Today I’m fielding a question that one of my students asked me during theology class: “What did Jesus mean when he said ‘Call no man father’ as he did in Matthew 23? And why do Catholic and Orthodox call their priests ‘Father’ anyway?

My student found my answer helpful, so I figure it’d be good to expand it, write it down, and put it out in public. Hopefully, it can help someone else.

Let's begin by reading the passage that raised the question.

Jesus spoke to the crowds and his disciples, saying

“The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses,

therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example.

For they preach but they do not practice.

They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on people’s shoulders,

but will not lift a finger to help them.

All their works are performed to be seen.

They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels.

They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues,

Greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation ‘Rabbi.’

As for you, do not be called ‘Rabbi.’

You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers.

Call no man father; you have but one Father in heaven.

Do not be called ‘Master’; you have but one master, the Messiah.

The greatest amongst you must be the servant.

Whoever exalts himself will be humbled,

but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

~ The Gospel According to Matthew 23:1-11

I’ve been told by quite a few low-church Protestants that ‘Call no man father’ is an ‘instant, slam dunk refutation’ against any kind of hierarchy or teaching authority in Christ’s church. I’ve heard this argument from my Baptist and non-demonimational high school classmates, and again from my Evangelical and Pentecostal college classmates.

Since the argument is usually coming from Protestants, it’s usually aimed at the Catholic priesthood, but any Orthodox priesthood is also open to this objection.

I once met an elderly Californian evangelical whose main argument against Catholicism was: “Catholics can’t even obey Christ’s simple command to ‘call no man father’. Why waste my time studying their sophisticated doctrines when I already see their church contradicts Christ in the simple doctrines?”

He's not the only person to make that argument, so we might want to rewrite it formally and examine it. Here's a more formal version:

It’s not unusual for further conclusions to be drawn from this argument. Since the contradiction seems so immediately obvious, it raises the question of motive: why do these churches get it so wrong?

Some claim it’s because of malice, others claim it’s because of stupidity. Since the error is apparently very obvious, the cause of the error must be very serious: either the Catholic and Orthodox are A) very malicious, or B) very stupid.

My favorite cringe theory to explain this apparent contradiction is from those Chick conspiracy tracts, which unite both explanations A and B by claiming that:

These are claims I’d expect to hear from a paranoid schizophrenic, not a man of God. Yet Jack Chick sold over a billion tracts, so paranoid schizophrenia is a live option amongst Christians that the rest of us have to deal with, I guess.

All this goes to say: we’re arguing about four words from Jesus, but how we read those four words causes huge moral implications for our relationships and our institutions. It’s a wildly specific, highly technical theological question, until it’s a worldwide controversy.

There’s a standard response to the argument, and it’s perfectly adequate on its own. Talking with my student, I presented this standard response, then supplemented it with my own response. So I’ll walk through the standard response before I offer another counter that isn’t brought up so often.

The Standard Response: First, a literal full ban on the word “father” is impossible to practice. Second, the biblical authors didn’t have a literal ban on the word, so a literal ban cannot be what Jesus meant.

I compiled some sources for anyone who wants to see full versions of this standard response. You can find Catholic Answers, Steve Ray, and Trent Horn all using this standard response to the "Call No Man Father" argument. I've hyperlinked those sources, so if you want to check out their work on this problem, just click their names above.

Anyway, notice how the standard response makes two points? Let's think through each of them for a bit.

First point: A literal full ban on the word ‘father’ is impossible to practice.

Human are sexual beings; we need fathers to exist. Having a father is a natural and necessary relationship for all humans. Fatherhood is a natural part of human nature, the same nature that God declared good and repeatedly blessed throughout the ages.

Humans necessarily have fathers, so we might as well have good fathers.

But humans also have both material and immaterial sides. So a good father should take care of his children’s bodily and spiritual needs, helping them to be their best in all aspects. However, that’s a huge load of responsibilities, enough to keep multiple men busy for a lifetime.

Isn’t that strange?

A child can only have one biological father, but for a child to develop their full potential, they need support from many additional father figures. So it makes sense that God organized the Church to disperse the full labor of fatherhood across the community.

Second point: The biblical authors didn’t have a literal ban on ‘father’ anyway, so a literal ban cannot be what Jesus meant.

Saint Chrysostom and G.L. Haydock, two titans of Bible study, both notice that Saint Paul dares to call himself a father to both the entire Corinthian church and his disciple, Saint Timothy.

Even if you shall have countless guides to Christ, you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

Therefore, I urge you, be imitators of me.

For this reason I am sending you Timothy,

who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord;

he will remind you of my ways in Christ,

just as I teach them everywhere in every church.

~ First Letter to the Corinthians 4:15-17

If the Bible itself doesn’t have a literal full ban on calling people “father”, then a literal full ban of the term can’t be what Jesus meant.

“Call no man father”… except the Apostles frequently did. So something else must be going on here.

My argument starts by reflecting on the “chair of Moses” that Jesus mentions. That phrase caught my attention. In the Greek, the phrase is even more attention-grabbing:

Μωυσευς καθεδρας (Moses’ “cathedral”, which just means “chair” in Greek).

Notice that Jesus begins his lesson by recognizing rather than abolishing the chair of Moses, that is, Moses’ teaching authority. And since the Pharisees do, in fact, own this authority, “do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you”. In other words, Jesus admits the Pharisees have a certain authority to give commands, and Israel ought to observe those commands.

That teaching authority was nothing new in Jesus’ time. Israel recognized a teaching authority before Israel had territory: Moses. Moses was the God-ordained mediator, leader, teacher, judge, and spiritual father of God’s people.

