Who is your spiritual father - God or a man of God?

[Brother John]

Matthew 23:8-9

But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Sorry, God has no grandchildren, only SONS!!! John 1:12,
Even Jesus is not our Father, but the Firstborn amongst many BRETHREN!!! Rom. 8:29,
John 20:17-Jesus saith ... go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father.

‎"... my Father and your Father". Be sure to have God as your Father and relate to Him as such. Do not make that relationship through another human being. If you do not have intimate relationship with God as Father, check your sonship

Jesus is a brother to ALL the SAINTS. If you are a father to any saint then you are saying Jesus is your son. Lord help us!!!

The Jews said, "we have Abraham as our father". Later on, Jesus said "call no man your father". Lets not practice Judaism but Christianity !!!

[Brother John]

Rev Watson, once again you misunderstood me. My saying Jesus saying was primarily to the christians and not the Jews is this. He was not teaching them to be more Jewish by abiding by His teachings. He was teaching them to be more christian (the term we use today) by his teaching. Jesus was not explaining or teaching Judaism to His disciples but Christianity (as we call it today). So his teaching was to christians though they could be Jews, Greeks, Romans or  whatever. He was only teaching them to be good Christians. Paul saying the Gospel is to the Jews does not imply the Gospel teaches one to be a proper Jew, but rather the Jews who were in bondage by reason of the Law to be liberated.

What are titles meant for? Is it not to identify a person with what he/she is? God's name is Reverend according to the Bible like you said because he is to be revered. And its rightly so for all of His other titles. They tell us of who the one bearing the title is and by inference how we need to relate to them.

God has not, according to you forbidden the use by man any of the titles He bears. But I believe its wrong to use the titles God bears when He consider the titles he uses. Our God is a jealous God and does not share His glory with another, the Bible says. I wander if we can say God has said His name is YHWH (Yahweh) and that does not forbid anyone using that name too

[Brother John]

Rev. Watson, Is it true being called a Christian at the time was derogatory? 

I know thats what is being taught by scholars. But I like to look at it in the eyes of the Bible account.

The word "Christ" has Greek origin and means "the anointed".

In Jerusalem or Israel any human living like Jesus did and calling himself the Christ will not only appear to be funny but also a blasphemer.

Jesus who claimed was sent to only the lost sheep of Israel is not known to have travelled to Antioch for ministry.

There are two possibilities of who called the disciples first in Antioch - either the Jews there who were the only ones the disciples from Jerusalem were preaching to at the time, or the natives of Antioch.

 

Lets take a look at the first probability

The title Christ (or Messiah) was held in high esteem by the Jews. And they will not make any fun with it just as they will protest when Pilate was labeling Jesus "the King of the Jews". They asked Pilate to write that "he says he is the king of the Jews". In the same manner they will not call anyone Christ-like when they do not believe the one is associated with the Christ.

Looking at the events that led to the disciples being called Christians in Acts 11:21-26, it appears it was the manifestation of the power/anointing (chrios, christ) that made them to be identified with the Christ hence being called CHRISTIANS. Being called Christians means they were called christ-like or anointed ones.

 

The second probability which is that the name Christian might have been given by the natives of Antioch brings this to light.

The natives will only know what the word means and would be meaning just that.

 

Probably the name Christian was not derogatory as has been taught all these years. If they had identified the believers with the person of Jesus and called them Jesusians, then it would have been derogatory. But identifying the believers with the Christ doesn't seem the were mocking them.

 

Probably, its not only me but all of us need much New Testament studies to do!

 

[Joseph Gill]

What do we make of Paul's relationships with his proteges? Like Timothy:

 

But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus shortly unto you, that I also may be of good comfort, when I know your state. For I have no man likeminded, who will naturally care for your state. For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's.  But ye know the proof of him, that, as a son with the father, he hath served with me in the gospel. Him therefore I hope to send presently, so soon as I shall see how it will go with me. [Phil. 2:19-23]

 

To Timothy, my true child in the faith... [1 Tim. 1:2a]

 

 

Like Onesimus:

 

I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds... [Phm. 6]

 

Could it be said Paul was claiming to be the "spiritual father" of Timothy and Onesimus? And, if so, was he wrong to do this?

[Joseph Gill]

Read again Paul's famous explanation of his ministry to the Thessalonians [1 Thess. 2:1-12]. Doesn't it read like Paul is describing himself as a "spiritual parent" over the believers? (Especially in verse 11, when he remarks that he "exhorted," "comforted" and "charged" them like a father does his children.)

