Call No Man Your Father

[Vouthon]

Did Jesus have 'daddy issues'?

"You are all brothers. Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father—the one in heaven"

(Matthew 23:8-9)

Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age—houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life."

(Mark 10:29-30)

"Whoever does the will of God is My brother and sister and mother.”

(Mark 3:35)
​

What do you consider to be the significance of Jesus's instruction that his disciples are to call no man their father on earth? And what does it mean that "fathers" - mentioned in the first segment of the Markan saying as one of the things his disciples must abandon for the sake of the kingdom - are omitted as a class from the new spiritual family of the church, where there will only be brothers, sisters and mothers but not a paterfamilias or human patriarch?

Jesus seems to have taken this teaching quite literally, as can be seen in the passage from Luke where a man states his wish to join the disciples but asks first that he be allowed to bury his father, as mandated by the Torah command to reverence one's parents and the prevailing social custom (practically universal) that one must fulfil one's filial duties by taking care of funerary rites for a deceased father:

To another he said, “Follow me.” But he said, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.” But Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”

(Luke 9:59-60)
​

Jesus even claimed that his mission involved subverting familial bonds, stating that, "I have come to set a man against his father" (Matthew 10:35). In any culture disrespecting one's own parents is regarded as a negative quality but in ancient Judea among devout Jews, it was deemed to be even more offensive because parental authority was held to be sacrosanct.

The Torah could not have been blunter about the criminality of this breach of the law: "He who insults his father or his mother shall be put to death" (Ex. 21:17); "Cursed be he who insults his father or mother. --And all the people shall say, Amen" (Deut. 27:16); "If a man has a wayward and defiant son, who does not heed his father or mother and does not obey them even after they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the public place of his community. They shall say to the elders of his town, 'This son of ours is disloyal and defiant; he does not heed us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.' Thereupon the men of his town shall stone him to death. Thus you will sweep out evil from your midst: all Israel will hear and be afraid" (Deut. 21:18-21).

And in the surrounding Greco-Roman culture, the sacred office of the family patriarch was perhaps even more important again. As the historian Proessor Larry Siedentop explained in his 2014 book entitled Inventing the Individual:

The [Roman] paterfamilias (father) was originally both the family’s magistrate and high priest, with his wife, daughters and younger sons having a radically inferior status.

Inequality remained the hallmark of the ancient patriarchal family. “Society” was understood as an association of families rather than of individuals. ​

Why did Jesus appear to harbour such fierce opposition to the ancient institution of fatherhood in particular?

Some scholars consider fathers to “represent patriarchy, the old society in which the man alone ruled and decided. In the new family of Jesus into which the disciples are to grow there can no longer be anyone who dominates others.” (Gerhard Lohfink 2014). In their analysis of Mark 10:29–30, Osiek and Balch conclude, “The old family included a patriarchal father; the new one does not, since God is the only Father.” Professor Elisabeth Fiorenza likewise opines that, in the answer of Jesus, “fathers” are among those to be left behind; “fathers” are not included in the new kinship to which the disciples aspire. For Fiorenza this is an implicit rejection of the power and status of patriarchal structures in the messianic community.

If this is correct, does this have any bearing for how our church hierarchies are structured? And how might this conflict, or alternately be reconciled with, the fact that Jesus - out of a diverse base of followers including many women who travelled with or bankrolled his ministry - chose twelve males to be his chief group of insider apostles and that the church evolved to become a socially stratified patriarchy under a 'holy father' and various lesser 'fathers' in the form of bishops and priests?

 

[Windwalker]

If this is correct, does this have any bearing for how our church hierarchies are structured? And how might this conflict, or alternately be reconciled with, the fact that Jesus - out of a diverse base of followers including many women who travelled with or bankrolled his ministry - chose twelve males to be his chief group of insider apostles?

