Call no man on earth father

[john darling]

In Mt 23:7-12 Jesus gives instructions. He goes through a list of special titles that people use for one another and says we should not use these special titles, because it amounts to flattering and exalting one another. In the list he includes titles like "master", "father" and "teacher".

The title "Mr." is a shortened form of master. The title "Sir" is a shortened form of "sire" which means father and the title "doctor" means teacher, not limited to the field of medicine as we most commonly understand it today, but pertaining to other areas like religious teaching, too. There are feminine titles, too, like "Mrs" which is the shortened form of mistress.

I believe conforming to this teaching is part of what it means to be born again; that being born again is not just a ritual or a "state of mind" but that it requires actual change. We die to our old ways and we become born again into a completely new set of values where we behave differently.

According to what Jesus has said here, we should not use these special titles for one another, because we are all brothers and sisters. This includes titles like "dad", and by implication of the basic spiritual lesson behind the teaching, titles like "mom" or "mum", too.

I think children are a special case when it comes to "dad" and "mom" because they need to understand they have a special connection to these adults which is different from their relationship to other adults.

But once the children grow up and become mature enough to understand the spiritual lessons behind the teaching, they too can start applying the lessons behind the teaching.

 

[Deborah13]

Mat 23:5 `And all their works they do to be seen by men, and they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the fringes of their garments,
Mat 23:6 they love also the chief couches in the supper, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
Mat 23:7 and the salutations in the market-places, and to be called by men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
Mat 23:8 `And ye--ye may not be called Rabbi, for one is your director--the Christ, and all ye are brethren;
Mat 23:9 and ye may not call any your father on the earth, for one is your Father, who is in the heavens,
Mat 23:10 nor may ye be called directors, for one is your director--the Christ.

I think when we look at the full context we get a specific understanding about what Jesus is talking about here.
I believe He is talking about pride in those that like or insist on being given a title. But also when someone attaches the idea of reverence or worship, placing them above or equal to God, to a term that they are using to describe someone.

When I called my parents Dad or Mom that is not giving them a title, that is a term that is used in place of their name and describes who they are to me in my family. It gives them no special place of honor in the world or in the church.
If someone were to ask one of my children, who is your mother, they are not going to say Mother Deborah or Mother.
The terms Mr, Mrs, and Miss are terms that describe who a person is male, female, married, single. They in no way give that person a place of honor in the world or in the church.
President...., Vice President....., etc. are the same in that they give a description of a person's position within a government. There is no reverence attached to the term itself.

 

[john darling]

Hi Deborah. Sure, I'm fine to look at context, though I think the bottom line is whether we are willing to take Jesus at his word or not. There will always be the temptation to "explain away" the salt in his teachings, but when we do that I think it's an effort to move away from the "born again" values that Jesus was getting at.

I included verses 11 and 12 in my original post because I believe they also shed context on the situation.
MT 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
MT 23:12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

Jesus says that HE feels the use of these titles amounts to exalting one another. He didn't make the qualifications that you are making. He just said, "don't do it and these are the reasons why you should not do it". He did not say, "don't do it only if you personally feel it's a problem".

For example, you say:

When I called my parents Dad or Mom that is not giving them a title, that is a term that is used in place of their name and describes who they are to me in my family. It gives them no special place of honor in the world or in the church.

Okay, to test this, try calling them by their proper name for a few weeks and see what happens. It's not like you need to use "mom" and "dad" so they won't get confused about whether or not they really are your parents. If you use their proper names, they will still be your parents. Give it a try and see what kind of emotions and feelings you experience, and ask yourself, "why do I feel this way"? You will almost certainly feel nervous. You will feel an extreme reluctance to do it. You will suddenly find every reasonable excuse in the world for why these titles are no big deal and you shouldn't have to go through with it. But why should you feel anxious? It's no big deal, right?

And how will they respond? Will they maybe say something like, "Oh you're trying to obey Jesus? That's interesting. Let us know how it goes". Or will it be something more like, " You will call us mom and dad to show us the respect we deserve as your parents".

In my own case, my father didn't like it but he accepted it. My mother hated it. Though she very grudgingly accepted it, she made it clear that I was hurting her deeply to do so.

It's especially tricky when going to the doctor's office or other official places of business, but you not only learn to live with it, but you also start to see things from a very different perspective.

The terms Mr, Mrs, and Miss are terms that describe who a person is male, female, married, single. They in no way give that person a place of honor in the world or in the church.

Again, test it. Try avoiding these titles and you'll see a very different picture to the rosy image you have of people who have no interest in the "respectability" or "social politeness" that comes with these special titles. I can say this with confidence because I've tried it. People often have a "civilized" image of others around them but when it comes to doing something radically different which goes against that civilized image, the spiritual lessons become much clearer. Jesus had a very good reason for giving this instruction which only becomes apparent when you test it.

