest "Father" then, well...

In any case, the 'tie breaker' comes down to honoring God before men.

51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

If we notice what Jesus was telling the crowd around Him, we might understand why this practice does not oppose what Jesus was saying.

1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. 4“They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. 5“But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. 6“They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. 8“But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9“Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10“Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. 11“But the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12“Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.

If we cannot call anyone father,,,according to the above we also cannot call anyone:
Rabbi
Father
Leader

I've seen "Father" also rendered as "Master" and "Lord". In the 'call no man...' category. But it is interesting that you brought this up. One time about 20 years I was watching TBN and a Catholic priest was on with Paul Crouch. And Paul brought this very subject up to the priest about calling [mere] men "Father". The priest replied "What about calling men Master?" Paul seemed baffled, as was I. I called no man "master". But then the priest pointed out that the current use of "Mr." is simply a contraction of the Old English "Master". As in "Master Williams" or "Master Jones" or what have you.

Never heard it rendered "Leader".

And here there is no prohibition from calling someone rabbi. Just accepting [receiving] it. Perhaps no one should accept being called "Rabbi Cohen" while Mr Cohen, er... that Cohen guy, might acceptingly be described as a rabbi.

"Rabbi" is another title that God seems to reserve for himself.

 

[Blueberry]

I hold these views and believe them... But I don't dwell on them. I believe that churches who call their leaders "father" are wrong, but I am more interested in their doctrine... Not what they call themselves.

Same here.

 

[amadeus]

Isn't it a case where the Spirit gives life but the letter kills (the meaning)?

Here is your reference, Dave:

"Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." II Cor 3:5-6

 

[FHII]

You only partially quoted 1 Corinthians 4:15. You left out "yet have ye not many fathers:" What is Paul talking about when he refers to "many fathers"?

I think he meant ye have not many fathers.

So you don't think Jesus is demonstrably using hyperbole when he says not to call anyone our father?

No, I don't think he was using a hyperbole. In 1 Cor 4 Paul used a hyperbole, but Jesus didn't.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Nearly half the uses of "father" in the Acts of the Apostles appear in Stephen's speech in chapter 7. He refers to the ancestors as fathers and once he addresses his audience as "brothers and fathers." Paul addressed a crowd of Jews in the Temple as "brothers and fathers" (Acts 22:1). The title "father" is given to Jewish religious leaders and is also given to Christian religious leaders.

I certainly don't understand the pushback from Protestants about using the word "father" when properly used.

Greetings, Mary.

I think CoreIssue's response in Post #19 defines accurately the sense they were using the words "fathers and brothers" in. The term "Fathers" was used in the sense of "one advanced in years, a senior," whereas brothers likewise similarly meant "those in one's own age group." They were terms of endearment that the Jews used in reference to each other, but not in these instances as ministry titles. The word "fathers" thus essentially meant "elders."

The command in context of Jesus' teaching was clearly to avoid lifting men up in spiritual status above one another, and I see this taking place within Protestantism even more than in Catholicism these days. In some circles the leaders have so many titles that you run out of breath trying to remember them all, "Dr., Reverend, Bishop, Senior Pastor and Apostle, Brother So and So, and his wife, Prophetess, Teacher and Evangelist sister what's her face."

The question is, are priests using the term to elevate themselves above others spiritually? If so then they would be sinning, but if not then they are not breaking any commandment, so far as I can see.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

We are to call no man father because we only have one Father. But as with anything else, it we make it into outward law that must be obeyed rather than of the heart and it's intent, we go backwards.

 

[Dave L]

I don't understand what you mean

Father can mean different things in scripture. Dad, Daddy, Pops, etc. But it can also mean God. So we do not transfer reverence towards God to men calling them father in that mindset.

 

[Dave L]

I believe you're right, but could you explain more?

