An interesting bit of trivia I once encountered is that the third century Christian writer Origen reportedly castrated himself, apparently taking literally our Lord’s statement concerning those who “have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.” (Such an action is all the more surprising given Origen's reputation for applying allegorical methods of interpretation to the Scriptures.) Regardless, however, of the particular circumstances of that incident, it is useful for illustrating the dangers of approaching Scripture with a remorselessly literal interpretation at all times. One could choose other examples as well, such as Christ’s commands to pluck out our eyes or cut off our hands if they offend us. In those passages, we all realize that He is using hyperbole, and that to take such verses in a strictly literal manner is to do damage to the point that is being taught, and is to in fact distort the meaning of Scripture.
Yet we also realize that other parts of Scripture are indeed to be taken literally. For instance, when the Gospels record the virgin birth of Christ, or Paul affirms the historicity of the Resurrection, such statements are to be taken literally; to do otherwise is to spurn the word of God in favor of our own ideas. So the question we must ask ourselves is this: what kind of statement does Matthew 23:9 qualify as? Should we interpret it strictly literally, or is Jesus (as when He states to mutilate ourselves in the examples cited above) simply using a hyperbole to make a larger point? I think other passages of Scripture make it clear that He is speaking hyperbolically, but first let us discuss the most fundamental problem (apart from what else Scripture says) with taking the former approach instead.
The obvious objection to taking His words strictly literally is to note that under such a scenario, we would be forbidden to call even our male parent “Father”. Few are willing to go to that extreme, of course, but even those who would bite the bullet and start referring to their male parent differently (say, by his given name) still face an obstacle: they would be depriving the term “father” of any source of meaning as an analogy to be applied to God. What would saying God is our “Father” mean if we have no human person we refer to as father? For while like all analogies it is imperfect (human fatherhood bearing only a faint likeness to the divine fatherhood from which it is derived), nevertheless it is the shadow of the divine fatherhood found in human fathers that helps us to comprehend in a dim way God’s fatherhood. That is why Christ refers to God as our Father in the first place. If we destroy the notion of human fatherhood, then the word “father” can no longer function as an analogy, and simply becomes a meaningless term to us.
Most people would acknowledge this problem, and therefore maintain that the prohibition of using the term “father” only applies in a religious context. Yet is such a distinction justified? If one is to insist on taking the text strictly literally, simply based on the words of the text (no more and no less), then the command would appear to be absolute. Therefore, by acknowledging exceptions (as in the case of biological fatherhood), it becomes clear that those objecting to the Catholic practice already recognize that Jesus has something more fundamental in view than simply prohibiting using a certain term in reference to other people. They already partially acknowledge that Jesus's words are to that extent not to be taken absolutely literally, but are hyperbolic. The question then becomes: why should we take them literally when applied in a religious context?
For, after all, the writers of the New Testament had no difficulty in the concept of spiritual fatherhood as applied to men as well as to God. Thus, Paul refers to Abraham as “the father of us all” (Rom 4:16-17), including the Gentiles, and that obviously being in a religious sense (for he was not the father of the Gentiles in a biological sense). Paul also states concerning himself in 1 Corinthians 4:15 that “though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.” He refers to Timothy as “my own son in the faith” (1 Tim 1:2), and Onesimus as “my son...whom I have begotten in my bonds” (Phmn 10). So, too, John refers to others as his spiritual children (cf. 1 John 2:1; 2 John 1; 3 John 4). One could go on, but that makes it clear that the idea of men who are spiritual fathers is well established in the New Testament as legitimate.
Still, some may maintain that even though spiritual fatherhood may be acknowledged, using the word “Father” as a title is nevertheless forbidden. This distinction, besides suffering from the same difficulty as noted above as not being rooted in the actual words of the text (and so what is the basis for it?), would also prove too much (and therefore, as the saying goes, would prove nothing.) For Jesus also states in context not to call any man “Rabbi”, which simply means "teacher" or "doctor". Yet how few object to calling others "Teacher" or "Doctor" as a title! And, again, Jesus forbids us to call others “Master”. And yet, the title "Mister" is derived from the word "Master". Are we therefore forbidden to call other men "Mister" as well? (“Fred Roger’s Neighborhood” does certainly have a different ring to it!)
In short, most of the time nobody takes the words of Matthew 23:9 literally. In fact, it seems the only time they are ever taken literally is when the subject of Catholics addressing priests as “Father” comes up, but the rest of the time the hyperbolic nature of the command is acknowledged. It would seem, therefore, with no better reasons being given for any distinction, that Christ's words should not be taken literally then, either.
But if the text is simply a hyperbole emphasizing a larger point (as in the other examples of Jesus’s use of hyperbole noted above), what is the point he is trying to hammer home? It would appear from the context to be this: that we should allow no man to take the place of God’s supreme fatherhood. “One is your father which is in heaven”, in that God is the source of all fatherhood. No man (such as a priest or Pharisee in Jesus’s time, or in a modern-day context for Catholics, no priest, pastor, bishop, or pope, for that matter) has any claim that would trump God’s supreme fatherhood.
But that does not mean they cannot share in His fatherhood in a subordinate position, just as our own natural fathers do. Just as Christ is the “one mediator between God and men” (cf. 1 Tim 2:5), yet that does not prevent others from partaking in that one mediatorship in a subordinate position by praying for others, for instance (cf. 1 Tim 2:1), but is rather the basis for it, so too is the case here. Others can be fathers subordinately only by God sharing His own fatherhood with them, "from whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth receives it name" (Eph 3:15), and in no other way [1].
But cut off from that source, they cease to have any claim to being acknowledged as "father". One should not call any man "father" whose fatherhood is not in fact sourced in some way, and therefore an acknowledgement of, God’s supreme fatherhood, thereby eliminating any basis for pride and Pharisaical self-satisfaction.
Notes
____________
[1] Confraternity Version. Some translations render this verse something like "from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named" (ESV). However, as a textual note to this verse in the ESV states, "the Greek word patria in verse 15 is closely related to the word for Father in verse 14."
No comments:
Post a Comment