However, the real point here is, are we willing to do what Jesus said to do just because he said to do it? Whether the people around us becoming angry or not at our lack of titles isn't the issue. Whether they see the titles as harmless or necessary flattery isn't the issue.

Jesus gave instructions on how we should behave regarding these special titles. We should not use them. We are set apart. In the world but not of the world. Born again and become like little children learning a new set of values. Jesus is the teacher and he's given instructions. Are we willing to obey him even when we don't see the relevance of his teaching in our own life or will we be like those children who always have a reasonable argument to avoid the disciplines we don't like?

If someone were to ask one of my children, who is your mother, they are not going to say Mother Deborah or Mother.

It depends on the context. How old are they? If they are grown, then wouldn't it be a bit strange for them to say, "mom" if someone asks, who is your mother? Like filling out an application or whatever which requires them to list their parents; they're not going to write "mom" in that section.

Are they young children or teenagers? If so, I already suggested that I think kids are an exception in that they may not be old enough to understand the reasons behind the teaching. I've known teenagers who refer to their parents by their first name. It's only as much a problem as the parents decide to make of it. The titles that we use for one another do not dictate the love we have for one another, or, they should not, but the application of Jesus' teaching on this issue exposes a dark area of emotional attachment and implied respectability that most of us never much consider.

 

[Deborah13]

Hi Deborah. Sure, I'm fine to look at context, though I think the bottom line is whether we are willing to take Jesus at his word or not. There will always be the temptation to "explain away" the salt in his teachings, but when we do that I think it's an effort to move away from the "born again" values that Jesus was getting at.

I included verses 11 and 12 in my original post because I believe they also shed context on the situation.
MT 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
MT 23:12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

Jesus says that HE feels the use of these titles amounts to exalting one another. He didn't make the qualifications that you are making. He just said, "don't do it and these are the reasons why you should not do it". He did not say, "don't do it only if you personally feel it's a problem".

For example, you say:


Okay, to test this, try calling them by their proper name for a few weeks and see what happens. It's not like you need to use "mom" and "dad" so they won't get confused about whether or not they really are your parents. If you use their proper names, they will still be your parents. Give it a try and see what kind of emotions and feelings you experience, and ask yourself, "why do I feel this way"? You will almost certainly feel nervous. You will feel an extreme reluctance to do it. You will suddenly find every reasonable excuse in the world for why these titles are no big deal and you shouldn't have to go through with it. But why should you feel anxious? It's no big deal, right?

And how will they respond? Will they maybe say something like, "Oh you're trying to obey Jesus? That's interesting. Let us know how it goes". Or will it be something more like, " You will call us mom and dad to show us the respect we deserve as your parents".

In my own case, my father didn't like it but he accepted it. My mother hated it. Though she very grudgingly accepted it, she made it clear that I was hurting her deeply to do so.

It's especially tricky when going to the doctor's office or other official places of business, but you not only learn to live with it, but you also start to see things from a very different perspective.

Again, test it. Try avoiding these titles and you'll see a very different picture to the rosy image you have of people who have no interest in the "respectability" or "social politeness" that comes with these special titles. I can say this with confidence because I've tried it. People often have a "civilized" image of others around them but when it comes to doing something radically different which goes against that civilized image, the spiritual lessons become much clearer. Jesus had a very good reason for giving this instruction which only becomes apparent when you test it.

However, the real point here is, are we willing to do what Jesus said to do just because he said to do it? Whether the people around us becoming angry or not at our lack of titles isn't the issue. Whether they see the titles as harmless or necessary flattery isn't the issue.

Jesus gave instructions on how we should behave regarding these special titles. We should not use them. We are set apart. In the world but not of the world. Born again and become like little children learning a new set of values. Jesus is the teacher and he's given instructions. Are we willing to obey him even when we don't see the relevance of his teaching in our own life or will we be like those children who always have a reasonable argument to avoid the disciplines we don't like?

It depends on the context. How old are they? If they are grown, then wouldn't it be a bit strange for them to say, "mom" if someone asks, who is your mother? Like filling out an application or whatever which requires them to list their parents; they're not going to write "mom" in that section. Are they young children or teenagers?

If so, I already suggested that I think kids are an exception in that they may not be old enough to understand the reasons behind the teaching. I've known teenagers who refer to their parents by their first name. It's only as much a problem as the parents decide to make of it. The titles that we use for one another do not dictate the love we have for one another, or, they should not, but the application of Jesus' teaching on this issue exposes a dark area of emotional attachment and implied respectability that most of us never much consider.

Gen 22:7 And Isaac speaketh unto Abraham his father, and saith, `My father,' and he saith, `Here am I, my son.' And he saith, `Lo, the fire and the wood, and where the lamb for a burnt-offering?'
Isaac calls Abraham, father.

Luk 15:20 `And having risen, he went unto his own father, and he being yet far distant, his father saw him, and was moved with compassion, and having ran he fell upon his neck and kissed him;
Luk 15:21 and the son said to him, Father, I did sin--to the heaven, and before thee, and no more am I worthy to be called thy son.
Jesus tells the story of the prodigal son, He says that the son said..."Father, I did sin"....to his own father.