It could also be considered that the story of apostolic succession is a mythology created by patriarchally inclined males within the early church. Walter Bauer referred to this as Great Story, I believe. Whereas the internal evidences he saw led him to recognize it as a created myth for the benefit a succession of bishops from Rome tracing back to the original apostles. Rather what he saw was early Christianity was composed of many differing forms, and that the orthodox branch itself was one of several competing Christinities which later took hold and contributed to the creation of the myth of succession straight to them, so they could claim the truth over its competitors.

It was not long after this the Nag Hammadi texts were discovered, which confirmed much of what he saw. It was not a single thing, with later "errors" that crept in, but that the proto orthodox was just one of these Christianities, and not the "The" original one, as the myth attempts to presents. You could call it an origin myth for the later Orthodox church.

So all that to say, in some of the other branches of the fledgling church rising up out of the Jesus movement, you did in fact have these full egalitarian, and non hierarchical groups which would align with the teachings about having no "father", drawing lotteries who would speak today, be they a man or a woman, exalted or humble, and so forth. The later elements of patriarchy would seem to flow from the more "conservative" branch, or rather traditionalist leaning, since patriarchy is very much a traditional norm culturally.

I would see this as well, as part of the inevitable group dynamics where strong male leaders push their way into positions of control, and the support of the culture at large which would lend itself towards in drawing in converts, like anything, it level-sets itself through the dynamics of the system, which includes both internal and external forces. Is that good or bad? It depends what the goal is. For an organized body to be governed by administrators, that might not survive any other way, then it serves a purpose.

From another perspective, say the injunction to see everyone as equal as an object lesson of a deeper spiritualization of what it means to be a child of God, the hierarchy would not serve it as well, most likely interfere with it. That's why I feel Christ taught to call no man father, because of the spiritual realization to be had through that. The necessity of imposing heircharch into that for administrative purposes can be weighed in against that. Some argue that for the long haul, generation after generation of continuance of spiritual principles, some system like this was necessary.

 

[Fool]

"You are all brothers. Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father—the one in heaven"

(Matthew 23:8-9)

Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age—houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life."

(Mark 10:29-30)

"Whoever does the will of God is My brother and sister and mother.”

(Mark 3:35)
​

What do you consider to be the significance of Jesus's instruction that his disciples are to call no man their father on earth? And what does it mean that "fathers" - mentioned in the first segment of the Markan saying as one of the things his disciples must abandon for the sake of the kingdom - are omitted as a class from the new spiritual family of the church, where there will only be brothers, sisters and mothers but not a paterfamilias or human patriarch?

Jesus seems to have taken this teaching quite literally, as can be seen in the passage from Luke where a man states his wish to join the disciples but asks first that he be allowed to bury his father, as mandated by the Torah command to reverence one's parents and the prevailing social custom (practically universal) that one must fulfil one's filial duties by taking care of funerary rites for a deceased father:

To another he said, “Follow me.” But he said, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.” But Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”

(Luke 9:59-60)
​

Jesus even claimed that his mission involved subverting familial bonds, stating that, "I have come to set a man against his father" (Matthew 10:35). In any culture disrespecting one's own parents is regarded as a negative quality but in ancient Judea among devout Jews, it was deemed to be even more offensive because parental authority was held to sacrosanct.

The Torah could not have been blunter about the criminality of this breach of the law: "He who insults his father or his mother shall be put to death" (Ex. 21:17); "Cursed be he who insults his father or mother. --And all the people shall say, Amen" (Deut. 27:16); "If a man has a wayward and defiant son, who does not heed his father or mother and does not obey them even after they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the public place of his community. They shall say to the elders of his town, 'This son of ours is disloyal and defiant; he does not heed us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.' Thereupon the men of his town shall stone him to death. Thus you will sweep out evil from your midst: all Israel will hear and be afraid" (Deut. 21:18-21).

And in the surrounding Greco-Roman culture, the sacred office of the family patriarch was perhaps even more important again. As the historian Proessor Larry Siedentop explained in his 2014 book entitled Inventing the Individual:

The [Roman] paterfamilias (father) was originally both the family’s magistrate and high priest, with his wife, daughters and younger sons having a radically inferior status.