The pharisees knew what scripture said. But they did not know what it meant. Example; they thought the kingdom was physical as many still do. But Jesus taught it was only spiritual. So the OT literal kingdom icons, temple, David's Throne, etc., were actually symbols for spiritual realities in the New Covenant. Jesus is Israel in the New Covenant symbolized by the people called by his name, Israel, in the Old Covenant.

 

[Episkopos]

It comes down to function as opposed to office. Compared to God we are all as children. We have One Master and all of us are brethren. We can't behave as if God is not in our midst. God gets the glory and honour.

In other religions where a human effort is required...a person can become a "master" having learned techniques that he can teach others.

Not so in Christ. We have come near to God by faith and it is HIS works we are doing...not our own. So then it is Christ in us doing the teaching...not us. He is the Master. We ourselves are just servants and vessels for the Master's use.

 

[GodsGrace]

The pharisees knew what scripture said. But they did not know what it meant. Example; they thought the kingdom was physical as many still do. But Jesus taught it was only spiritual. So the OT literal kingdom icons, temple, David's Throne, etc., were actually symbols for spiritual realities in the New Covenant. Jesus is Israel in the New Covenant symbolized by the people called by his name, Israel, in the Old Covenant.

When Jesus said that we must be born from above to see the Kingdom of God, He meant spiritually --- how could it be otherwise? If THIS is the physical Kingdom of God, now, I'm very disappointed!

Priests are called Father because they feel that their congregation is like their children that need guidance and teaching in the way of the Lord. Not everyone reads the bible...not everyone is independent...I know some gals that won't go to a bible study unless there's a priest there. Personally, I don't find it necessary because I know if I hear something incorrect -- but not everyone does.

 

[GodsGrace]

It comes down to function as opposed to office. Compared to God we are all as children. We have One Master and all of us are brethren. We can't behave as if God is not in our midst. God gets the glory and honour.

In other religions where a human effort is required...a person can become a "master" having learned techniques that he can teach others.

Not so in Christ. We have come near to God by faith and it is HIS works we are doing...not our own. So then it is Christ in us doing the teaching...not us. He is the Master. We ourselves are just servants and vessels for the Master's use.

I agree that we are vessels for the master's use,,,I also find that I've learned much theology from other humans --- things I never would have known.

Not everything can be gleaned from reading the bible...
Some concepts run deep and we need help of those that know more than we do.

 

[Dave L]

When Jesus said that we must be born from above to see the Kingdom of God, He meant spiritually --- how could it be otherwise? If THIS is the physical Kingdom of God, now, I'm very disappointed!

Priests are called Father because they feel that their congregation is like their children that need guidance and teaching in the way of the Lord. Not everyone reads the bible...not everyone is independent...I know some gals that won't go to a bible study unless there's a priest there. Personally, I don't find it necessary because I know if I hear something incorrect -- but not everyone does.

“But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you.” (Luke 11:20) (NET)

 

[Marymog]

Greetings, Mary...........

The question is, are priests using the term to elevate themselves above others spiritually? If so then they would be sinning, but if not then they are not breaking any commandment, so far as I can see.

Hello.

It is your belief that a priest (a Church leader, teacher, elder etc.) is not above others spiritually? And it would be a sin if they were?

How doe 1 Timothy 5:17 fit into your belief?

Mary

 

[Hidden In Him]

Hello.

It is your belief that a priest (a Church leader, teacher, elder etc.) is not above others spiritually? And it would be a sin if they were?

How doe 1 Timothy 5:17 fit into your belief?

Mary

Thanks for the response, and yes, certainly I believe that true leaders are to be regarded as such and honored. But the question is to what extent. The implication in Christ's teaching was that a sense of equality must exist among men in comparison with God, regardless of their position or authority. Elevating some to the place of being go betweens creates a situation where there are middle-men, and this is the type of situation Christ was telling them not to create.