Luk 2:48 And, having seen him, they were amazed, and his mother said unto him, `Child, why didst thou thus to us? lo, thy father and I, sorrowing, were seeking thee.'
Mary says to Jesus, your father and I. She doesn't say, Joseph and I. Now if Jesus was calling Joseph, Joseph then that is what she would have called him too, when speaking to Jesus wouldn't she?

 

[Deborah13]

Hi Deborah. Sure, I'm fine to look at context, though I think the bottom line is whether we are willing to take Jesus at his word or not. There will always be the temptation to "explain away" the salt in his teachings, but when we do that I think it's an effort to move away from the "born again" values that Jesus was getting at.

I included verses 11 and 12 in my original post because I believe they also shed context on the situation.
MT 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
MT 23:12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

Jesus says that HE feels the use of these titles amounts to exalting one another. He didn't make the qualifications that you are making. He just said, "don't do it and these are the reasons why you should not do it". He did not say, "don't do it only if you personally feel it's a problem".

For example, you say:


Okay, to test this, try calling them by their proper name for a few weeks and see what happens. It's not like you need to use "mom" and "dad" so they won't get confused about whether or not they really are your parents. If you use their proper names, they will still be your parents. Give it a try and see what kind of emotions and feelings you experience, and ask yourself, "why do I feel this way"? You will almost certainly feel nervous. You will feel an extreme reluctance to do it. You will suddenly find every reasonable excuse in the world for why these titles are no big deal and you shouldn't have to go through with it. But why should you feel anxious? It's no big deal, right?

And how will they respond? Will they maybe say something like, "Oh you're trying to obey Jesus? That's interesting. Let us know how it goes". Or will it be something more like, " You will call us mom and dad to show us the respect we deserve as your parents".

In my own case, my father didn't like it but he accepted it. My mother hated it. Though she very grudgingly accepted it, she made it clear that I was hurting her deeply to do so.

It's especially tricky when going to the doctor's office or other official places of business, but you not only learn to live with it, but you also start to see things from a very different perspective.



Again, test it. Try avoiding these titles and you'll see a very different picture to the rosy image you have of people who have no interest in the "respectability" or "social politeness" that comes with these special titles. I can say this with confidence because I've tried it. People often have a "civilized" image of others around them but when it comes to doing something radically different which goes against that civilized image, the spiritual lessons become much clearer. Jesus had a very good reason for giving this instruction which only becomes apparent when you test it.

However, the real point here is, are we willing to do what Jesus said to do just because he said to do it? Whether the people around us becoming angry or not at our lack of titles isn't the issue. Whether they see the titles as harmless or necessary flattery isn't the issue.

Jesus gave instructions on how we should behave regarding these special titles. We should not use them. We are set apart. In the world but not of the world. Born again and become like little children learning a new set of values. Jesus is the teacher and he's given instructions. Are we willing to obey him even when we don't see the relevance of his teaching in our own life or will we be like those children who always have a reasonable argument to avoid the disciplines we don't like?



It depends on the context. How old are they? If they are grown, then wouldn't it be a bit strange for them to say, "mom" if someone asks, who is your mother? Like filling out an application or whatever which requires them to list their parents; they're not going to write "mom" in that section.

Are they young children or teenagers? If so, I already suggested that I think kids are an exception in that they may not be old enough to understand the reasons behind the teaching. I've known teenagers who refer to their parents by their first name. It's only as much a problem as the parents decide to make of it. The titles that we use for one another do not dictate the love we have for one another, or, they should not, but the application of Jesus' teaching on this issue exposes a dark area of emotional attachment and implied respectability that most of us never much consider.

I fell right into your thinking there. Wow.
First Jesus doesn't say anything about using any titles, He doesn't say anything about not calling your mother mom or mother. He doesn't say anything of those things.
He mentions three very specific titles. Rabbi, Father, and Master. And who was He talking to when He was saying this and why? These were titles that had begun to be used by the Pharisees. They used them in order to place themselves above the common people and even each other. Jesus is saying to the apostles, don't use these terms. You are all equal to each other.
We have the Father in heaven, Jesus in our Master, the Holy Spirit is our teacher.

"Though the title of Rabbi, mentioned above, was comparatively recent in the time of our Lord, yet it was in great vogue, as were the others - father and master, mentioned in this and the following verse: some had all three titles, for thus in Bab. Maccoth, fol. 24. It is feigned," says Dr. Lightfoot, "that when King Jehosaphat saw a disciple of the wise men, he rose up out of his throne, and embraced him, and said, אבי אבי רבי רבי מרי מרי, Abbi, Abbi! Rabbi, Rabbi! Mori, Mori! - Father, Father! Rabbi, Rabbi! Master, Master!" Here then are the three titles which, in Matthew 23:7, Matthew 23:8, Matthew 23:10, our blessed Lord condemns; and these were titles that the Jewish doctors greatly affected."
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/clarke/matthew/23.htm

 

[john darling]

Gen 22:7 And Isaac speaketh unto Abraham his father, and saith, `My father,' and he saith, `Here am I, my son.' And he saith, `Lo, the fire and the wood, and where the lamb for a burnt-offering?'
Isaac calls Abraham, father.

