Curios as to how Protestant commentaries analyze 2 Peter 3:4.
Pretty much the same as what we've been saying all along. Here's the passage:
2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
Gill says that "by 'the fathers' they mean the first inhabitants of the world, as Adam, Abel, Seth, &c. and all the patriarchs and prophets in all ages; the Ethiopic version renders it, 'our first fathers':"
And by "they" he means the mockers in whose mouths Peter is placing these words. You see, this isn't Peter talking. These are last days mockers arguing from continuity that there will not be an apocalypse, because from the days of the first humans till now there's never been a global catastrophe. Peter then reminds them of the flood, which disproves the continuity theory.
So this passage doesn't come anywhere close to violating the command of Christ to avoid the use of the three ecclesiastical titles. A has been said to you several times, by several of us, we accept the validity of the term "father" as a description of a real fatherly function, such as a biological father, or an evangelist like Paul who has really participated in the conversion experiences of specific individuals. Those are relationships, not titles. So the prohibition of Jesus against ecclesiastical titles of honor stands. Blurring the distinctions between these functional relationships versus the prohibited titles does not solve anything. It just creates a pretext for violating a direct order from our true CO.
Speaking of solving things. I need to admit an error I made earlier. It was an honest error, but an error nonetheless. I argued that Paul being teacher to the gentiles was not problematic because the word used was didaskalos, which I suggested at the time was strictly "teacher," whereas "rabbi" was strictly "My great one." I have done further research and realized that didaskalos also carries the sense of "master," and that while "rabbi" really does literally mean "my great one," it was semantically evolving into a rough equivalent to "teacher."
The ambiguous part for me is when did that shift occur, and to what extent. I have read some authorities who suggest "rabbi" was just coming into fashion as a term of praise to the Jewish sages during the time of Christ, and so still carrying the emphasis of pride of title, and that may explain 1) why He was disposed to forbid it to His disciples, and 2) why later Greek texts would equate it with didaskalos. Because it seems didaskalos was one of those dual purpose words,, having an early history of "master" as in slave master, but evolving into teaching, but having an overlap period in which it could be used for either, which is why it could be used as the Greek equivalent of rabbi. So that by Paul's time, when He uses it to speak of being a teacher of the Gentiles, he is emphasizing the teaching as a function, not "master" as a title. In any event, Paul uses it to describe His relationship to the Gentiles, and does not employ it as a personal ecclesiastical title, and is therefore not in violation of the command of Christ.
So what I'm saying is the idea that Jesus' command still forbids certain ecclesiastical titles still stands. That general principle is obvious from the text. But the word history of some of those titles is more complicated than I initially realized, and I do apologize for not accounting for that in my earlier analysis.
Peace,
SR
Springfield Reformer:
Thanks for the protestant commentary on this. This is one of those vague passages as it could mean all of the OT prophets were fathers [beyond the ones specifically names as such, Abraham, Isacc, David in the NT] and broadens the usage of the term to all of the OT prophets who lead the OT Jewish people and term fathers, if I read Gill correctly, also refers to all spiritual fathers for all ages. So does he believe that spiritual father is restricted for usage within dome defined age, or does it go beyond the NT period into early Apostolic Church. As the article I linked earlier pointed out, Saint Irenaeus of Lyons used the term “fathers” as did Saint Clement of Alexandria in the 2nd century, so those 2 at least, seemed to think the term spiritual father could indeed be applied to men like Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, etc.
And as you do acknowledge, Paul as a father is acceptable as he was involved in the conversion, pastoring and shepherding of souls. A parish priest called father is, from the Catholic perspective, doing the same. It is the parish priest who is the ordinary minister of the sacrament of baptism, which as I think you know, from the Catholic perspective, is a sacrament that gives Grace and removes original sin and makes one an adopted son or daughter of God. So just on that point, a parish priest functionally in terms of their pastoring ministries is in essence equivalent to what Saint Paul was to say the Corinthians.
Hey no problem with your views, I am not trying to play a gotcha game. I stand by the Catholic position but at least you have the objectivity to recognize that reading MT 23:7-9 in English today and thinking it can only mean X is problematic as you do recognize words, even in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, etc, can have different meanings and do change over time.