Ship of Fools: Our Father

Thread: Our Father Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028394

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

In Matt 23:9 Jesus says to call no-one our father on earth, as we have one Father only, in heaven.

Not only do we call our male parent father, but many priests and monks call themselves 'Father'. Are they and we going against the scripture?

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

In 1 Cor 4:15 describes himself as having become a Father to the Corinthians. I would see a few steps in forming a Biblical ethic of ministerial nomenclature:

1) Understand what Matthew was driving at in the text you cited;
2) Understand what Paul is doing in the text I just cited;
3) Discern a practice which honors both.

I think the existence of the Pauline text means that the conclusion of step three cannot be that there is a norm operative today prohibiting Christians from calling their ministers "father."

I would argue that the Matthean text is much more powerfully read as driving us away from clerical privilege and towards grounding all ecclesial authority in awareness of, and wonder, love and awe at, God's authority.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

Are you also concerned that so many of us do not hate our families even though Jesus suggests that we should in Luke 14:26?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
I would argue that the Matthean text is much more powerfully read as driving us away from clerical privilege and towards grounding all ecclesial authority in awareness of, and wonder, love and awe at, God's authority.

Also, the context is most definitely one of criticism of abuse of clerical privilege. So, it isn't even clear if it's steering us away from clerical privilege at all, or just from the abuse of that in which it is not practiced in humility and service to others.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Thank you Hart, it's interesting that Paul also calls the people brothers and sisters in the same passage.

Is there any interpretation variance between the 'fathers' used throughout the Bible, does anyone know? Jesus surely wasn't telling people not to call their biological male parent their father.

W Hyatt, that's a tangent that I'm sure has been looked at on a separate thread, but I do think it's a good thing to question and try to understand the passages, and to see how they are interpreted in today's context, and where there are differences in perception.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

I also find this confusing - particularly when an Anglican priest read it out loud in Mass, to the nuns, who all call him Father, because that is what he is officially called. I thought maybe he was suggesting that he shouldn't be called Father, but he was just reading it because it was the passage for that day.

I tend to suppose that it's more about relying on God rather than relying on one's earthly father.

There's also the bit about not calling anyone 'teacher' except Jesus, but we call plenty of people teachers. And I tend to suppose this is about not relying on anyone except Jesus to have the ultimate authority and teaching.

Sometimes I think the Bible is non-literal on purpose to stop us getting hung up on details and thinking we understand it to the letter. To remind us it's describing something bigger than us which we can't possibly fully understand.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Is there any interpretation variance between the 'fathers' used throughout the Bible, does anyone know? Jesus surely wasn't telling people not to call their biological male parent their father.

Quite common across the ancient near east was the use of the term 'Father' (and 'son' and 'brother'...) in the context of hierarchical relationships. So, for example, an emperor was addressed as 'Father' by his subordinate vassals-kings. Those kings in turn were addressed as 'Father' by their subordinates, and so on down the food chain. No biological links necessary.

So it could be that 'Father' is being used in this sense by Matthew / Jesus. He is urging his followers not to be loyal to anyone apart from God. We shouldn't address (call) anyone that way when we intend to mean we are loyal to them, because that would mean we have become disloyal to God, our true hierarchical leader.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

Is there any interpretation variance between the 'fathers' used throughout the Bible, does anyone know? Jesus surely wasn't telling people not to call their biological male parent their father.

My Hebrew is minimal perhaps that is why this struck me so forcibly. I recently was sitting in a seminar where the person leading it was translating in the room the Hebrew of Sacrifice of Isaac. He was reading the Hebrew and then translating into English.

The word translated in the above link as "My father" in verse 7 is "Abba". The translator rendered it "Daddy"

However, things get a lot more complex when you start looking at that passage around "son". The "young men" is the plural of the word used for "son". We just assume they are servants.

No I have not digested the implications of this. It will take a while.

Jengie

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Hmm. Thanks Jengie. I'm going to have to ponder on that for a while too.

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

Is there any interpretation variance between the 'fathers' used throughout the Bible, does anyone know? Jesus surely wasn't telling people not to call their biological male parent their father.

My Hebrew is minimal perhaps that is why this struck me so forcibly. I recently was sitting in a seminar where the person leading it was translating in the room the Hebrew of Sacrifice of Isaac. He was reading the Hebrew and then translating into English.