Luk 15:20 `And having risen, he went unto his own father, and he being yet far distant, his father saw him, and was moved with compassion, and having ran he fell upon his neck and kissed him;
Luk 15:21 and the son said to him, Father, I did sin--to the heaven, and before thee, and no more am I worthy to be called thy son.
Jesus tells the story of the prodigal son, He says that the son said..."Father, I did sin"....to his own father.

Luk 2:48 And, having seen him, they were amazed, and his mother said unto him, `Child, why didst thou thus to us? lo, thy father and I, sorrowing, were seeking thee.'
Mary says to Jesus, your father and I. She doesn't say, Joseph and I. Now if Jesus was calling Joseph, Joseph then that is what she would have called him too, when speaking to Jesus wouldn't she?

Hi Deborah, these verses are either from the OT (so a different context) or are parables. Jesus was not saying we can never use the word "father" in any context. He said that we should not use this as a title for people. So, I have a a biological father. He is my father. But when I see him or want to address him, I call him by his name.

 

[john darling]

I fell right into your thinking there. Wow.

I don't know what that means, but I'm not trying to trick you.

First Jesus doesn't say anything about using any titles, He doesn't say anything about not calling your mother mom or mother. He doesn't say anything of those things.

I think you might be exaggerating a little bit because you are anxious about the implications of this teaching. That's just my assessment as to why you're saying this thing about how he didn't say anything about titles when the text is clearly about using titles.

Anyway, although Jesus gave this teaching as a command, there is still a reason or "spirit" behind the command. We sometimes talk about getting the "spirit" of a teaching which means getting the essence of what it's attempting to communicate.

I believe the essence of this teaching also includes feminine titles. For example, "If any man be in Christ he is a new creature". Although "woman" is not used here, we understand the spirit of the teaching includes both males and females.

He mentions three very specific titles. Rabbi, Father, and Master.

Yeah. but again, we're talking about getting the essence of the teaching; the basic lesson. The word "dad" has the same meaning as father. The abbreviation "Mr." is short for "master".

And who was He talking to when He was saying this and why?

The text says he was addressing a great multitude and his disciples. MT 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples. Disciples simply means "ones who are disciplined" and refers to any follower of Jesus (not particularly apostles). In Acts 11 the disciples were called "Christians". Acts 11:26

Jesus was talking to anyone who wanted to be his follower.

These were titles that had begun to be used by the Pharisees.They used them in order to place themselves above the common people and even each other.

The pharisees are just human beings like the rest of us. We all struggle with the same temptations and sins to varying degrees. Remember that we're trying to get the essence of the teaching. It's not about one small group of people who have a special problem the rest of us do not have. Jesus was speaking to his followers and he used the pharisees as an example of how we should not behave. He said the WAY to avoid behaving like the pharisees is to not use these titles.

"Though the title of Rabbi, mentioned above, was comparatively recent in the time of our Lord, yet it was in great vogue, as were the others - father and master, mentioned in this and the following verse: some had all three titles, for thus in Bab. Maccoth, fol. 24. It is feigned," says Dr. Lightfoot, "that when King Jehosaphat saw a disciple of the wise men, he rose up out of his throne, and embraced him, and said, אבי אבי רבי רבי מרי מרי, Abbi, Abbi! Rabbi, Rabbi! Mori, Mori! - Father, Father! Rabbi, Rabbi! Master, Master!" Here then are the three titles which, in Matthew 23:7, Matthew 23:8, Matthew 23:10, our blessed Lord condemns; and these were titles that the Jewish doctors greatly affected."

That's a nice history lesson and is helpful in shedding some light on how the titles have been abused in the past. However, it does not change the fact that Jesus said the way to avoid abusing these titles is to not use them.

In my earlier response to you I suggested that you could at least try this teaching and see how it goes. You said the titles are no big deal, no problem etc. Then it should be easy to give it a try for a couple of weeks, right? No big deal?

What do you think about that suggestion?

 

[Deborah13]

I don't know what that means, but I'm not trying to trick you.



I think you might be exaggerating a little bit because you are anxious about the implications of this teaching. That's just my assessment as to why you're saying this thing about how he didn't say anything about titles when the text is clearly about using titles.

Anyway, although Jesus gave this teaching as a command, there is still a reason or "spirit" behind the command. We sometimes talk about getting the "spirit" of a teaching which means getting the essence of what it's attempting to communicate.

I believe the essence of this teaching also includes feminine titles. For example, "If any man be in Christ he is a new creature". Although "woman" is not used here, we understand the spirit of the teaching includes both males and females.



