Why does Jesus forbid his hearers from calling a man “father”?

Explanation:

Jesus tells his disciples not to call anyone on earth their father, because they have one Father who is in heaven. Who are the fathers on earth that Jesus refers to? Most likely, the Jews referred to certain prestigious men with the title father. We can deduce this for two reasons. First, we know from 2 Kings that Elisha referred to Elijah as father. In 2 Kings 2:12, as Elijah is taken away from earth, Elisha cries, My Father, my father… referring to Elijah.  Second, we learn from the New Testament that the title father was still in use, for when Stephen makes his speech to the Jews concerning the history of Israel and the identity of Jesus, he addresses the crowd as his brothers and fathers (Acts 7:2). Similarly, when Paul addresses the crowd in Jerusalem, he refers to those present as brothers and fathers (Acts 22:1). Thus, the term father is clearly used as a title of honour and respect.⁴

Counterargument:

According to this argument, the term father was an honourary title for people still living, but this is likely not what Jesus has in mind. For when he says, Call no man your father, the verb to call is in the active voice. On the other hand, in the previous verse when Jesus says, You are not to be called rabbi, the verb to call is in the passive voice.⁵ This difference in voice can be explained by the notion that Jesus is telling the disciples not to let themselves be called rabbi, and neither are they to call the men of the past, father. In other words, the active voice suggests that the title father refers to men of the past and was not used as an honourary title for men in the present.⁶ If this is the case, the texts from Acts are not to the point, because Stephen and Paul are likely referring to the fact that there were many biological fathers present, and not using father as an honorary title.

Response to counterargument:

This counterargument will not do. That is because we not only have biblical support from Acts that the Jews would use father as an honourary title, but we also have records that list the names of rabbis with the title Abba preceding their names. And Abba is Hebrew for Father.⁷ Further, there is indication from 2 Maccabees and Josephus that Jewish leaders were sometimes referred to as father.⁸ Of course, the active voice of the verb to call is consistent with the notion that no one should call another contemporary father, even as a sign of respect. And while Stephen and Paul do call their contemporaries father, they likely only do this in order to win over their audience. In their own hearts and minds, they would have held that they have only one Father who is in heaven.

Explanation:

When Jesus says that the disciples are not to call any man their father, we can deduce from the immediate context that he has a title of honour in mind. He is exposing the pride of the scribes and Pharisees and warning the disciples not to participate in this behaviour. He says that the scribes and Pharisees preach but do not practice (Matthew 23:3). Rather than follow the law from a pure heart, the scribes and Pharisees are interested in making themselves look good among men (Matthew 23:5). Thus, they dress for attention, desire the place of honour at feasts, and love to be called rabbi (Matthew 23:6–7). In this context, Jesus tells the disciples not to be called rabbi or to refer to any man as father, for they have one Father who is in heaven.  In other words, titles such as rabbi and father are a source of pride for the Jewish leaders because they use the titles to honour themselves. Jesus here warns the disciples against such behaviour.

Counterargument:

It is possible that Jesus has a title of honour in mind, but it is also possible that he has in mind lineage to the patriarchs.⁹ He says that the scribes and Pharisees like to be called rabbi, and then he warns the disciples of calling each other by that title. Next, he explains that they are not to call anyone father on earth. It is important to notice that there is no mention of the scribes or Pharisees referring to themselves as fathers, but only as rabbis. Likely Jesus is moving from the subject of self-designated honourary titles to other forms of pride in honouring oneself. Specifically, he likely has in mind the notion of connecting one’s lineage to the patriarchs such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jesus is saying that no one should honour themselves by connecting their lineage to the patriarchs by referring to them as fathers.

Response to counterargument:

The problem with this counterargument is that it fails to consider Jesus’ statement within the context that follows. For he goes on to say that no one should call themselves masters, for there is one master, the Christ (Matthew 23:10). Clearly, rabbi and master are titles of honour, so it is likely that father falls within this category. Thus, Jesus is saying that one should not take on an honourary title, or refer to each other with honourary titles, such as rabbi, father, or master, for there is one Father in heaven, and one master, Jesus Christ.

Possible weaknesses:

The only weakness of this view is that there is no clear indication that Jesus’ opponents referred to each other as father. We know they referred to each as rabbi, and the authors of the New Testament call them scribes, Pharisees, and teachers of the law. Still, we can infer from passages in Acts, plus extrabiblical sources, that Jewish people did refer to each other as father.

Explanation:

Jesus explains that the disciples are not to call anyone on earth their father, for they only have one Father in heaven. What does he mean by this? It is important to understand that Matthew is the author of the gospel, and it is likely that he is responding to a certain level of institutionalization that was happening in the churches.¹⁰ Specifically, as the church becomes more organized, there are various positions of hierarchy beginning to develop. Most likely Jesus’ comments are aimed at Christian scribes who want to be called by certain titles.¹¹ Of course, Matthew’s point is that no one in the church, whether in a position of leadership, or a regular member, has any claim of superiority over any other member.

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that Jesus is the one who teaches that the disciples are to call no one their father, not Matthew. Of course, since Jesus is the one speaking, his instruction cannot be aimed at the early church, because there was no early church before Jesus’ ascension. Further, we have historical record of the fact that some Jewish leaders were called fathers, and Jesus himself is exposing the leadership who takes pride in their titles. So Jesus’ comments fit with the historical context. Finally, this argument produces no evidence to suggest that in fact, there were Christian scribes who wanted certain titles. Instead, it simply asserts this in order to accommodate why Matthew would include Jesus’ saying in the gospel. A more plausible reason why Matthew included this account in his gospel is because it was a true statement from Jesus, and Matthew’s gospel is about collecting and presenting such teachings and statements as they occurred during Jesus’ ministry.¹²

Explanation:

Jesus says that we are not to call anyone father, for we have one Father in heaven. He then goes on to explain that disciples are not to be called καθηγητής, which might be translated leader.¹³ What’s interesting about this term is that Jesus goes from denying the use of the specific title rabbi, to the slightly more general father, to the far more general leader. The term leader could apply to a philosopher, general tutor, or Christian scribe, so likely Matthew has in mind the church in general.¹⁴ That is, he has in mind people in the church who may vie for a position of leadership and desire to be recognized as such. Matthew’s point is that every designation should be eliminated in the church, whether rabbi, father, or leader.¹⁵

Counterargument:  

This argument faces the same problems as the argument above. First, Jesus is the one speaking, not Matthew, and Jesus spoke before there was an early church with leaders and scribes. We are to understand Jesus’ remark based on the context set by Matthew’s Gospel.

The second problem with this argument is that it simply asserts that there were scribes and other church leaders vying for position and status, without offering historical support. Specific historical incidents that align with the time of the writing of the Gospel would help clarify this argument.

Possible weaknesses:

The weakness of this view has already been exposed, which is that it confuses Jesus and Matthew. Matthew is the author of the gospel, but he is writing about Jesus. As such, our goal is to understand the meaning of Jesus teachings in the context of Matthew’s gospel.