 

1For yourselves, brethren, know our entrance in unto you, that it was not in vain: 2But even after that we had suffered before, and were shamefully entreated, as ye know, at Philippi, we were bold in our God to speak unto you the gospel of God with much contention. 3For our exhortation was not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile: 4But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts. 5For neither at any time used we flattering words, as ye know, nor a cloke of covetousness; God is witness: 6Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ. 7But we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children: 8So being affectionately desirous of you, we were willing to have imparted unto you, not the gospel of God only, but also our own souls, because ye were dear unto us. 9For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God. 10Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe: 11As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children, 12That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.

 

[Brother John]

I have explained this previously to you. Can we stop going round about.

[Joseph Gill]

Brother John,

 

It gets very convoluted to follow these threads sometimes. Did you mean that you explained the verses where Paul alluded to himself as a father-figure to Timothy and Onesimus before? Obviously, you didn't specifically discuss those passages of scripture in this thread. Did you mean that your earlier explanation of the passage from 1 Corinthians should apply to any additional passages where Paul describes himself as a father-figure?

 

I don't think it is pointless or repetitive to demonstrate to you--by the weight of the frequency of the allusion--how entrenched the idea of spiritual fatherhood is in the bible. It is not a fleeting concept... it appears again and again in the Old and New Testaments, and (if we have confidence in the superintendency of the Holy Spirit in the writing of scripture) we can trust that it is in line with the will of God.

 

You explained that you "decided to take a more entrenched position" regarding "spiritual fathers" in the church, because you saw genuine danger in how leaders today will abuse their positions using this concept. But it occurs to me that we would never say, in the natural, that fatherhood as an institution is invalidated by the existence of physically, sexually and emotionally abusive fathers in the world. These abusers, thankfully, have always been exceptions to the vast majority of natural fathers. Somewhat comparable, I think, are the spiritual fathers in the church, and that smaller subset of "spiritual abusers" that have crept in.  The Spirit of God gives pastors and other disciplers in the church a paternal (or maternal) instinct. By and large these are sincere men (and women), and they should not be defined by the "spiritual abusers" in their midst.

 

I stake out the following position because I think it's sound doctrine: we shouldn't be rejecting or downplaying the role of spiritual fathers in the church; we should instead be rooting out the charlatans and abusers.

[Brother John]

Maybe from our different environments (or maybe denominations) we are seeing things differently. I do not see a few "spiritual abusers" at all. I see them in the majority.

 

Did you see the thread where I explained that putting persons in the position of sons humbles them; and putting persons in position (more so title) of father exalts? And we may not see an example in the NT of any of those addressing paul as father though he addressed them as sons. I believe happening in the Bible are just incidental or co-incidental.

 

Jesus categorically said "My Father and your Father", and "One is your Father".

I believe and hope we all believe the Bible does not teach conflicting doctrines.

[Joseph Gill]

 

Brother John, you really see the "majority" of pastors and leaders in the church as being abusers? Are you speaking out of a personal experience of abuse?

 

I didn't notice your other thread, but I would agree that in spiritual father/son relationships there is a component of humility that is called upon for the sons. So does the position of being a student (having a bible teacher) humble us. So too does the position of being part of a flock (having a pastor) humble us. Even if we rigidly rejected spiritual father/son relationships in the church, we could not avoid other humbling relationships. And I don't see this as unbiblical... how did Peter instruct us?

 

Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble [1 Pet. 5:5].

 

Of course, we have NO examples of correspondence to Paul from his sons in the gospel, so we we only see their relationships through Paul's eyes. But I do think it interesting that Paul isn't the only bible author describing himself in such language. John also believed he had "children" in the gospel (1 Jo. 2:1, 1 Jo. 3:18, 3 Jo. 4).

 

These relationships in the church were not particular to Paul; neither were they incidental or insignificant. Instead, this is just the kind of evidence that shows how spiritual fatherhood was normative to the early church. They had elders being entreated as fathers (1 Tim. 5:1). They had leaders sacrificing for the congregations like parents do for children (2 Cor. 12:14). It seems they saw no contradiction with the divine Fatherhood of God; why should we?

[Brother John]

In as much as I respect the elderly even outside the church, and also do respect and regard the ones set in authority over me whether in the church or outside the church, I do not submit myself to any kind of abuse. I have not had the experience of being abused neither have I abused any. But am surprised you do not see this going on all around. Maybe, its probably because we have different understandings or probably we are viewing from different perspectives. Maybe too it might be the environments or denominations we belong to.

