MATTHEW 23:9 CALL NO MAN FATHER

In aswering the question as to why Catholic priests are called “father” despite Jesus' apparent teaching to the contrary, William Saunders in the Arlington Catholic Herald gives several reasons. One, of course, is to cite the longstanding tradition in the church of doing so. But for those of use who would prefer a more biblical approach to the question, he offers the following:

    1. The context of that verse is that “Jesus was addressing the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees...for not providing a good example...Basically the scribes and the Pharisees had forgotten that they were called to serve the Lord and those entrusted to their care with humility and a generous heart.”

    2. Jesus himself used the title “father” in two of his parables: that of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) and the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32). “One has to wonder: if Jesus prohibited the use of the title 'father,' why does He instruct the people with a parable in which characters us the title? To do so seems contradictory and actually misleading to the audience.”

    3. Paul called himself by this title in I Corinthians 4:14-17.

It is fairly easy to pick holes in these three arguments. Thus,

    1. Saunders is correct in saying that Jesus was attacking the hypocrisy of the spiritual leaders of the day and their lack of humility. But one specific way in which that proud nature showed up was in their love of honorific titles such as rabbi or teacher. In the small home Bible study that I used to lead, one of the members always greeted me by calling me “Teach.” It was a very casual form of address, but I admit that even it caused me to momentarily feel a sense of pride creeping in. It is because of this universal temptation to which all church leaders are prone that Jesus instructs his followers that they are not to use any such honorary titles at all. Saunders basically argues that it is alright to use the title “Father” for someone like a priest as long as that person maintains a humble attitude. But that is not at all the lesson that Jesus is giving.

    2. Regarding the Prodigal Son Parable, Saunders hauls out an age-old argument. If he is so concerned to stress the proper context of Matthew 23:9, it is amazing that he does not see that Jesus was saying nothing whatsoever about biological relationships there. He was concerned strictly with spiritual titles and the appropriate spiritual relationships we are to have with other believers. Thus, to cite a parable in which a biological son calls his biological sire his father to prove his point is a complete non sequitur.

The story of Lazarus and the Rich Man at least does not involve any direct father-son relationships. In this parable, the Rich Man is the only one who calls Abraham by the title “Father.” So we should first point out the obvious – the Rich Man is someone being portrayed by Christ as one whom we should certainly not emulate. If Jesus were responsible for the actions of all the characters in his parables, then that would mean, among other things, that Jesus was misleading his audience into owning and mistreating slaves, defrauding their employers, killing representatives of landowners, concealing the true value of a field in order to get it at a lower price, etc., etc.

Perhaps even more to the point is a closer examination of the Rich Man's use of the designation “Father Abraham.” This was in fact a common usage among Jews who rightly treated this patriarch as the biological progenitor of the whole Jewish race. And that is the context in which the Rich Man appeals to him. But the Jews such as this fictional character began to rely on this biological connection while neglecting any spiritual connection with Abraham and his faith. That is a recurring theme in the NT sounded by John the Baptist in Matthew 2:7-9 (and parallels); Paul in Romans 4; 9:7 and Galatians 3:6-7,29; the author of Hebrews in 7:5; and James in 2:21-23 of his letter.

    3. Saunders' final argument is an interesting and seemingly compelling one. Paul calls himself the spiritual father of the believers at Corinth. Here I cannot argue that Paul is not one to emulate, and obviously there is no biological connection between him and his audience. So why does Paul say, “I am not writing to shame you, but to admonish you as my dear children. For though you might have 10,000 teachers in Christ, you do not have many fathers. Actually, in Christ Jesus I became your only father through the gospel.” (I Corinthians 4:14-15)

To adequately address this argument, I will rely on comments from others:

    “...he only wishes to emphasize that he alone is the father of the church.” (Grosheide)

    “By establishing the new church in a pagan city the apostle became the father of the believers; he was the only one who could actually claim that relation to them.” (Orr and Walther)

    “The people in his churches are his 'children' because they are his converts, and because they are his children in this sense, he can exhort and encourage, or chide, or appeal, as here...he not only reminds them that he is their father – because he gave them birth 'in Christ Jesus through the gospel' – but also emphasizes that his relationship to them is unique in this regard – he is their only father.” (Fee)

    “His motivation was love like that of a father for his children. Many ministers might address, advise, and instruct the Corinthians, but only one that planted the seed that brought them life.” (Lowery)

    And most pertinently, “But did not Paul speak of himself as his converts' father, since, as he said, he had become their 'father in Christ Jesus through the gospel (I Cor 4:15 RSV)? He did, but he was using a spiritual analogy, not claiming a title.” (Bruce)

And claiming a title was precisely what Jesus was forbidding in Matthew 23:9. Note that Paul never instructs them to call him “Father Paul.” He would have been horrified if they had done so, as evidenced by his extreme displeasure upon learning that some of them were claiming to “belong to Paul” (I Corinthians 1:12-15). And even if they had called him by that title, the fact is that only he had the exclusive right to that designation even if they did have many teachers. And that was due to the fact that only he had founded the church and brought the gospel to them for the first time. Luke and Matthew have shorter parallels to this saying that are missing all the details found in Matthew 23:9.

In closing his article, Saunders chose an interesting biblical passage to cite in the context of priests' celibacy. He says that Jesus' teaching in Mark 10:29-30 about giving up things such as children comes true for a priest who is then free "to be a generous father for his spiritual children."

As I read this familiar passage again, I was suddenly struck with something that I had never noticed before. It can best be seen if the verse is diagrammed as below:

“...there is no one who has left

                  house or brothers or   sisters or mother or father or children or fields

                                                                                         for my sake and for the sake of the gospel

                                                                                    who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age

                 houses,   brothers and  sisters,   mothers             and children and fields....”

Note the one item missing above. Christians are indeed blessed by having an extended spiritual family here on earth WITH THE NOTABLE ABSENCE OF ANY SPIRITUAL FATHERS. Lane and Grassmick both agree that the omission of “fathers” is not accidental but purposeful. That is because our new spiritual family has only one head to it, God Himself.