Yeah. but again, we're talking about getting the essence of the teaching; the basic lesson. The word "dad" has the same meaning as father. The abbreviation "Mr." is short for "master".



The text says he was addressing a great multitude and his disciples. MT 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples. Disciples simply means "ones who are disciplined" and refers to any follower of Jesus (not particularly apostles). In Acts 11 the disciples were called "Christians". Acts 11:26

Jesus was talking to anyone who wanted to be his follower.



The pharisees are just human beings like the rest of us. We all struggle with the same temptations and sins to varying degrees. Remember that we're trying to get the essence of the teaching. It's not about one small group of people who have a special problem the rest of us do not have. Jesus was speaking to his followers and he used the pharisees as an example of how we should not behave. He said the WAY to avoid behaving like the pharisees is to not use these titles.



That's a nice history lesson and is helpful in shedding some light on how the titles have been abused in the past. However, it does not change the fact that Jesus said the way to avoid abusing these titles is to not use them.

In my earlier response to you I suggested that you could at least try this teaching and see how it goes. You said the titles are no big deal, no problem etc. Then it should be easy to give it a try for a couple of weeks, right? No big deal?

What do you think about that suggestion?

Both my parents died many years ago. My doctor and I are on a first name bases and have been since day one. Frankly, I don't have anyone that I use titles with. But I can tell you right now that if it would hurt my mother to call her some other name besides mom I wouldn't do it.
I think you have taken these scriptures out of their clear context.
Jesus was talking about those three terms. Rabbi, Father, and Master.
How about responding to the scriptures I quoted in post #4?
Call no man on earth father

 

[john darling]

How about responding to the scriptures I quoted in post #4?

Hi Deborah. I did respond to those verses in post #6

Hi Deborah, these verses are either from the OT (so a different context) or are parables. Jesus was not saying we can never use the word "father" in any context. He said that we should not use this as a title for people. So, I have a a biological father. He is my father. But when I see him or want to address him, I call him by his name.

 

[john darling]

Both my parents died many years ago. My doctor and I are on a first name bases and have been since day one. Frankly, I don't have anyone that I use titles with.

Sorry to hear about your parents and it's interesting that you are on a first name basis with your doctor. I think some of them can be a bit stiff about it but most of the doctors I've been around were pretty cool about me using their first name.

Jesus was talking about those three terms. Rabbi, Father, and Master.

Like I said, it's a matter of getting the spirit of the teaching. For example, when Jesus says, "MT 10:27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops, we understand that he's not really talking about preaching on house tops, as though that's the only place where we should preach, but rather, in a very public way so many people will know. We get the spirit of the teaching.

Or when he says, "MT 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake, we understand the principle applies even if women were to revile and persecute us.

The spirit of the teaching revolves around people exalting themselves, or allowing others to exalt them through the use of these special titles. He gives three common examples, but there is nothing in his teaching which limits the number of titles. He should not need to go through and list every single title which people use to flatter one another because we are intelligent enough to understand the spirit of the teaching. A few examples are enough.

Jesus makes it clear that HIS method for people avoiding the problem is to stop using the titles altogether, as titles, not as adjectives. So we can still talk about fathers in general, but when it comes to using the word as a title to address someone (i.e. hello father) then it falls into the category of being a title. You could technically say, "hello person who is my father" if you really wanted to use the word when addressing your father, because it's still being used as an adjective rather than a title in that case, but it would still go against the spirit of the teaching.

But I can tell you right now that if it would hurt my mother to call her some other name besides mom I wouldn't do it.

Yeah, I kinda figured that, and you are certainly not alone. There's a whole world full of Christians out there who are not prepared to stand against the emotional pressures of their family attachments when it comes to applying Jesus' teachings.

I believe this is precisely why Jesus said, "he who loves family more than me is not worthy of me". (Lk 14:26) But have we really stopped to ask, "Why should it hurt them to use their name"?

The use of these special titles is no big deal, right? No special importance attached to them. It's simply a matter of convenience, like you described in your first post. Why should it make people so angry to use their proper names instead of titles like "mom" or "dad"? Using their names doesn't make you any less their child. Your biology doesn't change. Your behavior doesn't change. Only a single word changes. Why should they be so hurt by that?

And yet, I've seen parents surge through a range of emotions from deep hurt to frustrated tears to angry outbursts, all over this issue of titles. To me, those reactions prove that Jesus knew exactly what he was talking about when he confronted our habit of using these special titles.

 

[Deborah13]

Sorry to hear about your parents and it's interesting that you are on a first name basis with your doctor. I think some of them can be a bit stiff about it but most of the doctors I've been around were pretty cool about me using their first name.



Like I said, it's a matter of getting the spirit of the teaching. For example, when Jesus says, "MT 10:27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops, we understand that he's not really talking about preaching on house tops, as though that's the only place where we should preach, but rather, in a very public way so many people will know. We get the spirit of the teaching.

