Hi Emily.
Are you there with us?
Yes.
Where are you listening from, Emily?
I'm listening from West Virginia this evening.
Alright, very good.
Well, welcome.
Your question for Jimmy.
My question is: I'm wondering what the Church's stance is on Matthew 23:9, about calling no
man "father" but God.
Well, the Church doesn't have at teaching on this passage, just like it doesn't have
a teaching on most passages.
Down through history, priests have been called a number of different things in different
cultures, and certainly in recent times it's become customary to use the term "father"
for a priest.
And that does raise a question of "Well then, how do we understand what Jesus is saying
here in Matthew 23 when he says to "call no man Father"?
He also says not to use titles like "Rabbi" and "Master," but it's pretty clear from a
few things that Jesus here is using what's called hyperbole.
Hyperbole is exaggeration to make a point.
We're not to regard anyone as our ultimate teacher except for God.
We're not to regard anyone as our ultimate master except for God.
We're not to regard anyone as our ultimate father except for God.
So that's what Jesus' fundamental point is.
How do we know that he's using hyperbole, though?
Well, God doesn't have a problem with telling the truth.
I think you would agree with that, right, Cy?
Yeah, being Truth.
Yeah.
So consequently...there are people on earth who are clearly our fathers—namely, our
biological fathers.
I mean, that's the truth.
So God doesn't have a problem with us referring to our biological fathers as fathers.
Similarly, there are people here on Earth who are clearly our teachers.
You know, you're in school, you've got a teacher.
You could call that person a teacher.
God doesn't have a problem with that, it's the truth.
In some societies, you have masters who are genuinely, truthfully somebody's master.
God doesn't have a problem with acknowledging that.
So God doesn't have a problem with acknowledging, when it's true, that a person has a given
role.
And that shows us that Jesus, in this passage—like in other passages—is using hyperbole.
He's exaggerating to make a point; the point being that we should not confuse the kind
of teacher that God is, or the kind of master that God is, or the kind of father that God
is, with any other kind.
Can we be more specific, though, about the applicability of the title "father" to religious
ministers?
We can, because if you read in the New Testament, you'll see a variety of passages where the
authors of the New Testament apply this "fatherhood" language to themselves.
And so you have, for example, Paul talking to Timothy about how "You are my son in the
faith."
He talks to the Corinthians about how "I am your father in the faith," meaning he was
the one that converted them.
John, in his epistles, talks to his readers as "my little children," implying that he's
their spiritual father, given his role in the churches that he's writing to.
So we see the authors of the New Testament themselves, who certainly knew Jesus' teachings,
and who are writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit—which protects them from
error—we find them using this father metaphor for themselves, precisely as religious figures.
'Cause they're not the biological father of these people.
And so that shows us that it is legitimate to apply the term "father" to religious figures
in this kind of way, and that's just additional evidence showing that Jesus was using hyperbole,
because then the people who best understood his teaching and were inspired by the Holy
Spirit turn around and start using the same fatherhood metaphor.
Now Emily, does that address what you were looking for?
Yes, thank you.