Inequality remained the hallmark of the ancient patriarchal family. “Society” was understood as an association of families rather than of individuals. ​

Why did Jesus appear to harbour such fierce opposition to the ancient institution of fatherhood in particular?

Some scholars consider fathers to “represent patriarchy, the old society in which the man alone ruled and decided. In the new family of Jesus into which the disciples are to grow there can no longer be anyone who dominates others.” (Gerhard Lohfink 2014). In their analysis of Mark 10:29–30, Osiek and Balch conclude, “The old family included a patriarchal father; the new one does not, since God is the only Father.” Professor Elisabeth Fiorenza likewise opines that, in the answer of Jesus, “fathers” are among those to be left behind; “fathers” are not included in the new kinship to which the disciples aspire. For Fiorenza this is an implicit rejection of the power and status of patriarchal structures in the messianic community.

If this is correct, does this have any bearing for how our church hierarchies are structured? And how might this conflict, or alternately be reconciled with, the fact that Jesus - out of a diverse base of followers including many women who travelled with or bankrolled his ministry - chose twelve males to be his chief group of insider apostles and that the church evolved to become a socially stratified patriarchy under a 'holy father' and various lesser 'fathers' in the form of bishops and priests?

the Father in this case is the spirit, mind. The spirit gives life, the fleshly aspect counts for nothing. Flesh gives birth to flesh but the Spirit is born of the Spirit.

the corpus hermetica relates it as:

Know that what sees in thee and hears is the Lord's Word (Logos); but Mind is Father-God. Not separate are they the one from other; just in their union [rather] is it Life consists.


the father of the flesh is what would be considered carnal. the flesh, matter, was considered a lesser but necessary evil for the logos to manifest in this world. those who became attached to forms would be imprisoned forever in the flesh, cycle of rebirths in terrestrial forms.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Did Jesus have 'daddy issues'?

"You are all brothers. Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father—the one in heaven"

(Matthew 23:8-9)

Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age—houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life."

(Mark 10:29-30)

"Whoever does the will of God is My brother and sister and mother.”

(Mark 3:35)
​

What do you consider to be the significance of Jesus's instruction that his disciples are to call no man their father on earth? And what does it mean that "fathers" - mentioned in the first segment of the Markan saying as one of the things his disciples must abandon for the sake of the kingdom - are omitted as a class from the new spiritual family of the church, where there will only be brothers, sisters and mothers but not a paterfamilias or human patriarch?

Jesus seems to have taken this teaching quite literally, as can be seen in the passage from Luke where a man states his wish to join the disciples but asks first that he be allowed to bury his father, as mandated by the Torah command to reverence one's parents and the prevailing social custom (practically universal) that one must fulfil one's filial duties by taking care of funerary rites for a deceased father:

To another he said, “Follow me.” But he said, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.” But Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”

(Luke 9:59-60)
​

Jesus even claimed that his mission involved subverting familial bonds, stating that, "I have come to set a man against his father" (Matthew 10:35). In any culture disrespecting one's own parents is regarded as a negative quality but in ancient Judea among devout Jews, it was deemed to be even more offensive because parental authority was held to be sacrosanct.

The Torah could not have been blunter about the criminality of this breach of the law: "He who insults his father or his mother shall be put to death" (Ex. 21:17); "Cursed be he who insults his father or mother. --And all the people shall say, Amen" (Deut. 27:16); "If a man has a wayward and defiant son, who does not heed his father or mother and does not obey them even after they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the public place of his community. They shall say to the elders of his town, 'This son of ours is disloyal and defiant; he does not heed us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.' Thereupon the men of his town shall stone him to death. Thus you will sweep out evil from your midst: all Israel will hear and be afraid" (Deut. 21:18-21).

And in the surrounding Greco-Roman culture, the sacred office of the family patriarch was perhaps even more important again. As the historian Proessor Larry Siedentop explained in his 2014 book entitled Inventing the Individual:

The [Roman] paterfamilias (father) was originally both the family’s magistrate and high priest, with his wife, daughters and younger sons having a radically inferior status.