Or when he says, "MT 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake, we understand the principle applies even if women were to revile and persecute us.

The spirit of the teaching revolves around people exalting themselves, or allowing others to exalt them through the use of these special titles. He gives three common examples, but there is nothing in his teaching which limits the number of titles. He should not need to go through and list every single title which people use to flatter one another because we are intelligent enough to understand the spirit of the teaching. A few examples are enough.

Jesus makes it clear that HIS method for people avoiding the problem is to stop using the titles altogether, as titles, not as adjectives. So we can still talk about fathers in general, but when it comes to using the word as a title to address someone (i.e. hello father) then it falls into the category of being a title. You could technically say, "hello person who is my father" if you really wanted to use the word when addressing your father, because it's still being used as an adjective rather than a title in that case, but it would still go against the spirit of the teaching.



Yeah, I kinda figured that, and you are certainly not alone. There's a whole world full of Christians out there who are not prepared to stand against the emotional pressures of their family attachments when it comes to applying Jesus' teachings.

I believe this is precisely why Jesus said, "he who loves family more than me is not worthy of me". (Lk 14:26) But have we really stopped to ask, "Why should it hurt them to use their name"?

The use of these special titles is no big deal, right? No special importance attached to them. It's simply a matter of convenience, like you described in your first post. Why should it make people so angry to use their proper names instead of titles like "mom" or "dad"? Using their names doesn't make you any less their child. Your biology doesn't change. Your behavior doesn't change. Only a single word changes. Why should they be so hurt by that?

And yet, I've seen parents surge through a range of emotions from deep hurt to frustrated tears to angry outbursts, all over this issue of titles. To me, those reactions prove that Jesus knew exactly what he was talking about when he confronted our habit of using these special titles.

I believe you are adding to what the scripture says. Rabbi, Father, Master. There is absolutely nowhere that Jesus goes beyond this, nor does He say it's sinful to call your mother, Mother. But He does say that we are not to offend others by making up our own rules or corrupting the law, like the Pharisees did.
Jesus was talking to Jews and if we ignore Jewish customs and Jewish understandings we can misunderstand a lot of what is being said in the new testament, by not only Jesus but the apostles as well.

Why did Mary say, Your father and I, if Jesus called his adopted father Joseph?

Why did Paul say that when he was with those who practiced eating kosher, he ate kosher. But when he was with those who did not, he did not? Why did Paul go through the ritual of the Nazarene?
If you were having dinner in a restaurant with a person who observed the kosher food laws would you obstinately order pork just because you can? Would you do that just to test them to see how they would react?

 

[john darling]

I believe you are adding to what the scripture says.

No more so than when I suggest that "JN 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" applies not only to males but also to females, even though the scripture only says "he" and not "she". It's not "adding to scripture" to give a reasonable interpretation.

This "adding to scripture" thing is usually applied to the commands of Jesus when people want to avoid something he's told them to do. Sometimes it can be a legitimate argument, but in this context I think you're using it as a convenient doctrine.

I would also counter argue that you are "taking away from scripture" by suggesting that the word "dad" does not have the same meaning as the word "father". It's obvious they have the same meaning even though they are spelled with different letter of the alphabet.

There is absolutely nowhere that Jesus goes beyond this,

If you mean he did not go through a list of all the titles you should not use, then I'd suggest you are using legalism to argue your way out of taking responsibility for this teaching. Jesus didn't list the word "Lord" or "most holy" in his list of titles, either, and yet we understand from the context that these titles are not okay.

Think about what's happening here, Deborah. Why are you so opposed to this teaching, to the point that you make these irrational arguments? You're arguing that because Jesus didn't list a specific item, then it's not wrong to indulge in that particular item. You take it further by suggesting that attempts to apply the spirit of the teaching in areas where Jesus did not specifically mention a sin amounts to "going beyond" what Jesus taught as though it's somehow ok to say, "Jesus didn't say anything against cruelty to animals so it's okay to be cruel to animals".

According to the logic you are using with me, it would be "adding to scripture" to rebuke someone for animal abuse. Now I'm quite certain you are NOT against deducing reasonable conclusions for issues which Jesus did not specifically mention based on what Jesus did specifically mention, like understanding that robbing a bank is still wrong even though Jesus never mentioned banks.

That means you are selectively using this argument (i.e. going beyond what Jesus said) for this particular teaching. Why? I suggest it's because you don't want to give up the special titles. You like them. You like the emotions they imply, especially when it comes to family members. It's a fairly natural feeling, and yet Jesus still had something against what it always leads to.

The lesson is to let go of the respectability and emotionalism that comes with these titles. The fact that people argue so strongly against the teaching is evidence in itself that Jesus had a point. After all, it's only names. What's the big deal?

But He does say that we are not to offend others by making up our own rules or corrupting the law, like the Pharisees did.

