Does Matthew 23:9 contradict the practice of calling priests 'father'? Context of Matthew 23:9 In Matthew 23 Jesus rebukes the scribes and Pharisees for hypocrisy. The immediate literary unit (vv. 1-12) targets ostentatious titles that inflate personal prestige. Verse 9 reads: “And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.” Exegesis of the Verse The imperative “do not call” is present-active-imperative, denoting an ongoing, habitual avoidance of attributing ultimate paternal authority. The parallel prohibitions in v. 8 (“Rabbi”) and v. 10 (“Instructor/Teacher”) show the issue is self-aggrandizing titles, not every literal or spiritual use of the words. Scriptural Use of the Term “Father” 1. Biological: “Honor your father and mother” (Exodus 20:12; Ephesians 6:2). 2. Ancestral: “Father Abraham” (Luke 16:24). 3. Spiritual mentorship: “For in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.” (1 Corinthians 4:15) 4. Pastoral: “Timothy, my true child in the faith” (1 Timothy 1:2). Since the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to call himself a “father” in a spiritual sense, Matthew 23:9 cannot be an absolute prohibition of the term. Rabbinic and First-Century Background First-century rabbis encouraged disciples to exalt their teachers: “Let the honor due your father be as the honor of your teacher, and the honor of your teacher as the honor of Heaven” (m. Avot 4:12). Jesus confronts this cultural inflation of hierarchy, redirecting ultimate honor to God. Apostolic Practice and Early Church Usage Ignatius of Antioch (c. A.D. 107) calls Bishops “fathers” while simultaneously exalting God as the one Father (Letter to the Magnesians 3). This post-apostolic proximity shows the early Church, under immediate successors of the apostles, did not read Matthew 23:9 as forbidding the pastoral title. Theological Implication: Paternity vs. Authority Jesus’ contrast is vertical: earthly titles vs. heavenly sovereignty. Earthly “fathers” serve derivatively; only the heavenly Father is autonomous, unoriginated, and the final source of authority (James 1:17). Harmonization with the Fifth Commandment If Jesus literally disallowed the word “father,” honoring one’s earthly father would be impossible, contradicting Exodus 20:12. Because Scripture is self-consistent (John 10:35), Matthew 23:9 must be limited to forbidding self-elevating usage. Distinction Between Biological, Spiritual, and Ultimate Fatherhood • Biological: origin and nurture (Hebrews 12:9). • Spiritual/Pastoral: discipleship and guidance (1 Thessalonians 2:11). • Ultimate: Creator-Redeemer (Malachi 2:10). Matthew 23:9 targets confusion of the latter with the former two. Pastoral Application: Titles Within the Body of Christ Scripture models humility: leaders are “servants” (Matthew 23:11), “shepherds” (1 Peter 5:2), yet may legitimately be called “elder” (presbyteros) or “overseer” (episkopos). “Father” as a pastoral designation is permissible when it points beyond itself to God and avoids clerical elitism. Historical Practice in Post-Apostolic Church The Didache (c. A.D. 50-70) speaks of “teachers” and “prophets” guiding the flock (Didache 13-15). From the third century onward, desert monastics were universally called “Abba” (father). The development was organic, not innovative, rooted in spiritual mentorship language present in the NT. Does Matthew 23:9 Prohibit the Title “Father” for Priests? No. The verse forbids adopting honorifics that usurp God’s primacy or foster pride. A priest addressed as “father” in recognition of spiritual caregiving does not violate the text, provided the community understands God alone as the ultimate Father. Counter-Arguments and Responses Argument: Jesus gives an absolute command. Response: The apostles themselves violate it if absolute; inspiration precludes self-contradiction. Therefore the command is qualified by context. Argument: Early Church innovations corrupted original practice. Response: Documentary continuity from NT epistles to sub-apostolic fathers shows consistent use of spiritual paternity without controversy. Comparative Analysis with Titles like “Teacher” and “Rabbi” “Teacher” (didaskalos) is applied to Jesus (Matthew 8:19) and Christian instructors (Ephesians 4:11). Paul calls himself a “teacher of the Gentiles” (2 Timothy 1:11). Again, the prohibition in Matthew 23 addresses the prideful abuse of status, not the vocabulary itself. Practical Guidelines for Believers 1. Use titles that honor function while attributing ultimate authority to God. 2. Leaders must model servanthood (John 13:14-15). 3. Congregations must avoid personality cults (1 Corinthians 3:4-7). 4. Test traditions by Scripture; if a title breeds arrogance, dispense with it. Conclusion Matthew 23:9 condemns pretentious appropriation of paternal authority that eclipses God, not the respectful recognition of spiritual fathers. Scripture itself sanctions metaphorical fatherhood within the Church, and early Christian practice corroborates this interpretation. There is, therefore, no contradiction between Matthew 23:9 and the practice of addressing priests or mentors as “father,” provided the term is employed humbly and doxologically. |
    |