Inequality remained the hallmark of the ancient patriarchal family. “Society” was understood as an association of families rather than of individuals. ​

Why did Jesus appear to harbour such fierce opposition to the ancient institution of fatherhood in particular?

Some scholars consider fathers to “represent patriarchy, the old society in which the man alone ruled and decided. In the new family of Jesus into which the disciples are to grow there can no longer be anyone who dominates others.” (Gerhard Lohfink 2014). In their analysis of Mark 10:29–30, Osiek and Balch conclude, “The old family included a patriarchal father; the new one does not, since God is the only Father.” Professor Elisabeth Fiorenza likewise opines that, in the answer of Jesus, “fathers” are among those to be left behind; “fathers” are not included in the new kinship to which the disciples aspire. For Fiorenza this is an implicit rejection of the power and status of patriarchal structures in the messianic community.

If this is correct, does this have any bearing for how our church hierarchies are structured? And how might this conflict, or alternately be reconciled with, the fact that Jesus - out of a diverse base of followers including many women who travelled with or bankrolled his ministry - chose twelve males to be his chief group of insider apostles and that the church evolved to become a socially stratified patriarchy under a 'holy father' and various lesser 'fathers' in the form of bishops and priests?

To me, Jesus is speaking of Spiritual father, not the physical father. Do not call anyone on earth your Spiritual father. Only the God in heaven is your spiritual father. Putting Son against his father, is just another concept. It means, when the Christ appeared, there happens many cases, where the son becomes a believer, and the father denier or vice versa, and therefore, He is likened to sword who separates the son from the father, believer from denier.

 

[nPeace]

Did Jesus have 'daddy issues'?

"You are all brothers. Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father—the one in heaven"

(Matthew 23:8-9)

Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age—houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life."

(Mark 10:29-30)

"Whoever does the will of God is My brother and sister and mother.”

(Mark 3:35)
​

What do you consider to be the significance of Jesus's instruction that his disciples are to call no man their father on earth? And what does it mean that "fathers" - mentioned in the first segment of the Markan saying as one of the things his disciples must abandon for the sake of the kingdom - are omitted as a class from the new spiritual family of the church, where there will only be brothers, sisters and mothers but not a paterfamilias or human patriarch?

Jesus seems to have taken this teaching quite literally, as can be seen in the passage from Luke where a man states his wish to join the disciples but asks first that he be allowed to bury his father, as mandated by the Torah command to reverence one's parents and the prevailing social custom (practically universal) that one must fulfil one's filial duties by taking care of funerary rites for a deceased father:

To another he said, “Follow me.” But he said, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.” But Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”

(Luke 9:59-60)
​

Jesus even claimed that his mission involved subverting familial bonds, stating that, "I have come to set a man against his father" (Matthew 10:35). In any culture disrespecting one's own parents is regarded as a negative quality but in ancient Judea among devout Jews, it was deemed to be even more offensive because parental authority was held to be sacrosanct.

The Torah could not have been blunter about the criminality of this breach of the law: "He who insults his father or his mother shall be put to death" (Ex. 21:17); "Cursed be he who insults his father or mother. --And all the people shall say, Amen" (Deut. 27:16); "If a man has a wayward and defiant son, who does not heed his father or mother and does not obey them even after they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the public place of his community. They shall say to the elders of his town, 'This son of ours is disloyal and defiant; he does not heed us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.' Thereupon the men of his town shall stone him to death. Thus you will sweep out evil from your midst: all Israel will hear and be afraid" (Deut. 21:18-21).

And in the surrounding Greco-Roman culture, the sacred office of the family patriarch was perhaps even more important again. As the historian Proessor Larry Siedentop explained in his 2014 book entitled Inventing the Individual:

The [Roman] paterfamilias (father) was originally both the family’s magistrate and high priest, with his wife, daughters and younger sons having a radically inferior status.

Inequality remained the hallmark of the ancient patriarchal family. “Society” was understood as an association of families rather than of individuals. ​

Why did Jesus appear to harbour such fierce opposition to the ancient institution of fatherhood in particular?