 

In all the other examples with John, etc we do not see the reciprocal just as in that of Paul.

Yes, it seems normal in the early church. Not to say that it applies to this particular instance, I need to mention here that it isn't everything that the EARLY church did that was right and for us to copy. For instance the early church continued to go to the temple to pray after Jesus had died and the temple had ceased being the dwelling place of God.

 

It is important to note that the early was basically Jewish and they carried on certain aspects of Judaism into Christianity.

 

Can you help me answer this question - why was it important for Jesus to categorically say call no man your father, for one is your father in heaven?

[Joseph Gill]

Why was it important for Jesus to categorically say call no man your father, for one is your father in heaven?

I've written earlier in this thread that Jesus knew it was important to help us combat vanity and attention-seeking inclinations, like those of the plagued the scribes and Pharisees. Jesus makes this obvious when he prefaces his commands recorded in Matthew 23:8-10 with the following description of the religious leaders [vs. 5-7]:

 

Everything they do is for show. On their arms they wear extra wide prayer boxes with Scripture verses inside, and they wear robes with extra long tassels. And they love to sit at the head table at banquets and in the seats of honor in the synagogues. They love to receive respectful greetings as they walk in the marketplaces, and to be called ‘Rabbi.’

 

These verses give us the context for the following commands. Christ wanted us to avoid emulating the scribes and Pharisees in the pursuit of honorifics and appellations.

 

So, fatherly behavior isn't being criticized by Jesus in verse 8; calling someone "Father," and being called "Father" by  someone, is being criticized. In the same fashion, Jesus criticized people calling one another "Teacher" (or "Master" in the KJV translation) in 23:10. Jesus wasn't saying that we shouldn't have teachers, only that we shouldn't bestow or except the title "Teacher" as it is a prideful honorific.

 

(I noticed in another post you dismissed whether "Teacher" would ever be sought as a title, but I have to say that as you move away from the narrow picture of Christianity in America, you realize that this is still a real temptation today for the worldwide Church. In many other cultures, where teaching is still a revered profession, being called "Teacher" is a sought-after honor. I know in Japan there is real tension over whether pastors and teachers should be addressed as "Sensei," precisely as Japanese Christians wrangle over these verses.)

[Brother John]

So, fatherly behavior isn't being criticized by Jesus in verse 8; calling someone "Father," and being called "Father" by  someone, is being criticized. In the same fashion, Jesus criticized people calling one another "Teacher" (or "Master" in the KJV translation) in 23:10. Jesus wasn't saying that we shouldn't haveteachers, only that we shouldn't bestow or except the title "Teacher" as it is a prideful honorific

 

This I have agreed to. That is why I have not said it was wrong for Paul to address others as sons. But insist that none addressed Paul, John or any other as Father as we see in the Old Testament.

In the OT they addressed the leaders/prophets as fathers and this is what Jesus was teaching the Jews not to carry into Christianity.

 

My take on Teacher as title was not whether it would (to place it in a future perspective). I was wandering why so far and as of now no one is using it.

The example of Japan just goes ahead to buttress my point that these job titles are being used as name titles because of honor or prestige. Should be so that cultures will determine which ones to use as titles because they are honorary or derogatory in a particular culture?

 

I may have to mention here that am yet to step foot in America. Am a Ghanaian and lives in Ghana. I have had some traveling experience though but not to North America yet.

Shalom

[Joseph Gill]

I have not said it was wrong for Paul to address others as sons. But insist that none addressed Paul, John or any other as Father as we see in the Old Testament.

I really thought your argument went further... to actually call into question whether we should have other men as spiritual fathers. As we've both said in other posts, we agree completely about titles.

 

The example of Japan just goes ahead to buttress my point that these job titles are being used as name titles because of honor or prestige. Should be so that cultures will determine which ones to use as titles because they are honorary or derogatory in a particular culture?

 

That's true, isn't it. Christians from different parts of the world have more or less of a proclivity for adopting these titles based on whether the honorifics of "Master," "Father" or "Teacher" are already in general use in their culture.

 

Finally, I apologize for being so provincial. I had noticed you were Ghanian from your biographical information, but I assumed you were here in North America (perhaps as a student). My wife and I have been befriended by a Ghanian couple, but their spoken and written English is very British. Your English is more Americanized, if I can say that.