In Matthew's Gospel 23:1-12, we clearly read: "do not call yourselves 'Rabbi' for one is Christ your Teacher; and do not call anyone on earth as a Father". Don't you think that when the Orthodox call their priests "Fathers" that this contravenes this biblical commandment?

Apostle Paul, calls himself a "Father" because he names Timothy as his genuine, true (worthy that is) child: "Timothy, my true child" (1 Tim. 1:2). "Timothy, dear child" (2 Tim. 1:2). Also, 1 Corinth. 4:15 reads: "I admonish you as dear children of mine [that you are]". He also writes in his First Epistle to the Corinthians (4:15) that "even though you have countless of Tutors, but not many Fathers, nevertheless I bore you in Christ". How come therefore Paul calls himself "Father", despite Christ's explicit command?

The Protestant may argue that according to Blessed Theophylact Paul calls himself "Father" (sic) "not in order to profess the title but due to excess love" (ou to a3iwma emfainwn, alla ths agaphs thn yperbolhn). Furthermore, Paul calls himself "Father" only among those he preached to, whereas the Orthodox priests are also "Fathers" to those they did not rebear.

Nevertheless, Apostle Paul does contravene the Lord's commandment, should this commandment be taken in the strict Protestant interpretation. Apart from this, we note that Apostle Paul himself begins Acts 22:1 with the words: "Fathers and brothers". How come Apostle Paul names others as "Fathers" of whom not only is he not a spiritual child, but opposed to them, since they were men of the Law and he was away from all legal constitutions? Do you therefore see that the title "Father" that is prohibited by the Lord, nevertheless seems to be perfectly acceptable to Paul for his own use when he refers to himself, and in fact not just on one occasion, but many times, calling both himself as well as others using this title? Therefore, shouldn't one deduce from this observation that what the Lord actually forbade in the titles "Father" and "Teacher" was the egotistical manner in which one addresses them, just like the Pharisees would?

This becomes clear if we pay attention to the Lord's words: Immediately after he forbids the use of the title "Father" He adds: "ο υψών εαυτώ ταπεινωθήσεται" i.e. "the one who exalts himself will be humbled".

But the Protestant argument does not even stand to common sense. To see this, let us note something that the Protestants often forget, namely that the commandment does not only forbid us from being called "Father" but also from being called "Rabbi" or "Teacher". And yet, Paul names himself as "teacher of the nations" whereas he also calls other people with this title: "Prophets and teachers" (Acts 13:1); "Apostles and teachers" (1 Cor. 12:18). In 2 Tim. 1:11 he calls himself a "teacher of the nations". Even in 1 Tim. 2:7 he writes the words: "teacher of the nations".

Don't you think that Christ is the only Teacher, Father or Guide only in an absolute sense but in a relative sense others can also be called Teachers, Fathers or Guides, since Apostle Paul himself calls himself a "Father" and a "Teacher"? And he even calls others as "Fathers" and "Teachers"?

<<Well, Apostle Paul calls himself a Father and Teacher>>, Protestants will admit. <<However>>, some Protestants may insist, <<if others called him such he would have torn his clothes>>.

But why? What kind of logic is this that dictates that one man can call himself as well as others using the titles "Father" and "Teacher" and then tear his clothes in protest if others call him in the same way he addresses both himself and others? Only madmen are excused to do something like this!

This is not coherent thinking but sheer madness; not of Apostle Paul, may we add, but of those who claim such things!

CONCLUSION

The Orthodox Church, faithful to the spirit of the Bible that She preserves unadulterated inside Her Holy Tradition, understands the words of Her Saints as they were meant. She thus understands, as not only the Bible but also common logic dictate, that the titles "Father", "Teacher" etc. have their place in a relative sense.