I challenge you to show me, in the actual teachings, where I've "made up my own rules" and then apply that same logic to "he who is in Christ is a new creature" in a way which does not "go beyond" what's actually written in your attempt to argue that the teaching is meant for both males and females.

Jesus was talking to Jews

No he wasn't. The scripture says he was talking to a great multitude and his disciples. Disciples are the same as Christians. I mentioned this earlier, but now you make it sound as though you want to avoid this piece of information for the sake of creating a situation where the teaching only applied to the pharisees.

and if we ignore Jewish customs and Jewish understandings we can misunderstand a lot of what is being said in the new testament, by not only Jesus but the apostles as well.

It doesn't take understanding of Jewish customs to be able to understand Jesus' teachings. Sure, understanding cultural background can help in some areas, but this is hardly a simple issue of cultural trivia. Jesus is addressing a moral issue. He feels it's important enough to make it a command. He quite bluntly says, "don't do it" and he uses an example of the pharisees to illustrate his point. The pharisees were only an example and not the focus of the lesson.

The focus of the lesson was to anyone who would be his follower. In order to follow, we need to know what Jesus wants or doesn't want us to do as his follower. Here he is giving an example of what we should not do, as his follower (or disciple).

Why did Mary say, Your father and I, if Jesus called his adopted father Joseph?

Well, this situation occurred before Jesus gave the teaching. However, even if it had occurred after Jesus gave the teaching, it would still fall outside the point Jesus made, because Mary is not using it as a title. She is not addressing Joseph. She is talking about Joseph.

Why did Paul say that when he was with those who practiced eating kosher, he ate kosher. But when he was with those who did not, he did not?

The issue is about a command that Jesus gave, the reasons for why he gave it and our willingness to follow the teaching. If you see a teaching where Jesus commanded that people should be inflexible about the kind of food they eat, then you'd have a reason to mention Paul's changing behavior, but such a teaching does not exist so I don't see how your example relates.

Why did Paul go through the ritual of the Nazarene?

Did Jesus teach that people should not go through such a ritual? Again, I don't see how this example relates.

If you were having dinner in a restaurant with a person who observed the kosher food laws would you obstinately order pork just because you can? Would you do that just to test them to see how they would react?

Okay, I think I see where you are going with this, but I'm not suggesting that Jesus' teachings against using special titles are a "test just to see how people will react". Jesus gave solid reasons for why he gave the command. According to his understanding, he believed people use these special titles as a form of respectability and flattery toward one another and he wanted his followers to stop doing such things. The fact that it's such a problem to stop doing it indicates that he knew what he was talking about. People usually start off arguing that it's no big deal (like you did), but then they will fight tooth and nail to hold on to using the titles.

It becomes abundantly clear that these titles are a big deal.

 

[Deborah13]

No more so than when I suggest that "JN 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" applies not only to males but also to females, even though the scripture only says "he" and not "she". It's not "adding to scripture" to give a reasonable interpretation.

This "adding to scripture" thing is usually applied to the commands of Jesus when people want to avoid something he's told them to do. Sometimes it can be a legitimate argument, but in this context I think you're using it as a convenient doctrine.

I would also counter argue that you are "taking away from scripture" by suggesting that the word "dad" does not have the same meaning as the word "father". It's obvious they have the same meaning even though they are spelled with different letter of the alphabet.

Obviously we have had a misunderstanding. I don't believe 'dad' is any different than 'father'.

If you mean he did not go through a list of all the titles you should not use, then I'd suggest you are using legalism to argue your way out of taking responsibility for this teaching. Jesus didn't list the word "Lord" or "most holy" in his list of titles, either, and yet we understand from the context that these titles are not okay.

Think about what's happening here, Deborah. Why are you so opposed to this teaching, to the point that you make these irrational arguments? You're arguing that because Jesus didn't list a specific item, then it's not wrong to indulge in that particular item. You take it further by suggesting that attempts to apply the spirit of the teaching in areas where Jesus did not specifically mention a sin amounts to "going beyond" what Jesus taught as though it's somehow ok to say, "Jesus didn't say anything against cruelty to animals so it's okay to be cruel to animals".

According to the logic you are using with me, it would be "adding to scripture" to rebuke someone for animal abuse. Now I'm quite certain you are NOT against deducing reasonable conclusions for issues which Jesus did not specifically mention based on what Jesus did specifically mention, like understanding that robbing a bank is still wrong even though Jesus never mentioned banks.

That means you are selectively using this argument (i.e. going beyond what Jesus said) for this particular teaching. Why? I suggest it's because you don't want to give up the special titles. You like them. You like the emotions they imply, especially when it comes to family members. It's a fairly natural feeling, and yet Jesus still had something against what it always leads to.

The lesson is to let go of the respectability and emotionalism that comes with these titles. The fact that people argue so strongly against the teaching is evidence in itself that Jesus had a point. After all, it's only names. What's the big deal?



I challenge you to show me, in the actual teachings, where I've "made up my own rules" and then apply that same logic to "he who is in Christ is a new creature" in a way which does not "go beyond" what's actually written in your attempt to argue that the teaching is meant for both males and females.