Some scholars consider fathers to “represent patriarchy, the old society in which the man alone ruled and decided. In the new family of Jesus into which the disciples are to grow there can no longer be anyone who dominates others.” (Gerhard Lohfink 2014). In their analysis of Mark 10:29–30, Osiek and Balch conclude, “The old family included a patriarchal father; the new one does not, since God is the only Father.” Professor Elisabeth Fiorenza likewise opines that, in the answer of Jesus, “fathers” are among those to be left behind; “fathers” are not included in the new kinship to which the disciples aspire. For Fiorenza this is an implicit rejection of the power and status of patriarchal structures in the messianic community.

If this is correct, does this have any bearing for how our church hierarchies are structured? And how might this conflict, or alternately be reconciled with, the fact that Jesus - out of a diverse base of followers including many women who travelled with or bankrolled his ministry - chose twelve males to be his chief group of insider apostles and that the church evolved to become a socially stratified patriarchy under a 'holy father' and various lesser 'fathers' in the form of bishops and priests?

When I read the verses, from 1-12, the context seems to suggest to me that Jesus is discouraging the attitude promoted by the religious leaders, of taking on titles, of prominence, n order to receive honor from men.
They likely insisted on such titles, as some today demand, or insist on being called Father Paul. Reverend Paul, The Right Honorable Reverend Paul, Elder Paul, Bishop and Pope Paul...
pope (Latin: papa from Greek: πάππας pappas, "father"),

Why are such title necessary, if all are brothers?
I also think it's significant that Jesus drew attention to their attire.
...all their works they do to be seen of men: for they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, and love the chief place at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues.

Why be attired to stand out, and draw attention to self?
Why does what Jesus said here seem to be exactly what we see today.

Matthew 23 American Standard Version (ASV)
23 Then spake Jesus to the multitudes and to his disciples, 2 saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat: 3 all things therefore whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe: but do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not. 4 Yea, they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger. 5 But all their works they do to be seen of men: for they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 6 and love the chief place at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7 and the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called of men, Rabbi. 8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren. 9 And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, even the Christ. 11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled; and whosoever shall humble himself shall be exalted.

 

[David T]

It could also be considered that the story of apostolic succession is a mythology created by patriarchally inclined males within the early church. Walter Bauer referred to this as Great Story, I believe. Whereas the internal evidences he saw led him to recognize it as a created myth for the benefit a succession of bishops from Rome tracing back to the original apostles. Rather what he saw was early Christianity was composed of many differing forms, and that the orthodox branch itself was one of several competing Christinities which later took hold and contributed to the creation of the myth of succession straight to them, so they could claim the truth over its competitors.

It was not long after this the Nag Hammadi texts were discovered, which confirmed much of what he saw. It was not a single thing, with later "errors" that crept in, but that the proto orthodox was just one of these Christianities, and not the "The" original one, as the myth attempts to presents. You could call it an origin myth for the later Orthodox church.

So all that to say, in some of the other branches of the fledgling church rising up out of the Jesus movement, you did in fact have these full egalitarian, and non hierarchical groups which would align with the teachings about having no "father", drawing lotteries who would speak today, be they a man or a woman, exalted or humble, and so forth. The later elements of patriarchy would seem to flow from the more "conservative" branch, or rather traditionalist leaning, since patriarchy is very much a traditional norm culturally.

I would see this as well, as part of the inevitable group dynamics where strong male leaders push their way into positions of control, and the support of the culture at large which would lend itself towards in drawing in converts, like anything, it level-sets itself through the dynamics of the system, which includes both internal and external forces. Is that good or bad? It depends what the goal is. For an organized body to be governed by administrators, that might not survive any other way, then it serves a purpose.

From another perspective, say the injunction to see everyone as equal as an object lesson of a deeper spiritualization of what it means to be a child of God, the hierarchy would not serve it as well, most likely interfere with it. That's why I feel Christ taught to call no man father, because of the spiritual realization to be had through that. The necessity of imposing heircharch into that for administrative purposes can be weighed in against that. Some argue that for the long haul, generation after generation of continuance of spiritual principles, some system like this was necessary.