 

[Marymog]

Thanks for the response, and yes, certainly I believe that true leaders are to be regarded as such and honored. But the question is to what extent. The implication in Christ's teaching was that a sense of equality must exist among men in comparison with God, regardless of their position or authority. Elevating some to the place of being go betweens creates a situation where there are middle-men, and this is the type of situation Christ was telling them not to create.

Good question. To what extent......? Scripture doesn't make that clear.

What do you mean by some "being go betweens"?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Thanks for the response, and yes, certainly I believe that true leaders are to be regarded as such and honored. But the question is to what extent. The implication in Christ's teaching was that a sense of equality must exist among men in comparison with God, regardless of their position or authority. Elevating some to the place of being go betweens creates a situation where there are middle-men, and this is the type of situation Christ was telling them not to create.

Hi,

I think I understand your concern but scripture kind of covers some of this already.

How does Matthew 18:17-18, Hebrews 13:17 and John 20:23 fit into your equality must exist among men....regardless of their position or authority.

Mary

 

[Hidden In Him]

Hi,

I think I understand your concern but scripture kind of covers some of this already.

How does Matthew 18:17-18, Hebrews 13:17 and John 20:23 fit into your equality must exist among men....regardless of their position or authority.

Mary

Well, Matthew 18:17-18 is about the disciples exercising judicial authority. This again sets them on a different level of leadership, but doesn't go so far as to make them what I was referring to as middlemen, such that the rest of the church need not go to God themselves but merely go to them. See, I had a friend who is a pastor and unfortunately went off the deep end on this very thing. He started becoming very controlling, and developed as his motto for ministry "Walking with God, walking with you." I didn't fully realize it at the time, but what he meant was, "I will walk with God, hear what He needs me to tell you to do, and then I will walk with you and explain whatever you need to know. You don't have to go to God yourself, all you have to do is listen to me." It's a dangerous thing to do such a thing in my opinion. He was replacing the role of the Holy Spirit in other people's lives, which is a damnable thing to do, IMO.

Hebrews 13:17 is about obedience to those in leadership. But again this is not going so far as to make them the go between between believers and God. There was still an autonomy to the way New Testament ministry operated, such that when they came together "each one had a teaching, had a revelation, had a psalm, had a tongue, had an interpretation."

John 20:23 is sort of a repeat of the teaching in Matthew 18:17-18.

 

[Enoch111]

Elevating some to the place of being go betweens creates a situation where there are middle-men, and this is the type of situation Christ was telling them not to create.

To put it plainly Christ rejected the concept of clergy and laity, and He would call any human priesthood (other than the Royal Priesthood of believers) an abomination after the end of the Levitical priesthood.

When He told the apostles "all ye are brethren" it would extend to all Christians at all times -- no clerical titles, just specific ministries given to specific brethren. Today's clerical titles reflect those at his time, when the Jewish clergy held themselves above the laity and then some Christian clergy adopted Nicolaitanism (Gk nikos = conqueror, laos = people), and started lording it over Christians.

Rabbi = Reverend, Right Reverend
Father = Father (Holy Father), Monsigneur (Monsignor), etc.
Master = Doctor

Even though evangelical and fundamental Christians should know better, they resort to these titles which started in Israel, went into the Catholic Church, continued in the Protestant churches, and now are common throughout Christendom.

 

[Hidden In Him]

To put it plainly Christ rejected the concept of clergy and laity, and He would call any human priesthood (other than the Royal Priesthood of believers) an abomination after the end of the Levitical priesthood.

When He told the apostles "all ye are brethren" it would extend to all Christians at all times -- no clerical titles, just specific ministries given to specific brethren. Today's clerical titles reflect those at his time, when the Jewish clergy held themselves above the laity

Yes, I would say this is about correct. I have a different view on who the Nicolatians were, but as for this, absolutely. Leaving it to a select group to determine right from wrong doctrine IMO just increasingly limits the amount of input going into the process and eliminates a large portion of the body of Christ from the process, and this was clearly not how NT Christianity was operating when things began (1 Corinthians 12-14).