The word translated in the above link as "My father" in verse 7 is "Abba". The translator rendered it "Daddy"

However, things get a lot more complex when you start looking at that passage around "son". The "young men" is the plural of the word used for "son". We just assume they are servants.

No I have not digested the implications of this. It will take a while.

Jengie

I'm a bit confused by your argument. Are we looking at the same Hebrew text? The word translated "young men" or "servants" is "na'ar," while the word translated "son" is "ben."

The word used for "Father" is the usual word for "father," "ab." Are you thinking of the notion that Jesus' use of "Abba" is supposed to be "daddy"? This is also apocryphal, as "Abba" is the regular term for "father" in Aramaic, and not the diminutive...

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

I am not making an argument, I am making a couple of observation from experience.

The person translating "Abba" as Daddy was a Jew not a Christian.

The sacrifice of Isaac is a fairly straightforward piece of writing that has had a number of theological interpretations put upon it. Some of which directly relate to the Christian eisegesis of the crucifixion into the Old Testament. Others play psychological roles within our thought. In other words, it is a troubling but significant story within the cannon. Often used to focus on the relationship between father and son.

I am then making two observations.

First, in English we have lots of words for Father, Dad, Pop, Pappa. I do not know about Hebrew, but the one used in Hebrew here is "Abba". The one thought to be used by Jesus to address God and maybe the opening words of the Lord's prayer.

Secondly I am aware that if the term used for Isaac relationship with Abraham is rendered "son" then to be consistent the rendering of "young men" in the passage should be "sons".

These of themselves do not lead me at present anywhere but they do disturb my sense of knowing the passage and by ripple effect another questioning of what the relationship of addressing God as Father actually implies.

Jengie

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I had a (possibly) similar pause to think about addressing God as 'father' when I first read/heard the Lords Prayer in Japanese. Japanese usually has two forms of words, particularly those used to address or describe people, a formal and an informal version. 'Father' is an example - Otōsan is the formal, and Chichi the informal. I was surprised to see Chichi in the Lords prayer. But, learning a bit more of the language and Japanese would almost always use the formal Otōsan when referring to someone elses' father, and almost always use chichi when referring to their own father. So, theologically the use is correct because it uses the right word to describe the relationship, even if at first glance it reads as an informal word for 'father'.

I've no idea if Hebrew/Aramaic has the same sort of distinction.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

I'm sorry, you were either misled or you've misremembered.

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:

First, in English we have lots of words for Father, Dad, Pop, Pappa. I do not know about Hebrew, but the one used in Hebrew here is "Abba".

Biblical Hebrew really just has one word for father: 'Ab. That is the word used here, not "Abba" (which is an Aramaic word, not a Hebrew word).

quote:

Secondly I am aware that if the term used for Isaac relationship with Abraham is rendered "son" then to be consistent the rendering of "young men" in the passage should be "sons".

The words used for Isaac and for the servants are completely different. Isaac is described as "son" (ben) as well as "only (son)"(yahid) and "the one you love" ('asher 'ahabta). The servants are consistently called na'arim. This word can simply mean "servant" or "young man / boy." Not only is there no reason to translate them the same way, as different words are always used, it would be very confusing to collapse the difference the translating them with the same word in English.

Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I had a (possibly) similar pause to think about addressing God as 'father' when I first read/heard the Lords Prayer in Japanese. Japanese usually has two forms of words, particularly those used to address or describe people, a formal and an informal version. 'Father' is an example - Otōsan is the formal, and Chichi the informal. I was surprised to see Chichi in the Lords prayer. But, learning a bit more of the language and Japanese would almost always use the formal Otōsan when referring to someone elses' father, and almost always use chichi when referring to their own father. So, theologically the use is correct because it uses the right word to describe the relationship, even if at first glance it reads as an informal word for 'father'.

I've no idea if Hebrew/Aramaic has the same sort of distinction.

I had the same thought when I learned the Lord's Prayer in German. They use 'du' (familiar form of address, used with family, friends, children, pets) to address God. Then I realised English actually does the same. The traditional 'Thou', although it sounds terribly formal to us now, was actually the familiar form of address in English!

Posted by gustava (# 15593) on :

Mind you a Japanese person would address their father as (O)toosan rather than chichi

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0