Wind that was well written.

I have deleted my post twice. I think you are hitting on something important and not understood just to keep it brief.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Did Jesus have 'daddy issues'?

"You are all brothers. Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father—the one in heaven"

(Matthew 23:8-9)

Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age—houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life."

(Mark 10:29-30)

"Whoever does the will of God is My brother and sister and mother.”

(Mark 3:35)
​

What do you consider to be the significance of Jesus's instruction that his disciples are to call no man their father on earth? And what does it mean that "fathers" - mentioned in the first segment of the Markan saying as one of the things his disciples must abandon for the sake of the kingdom - are omitted as a class from the new spiritual family of the church, where there will only be brothers, sisters and mothers but not a paterfamilias or human patriarch?

Jesus seems to have taken this teaching quite literally, as can be seen in the passage from Luke where a man states his wish to join the disciples but asks first that he be allowed to bury his father, as mandated by the Torah command to reverence one's parents and the prevailing social custom (practically universal) that one must fulfil one's filial duties by taking care of funerary rites for a deceased father:

To another he said, “Follow me.” But he said, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.” But Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”

(Luke 9:59-60)
​

Jesus even claimed that his mission involved subverting familial bonds, stating that, "I have come to set a man against his father" (Matthew 10:35). In any culture disrespecting one's own parents is regarded as a negative quality but in ancient Judea among devout Jews, it was deemed to be even more offensive because parental authority was held to be sacrosanct.

The Torah could not have been blunter about the criminality of this breach of the law: "He who insults his father or his mother shall be put to death" (Ex. 21:17); "Cursed be he who insults his father or mother. --And all the people shall say, Amen" (Deut. 27:16); "If a man has a wayward and defiant son, who does not heed his father or mother and does not obey them even after they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the public place of his community. They shall say to the elders of his town, 'This son of ours is disloyal and defiant; he does not heed us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.' Thereupon the men of his town shall stone him to death. Thus you will sweep out evil from your midst: all Israel will hear and be afraid" (Deut. 21:18-21).

And in the surrounding Greco-Roman culture, the sacred office of the family patriarch was perhaps even more important again. As the historian Proessor Larry Siedentop explained in his 2014 book entitled Inventing the Individual:

The [Roman] paterfamilias (father) was originally both the family’s magistrate and high priest, with his wife, daughters and younger sons having a radically inferior status.

Inequality remained the hallmark of the ancient patriarchal family. “Society” was understood as an association of families rather than of individuals. ​

Why did Jesus appear to harbour such fierce opposition to the ancient institution of fatherhood in particular?

Some scholars consider fathers to “represent patriarchy, the old society in which the man alone ruled and decided. In the new family of Jesus into which the disciples are to grow there can no longer be anyone who dominates others.” (Gerhard Lohfink 2014). In their analysis of Mark 10:29–30, Osiek and Balch conclude, “The old family included a patriarchal father; the new one does not, since God is the only Father.” Professor Elisabeth Fiorenza likewise opines that, in the answer of Jesus, “fathers” are among those to be left behind; “fathers” are not included in the new kinship to which the disciples aspire. For Fiorenza this is an implicit rejection of the power and status of patriarchal structures in the messianic community.

If this is correct, does this have any bearing for how our church hierarchies are structured? And how might this conflict, or alternately be reconciled with, the fact that Jesus - out of a diverse base of followers including many women who travelled with or bankrolled his ministry - chose twelve males to be his chief group of insider apostles and that the church evolved to become a socially stratified patriarchy under a 'holy father' and various lesser 'fathers' in the form of bishops and priests?

Wow! This is a month's sermons, and not on subjects that are usually discussed in Protestant Churches. Hopefully, I'll cut and paste this to a Word Document, and take the initiative to study it exhaustively. I've read about a quarter of it in detail and it sets me back. I'll have to get back to you on this.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Um, so I started looking at your posting and Matt 23:8-9 is something I never interpreted that way! It is the same in the KJV. I understand the sentiment, but just did not remember Jesus making that statement. Not going to be Catholic though.