We should remember that Korah once refused to recognize the chair of Moses, and led a rebellion against his teaching authority:

Now Korah, son of Levi, Dathan and Abiram, sons of Reuben, rose up against Moses, with certain children of Israel, 250 leaders of the assembly, representatives of the congregation, men of renown.

They united against Moses and Aaron, saying ‘You have gone too far! The whole community of Israel is holy, He is with all of us. What right do you have to act as though you are greater than the rest of the Lord’s people?”

~ Numbers 16:1-3

Korah was a Levite priest, and the rebellion had clan leaders, masters of their people. They had teaching authority of their own, and they seem competent in their exercise of that authority. Yet God did not allow them to raze the Mosaic hierarchy by abolishing Moses’ chair. Neither the Levite priesthood, nor lay leaders of the people, were appropriate replacements for the chair of Moses; these teaching positions were not convertible, and thus not equal.

God’s response to Korah’s rebellion was:

Moses, get away from all these people so that I may consume them at once!

~ Numbers 16:21

In the Old Testament, God gave Moses an irreplaceable mediating role between God and his chosen people. Christ recognizes that role, that there is a means to legitimately transfer that role, and that the scribes and Pharisees currently hold that role, despite also recognizing that they are doing an awful job at fulfilling the role.

Thus, “do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example.” If Jesus intended to abolish any and all teaching offices amongst God’s people, we should expect Him to quote Korah with approval here, saying something like: “The whole community of Israel is holy, so what authority do the Pharisees have?” As the 2nd Person of the Trinity, Jesus had heard the argument before. But we already know He rejected it.

If Jesus intended to abolish all teaching authority amongst God’s people, this would’ve been the perfect time to quote Korah. Rather than repeating Korah’s argument, Jesus tells his disciples to hear the teachings and obey them while also ignoring the teachers who fail to live out the teachings.

Follow their instructions, just don’t look to them as role models, even though they should be.

Notice the structure of the passage too: the first half diagnoses the problem, and the second half presents the solution. That’s intuitive enough. It’s a passage of contrast: don’t do this; do this instead.

The “solution” verses are less controversial. In fact, I can’t find any biblical commentator who disputes what Jesus proposes as the solution: humility. We know two things are being contrasted, and one of those things isn’t controversial. That’s enough information to deduce the other term.

Now, we just said this passage was about contrast; the behavior Jesus condemned opposes the behavior Jesus praised. So what’s the opposite of humility?

Answer: pride.

Now what is pride?

Pride is simply love of power, especially your own power, and the symbols that express your power, like titles. Titles such as Teacher, Father, Master, and Lord (or the modern variation, Sir). So we can understand why Jesus focused on these titles: they are common signifiers of power, and thus common sources of pride.

But again, “father” is a necessary relation for most living creatures, people included. If you’re going to be a human, you must have a father. Having a father is part of God’s created order.

(I’d argue that teachers are also a natural part of human society, and that inequality always has and always will be a reality in any civilization, so “teacher” and “master/sir/madam” are also unavoidable realities of life, but those points are for another time.)

Does that mean that God intentionally put us in an impossible bind? Perhaps the “good” natural order God created requires sin? Is it necessarily sinful to be a father? Or to have any kind of authority, period?

Put that way, you should be able to tell the answer is “no”. And the reason why is that it’s possible to distinguish between pride and titles. There’s definitely an association between the two, but they aren’t equivalent. We can distinguish between them. Pride is a character trait, and a title is often a signifier of pride.

But in its essence, a title signifies power, and it is that power that the prideful want for themselves. Again, power and pride often go together, but they aren’t equivalent.

To see the difference more clearly, we can look at two kinds of masters that Jesus brings up often: the shepherd and the farmer.

The shepherd has power over their flock. The gardener has power over their garden. But neither the good shepherd or gardener uses their power to exploit the creatures that depend on them.

The opposite is true: both must make great sacrifices. Even though the master enjoys some benefit from their flock, (like milk, wool, fruit, or even meat) they only benefit if there’s some mutual benefit.

Even if the flock is being raised for meat, the shepherd only benefits if the flock is well-fed and healthy. When Jesus mentions shepherds and flocks, or farmers and fields, the stories involve sacrifice from the leader, for the sake of their dependents. In Jesus’ teachings, power is a symbol of self-sacrifice, the opposite of pride.

Thus His judgement that “the greatest amongst you must be the servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.” (A teaching recorded in all the following passages: Matthew 18:1-4, Matthew 20:25-28, Mark 10:42-45, Luke 22:25-27)

I just presented my thoughts on this teaching as something original, but it really isn’t. I’m in good company, because Saint John Chrysostom also saw that Jesus was condemning pride rather than a particular title like “father”. As I did, Saint Chrysostom distinguishes between “vainglory” (what I’ve been calling “pride”), and its signifiers, like titles and tassels:

Jesus accuses them of vainglory, which was their ruin…

Then, He shows that it is not even about great and necessary things over which they are vainglorious, but rather things without warmth or worth: the phylacteries, and their garments…

For these things were signs of the mad desire for glory…

The scribes and Pharisees seized the teacher’s chair through violent ambition, the cause of all evils… nothing is as crucial as modesty…

Again, call no man father. This is said so that they may know whom they ought to call Father in the highest sense. It is not said frivolously, as if no one should ever be called father. Just as the human master is not the divine Master, so neither is the father the Father who is the Cause of all, both all masters and all fathers.

~ St Chrysostom’s Homily on the Gospel of Matthew

I read this passage as Jesus saying “if you still see titles as sources of pride, like the scribes and Pharisees do, then erase them from your vocabulary” If you covet the symbols of power, then fast from them until you mature spiritually and you no longer covet power for selfish gain. Only once you realize that power exists to serve, may you then use what’s necessary.