Back to work.

 

[2ndpillar]

If this is correct, does this have any bearing for how our church hierarchies are structured? And how might this conflict, or alternately be reconciled with, the fact that Jesus - out of a diverse base of followers including many women who travelled with or bankrolled his ministry - chose twelve males to be his chief group of insider apostles and that the church evolved to become a socially stratified patriarchy under a 'holy father' and various lesser 'fathers' in the form of bishops and priests?

The "Christian" church is the church/flock of Peter & Paul (Zechariah 11:7), and Paul's delegated pastors, teachers, apostles, etc. The tabernacle of God (the Spirit of Revelation), the church of Yeshua, has only one leader, one teacher, and one father. Women seem to flock to Paul and his lawless ways, the false gospel of grace/cross, the way of the tares.

 

[metis]

It could also be considered that the story of apostolic succession is a mythology created by patriarchally inclined males within the early church.

That would not be correct as first century writings were added to by second-century writings as continuations, etc. And, as a matter of fact, the "mark" of the early Church was not which canon you had since that had not yet been decided, but was based on where your leaders appointed by previous leaders that could trace their appointments back to the apostles through the laying on of hands.

 

[metis]

The tabernacle of God (the Spirit of Revelation), the church of Yeshua, has only one leader, one teacher, and one father.

So, what happened after Jesus was crucified and was gone? And since you quote from the Bible, whom do you think chose that?

 

[metis]

When I read the verses, from 1-12, the context seems to suggest to me that Jesus is discouraging the attitude promoted by the religious leaders, of taking on titles, of prominence, n order to receive honor from men.

Then Jesus appointing of the Twelve and giving them authority makes no sense.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Then Jesus appointing of the Twelve and giving them authority makes no sense.

I've seen so much misconduct and abuse from religious organizations that I now only rely on "The individual Priesthood of the Believer". 1 Peter 2:9

 

[nPeace]

Then Jesus appointing of the Twelve and giving them authority makes no sense.

Why do you believe that?

 

[2ndpillar]

So, what happened after Jesus was crucified and was gone? And since you quote from the Bible, whom do you think chose that?

The "teacher" is the "Spirit of Revelation" (1 John 2:27), the "anointing", the rock/petras, the church is built on (Matthew 16:17). The "Father" is "Our Father, who art in heaven", and the "leader" is Christ, in as much as one remains in his Word.(1 John 3:9). As for the NT, it was canonized by the daughter of Babylon, under the leadership of one of the "healed" "beast", the emperor Constantine. But it still contains the "wheat", mixed with the tare seed, in order for the "false prophet" to have a chance to "deceive" those who dwell on the earth", as Paul , the false prophet, is part of the foundation of the church instituted by the Roman emperor Constantine.

 

[metis]

I've seen so much misconduct and abuse from religious organizations that I now only rely on "The individual Priesthood of the Believer". 1 Peter 2:9

There always has been as such, including with the apostles, but we gotta be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater because some don't behave morally.

 

[nPeace]

There always has been as such, including with the apostles, but we gotta be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater because some don't behave morally.

Not connecting.
What does the title Father, have to do with Jesus giving his apostles authority?

 

[metis]

Why do you believe that?

Because it says in the NT that Jesus and the apostles taught with authority. So, do you believe that or not?

 

[metis]

What does the title Father, have to do with Jesus giving his apostles authority?

It doesn't, so you misinterpreted what I was saying.

The use of "father" as applied to a priest comes from the Greek word "presbyteros", whereas an alternative translation is "elder". OTOH, the use of "Father" as stated by Jesus comes from the Hebrew word "Abba", which is more of a casual term for "father".

 

[Cooky]

Because it says in the NT that Jesus and the apostles taught with authority. So, do you believe that or not?

Exactly. Jesus could have easily just considered all his disciples as "Apostles"... But that's not what he did.