No he wasn't. The scripture says he was talking to a great multitude and his disciples. Disciples are the same as Christians. I mentioned this earlier, but now you make it sound as though you want to avoid this piece of information for the sake of creating a situation where the teaching only applied to the pharisees.



It doesn't take understanding of Jewish customs to be able to understand Jesus' teachings. Sure, understanding cultural background can help in some areas, but this is hardly a simple issue of cultural trivia. Jesus is addressing a moral issue. He feels it's important enough to make it a command. He quite bluntly says, "don't do it" and he uses an example of the pharisees to illustrate his point. The pharisees were only an example and not the focus of the lesson.

The focus of the lesson was to anyone who would be his follower. In order to follow, we need to know what Jesus wants or doesn't want us to do as his follower. Here he is giving an example of what we should not do, as his follower (or disciple).



Well, this situation occurred before Jesus gave the teaching. However, even if it had occurred after Jesus gave the teaching, it would still fall outside the point Jesus made, because Mary is not using it as a title. She is not addressing Joseph. She is talking about Joseph.

You could be right about that.
So if Jesus was referring to what you say, why when He tells the story of the repent son returning to his father's house, does Jesus Himself use the title 'Father' when telling what the son says to his father? If it is offensive to God why would Jesus do this. Wouldn't it send mixed messages?

The issue is about a command that Jesus gave, the reasons for why he gave it and our willingness to follow the teaching. If you see a teaching where Jesus commanded that people should be inflexible about the kind of food they eat, then you'd have a reason to mention Paul's changing behavior, but such a teaching does not exist so I don't see how your example relates.

And I don't see where the teaching exists for one not to call their mother, Mother.

Did Jesus teach that people should not go through such a ritual? Again, I don't see how this example relates.



Okay, I think I see where you are going with this, but I'm not suggesting that Jesus' teachings against using special titles are a "test just to see how people will react". Jesus gave solid reasons for why he gave the command. According to his understanding, he believed people use these special titles as a form of respectability and flattery toward one another and he wanted his followers to stop doing such things. The fact that it's such a problem to stop doing it indicates that he knew what he was talking about. People usually start off arguing that it's no big deal (like you did), but then they will fight tooth and nail to hold on to using the titles.

It becomes abundantly clear that these titles are a big deal.

What is abundantly clear to me is that we are not going to agree on the interpretation of these scriptures.
God Bless you in your walk with Him.

 

[Deborah13]

I consider this to be a good teaching on these scriptures and easy understand.
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/matthew/23.htm

 

[john darling]

Obviously we have had a misunderstanding. I don't believe 'dad' is any different than 'father'.

Ahh, I see. Okay so if "dad" has the same meaning as father, and Jesus said, "call no man on earth father" then can you see how how the spirit of the teaching communicates, "call no man on earth dad"?

You could be right about that.

You quoted a fairly large chunk of text where I made several points. Which part did you think I could be right about?

So if Jesus was referring to what you say, why when He tells the story of the repent son returning to his father's house, does Jesus Himself use the title 'Father' when telling what the son says to his father? If it is offensive to God why would Jesus do this. Wouldn't it send mixed messages?

No, it's not sending mixed messages for two reasons. One, the father in the parable represents God the father anyway and two, stories are different from reality. In the parable of the workers in the vinyard Jesus describes a situation where the laborers kill the messengers. You could argue this sends a mixed message that Jesus wants us to kill God's messengers, but you'd have to deliberately misunderstand the context to make that argument.

And I don't see where the teaching exists for one not to call their mother, Mother.

Because you are being legalistic. For example, if I said, "he is a new creature who is in Christ" and argued that women cannot become new creatures in Christ because this verse clearly refers to males only, you could make a good case that I'm being legalistic in my interpretation. The only reason for me to argue that the verse only refers to males would be if I had some kind of personal bias influencing me to see it that way.

I suggest something similar is happening with your inability to see how "don't use special titles" relates to feminine titles as well as male titles even though Jesus only referenced male titles in the examples he gave. I suggest this is based on what you earlier shared about not wanting to hurt your mother by using her name instead of mom. In other words, your personal feelings are coming between you and a teaching of Jesus.

I asked you earlier why should your mother feel hurt by you using her name instead of "mom", but you didn't respond to that. However, I think it's important to ask these kinds of questions. Why would they feel hurt by it? Do they see it as betrayal of some kind and if so, what kind of betrayal? Do they see it as disrespectful, and if so, why would they see it as disrespectful for an adult child to use their parent's proper names?

I've asked myself and others these questions before and it always comes down to emotional feelings. Parents LIKE being referred to as "mom" and "dad" because of the emotional satisfaction they get from it. That in itself wouldn't be such a problem, except for how they react when you stop using the titles.

If it was no big deal to parents and their kids, then Jesus probably would not have felt a need to address it so firmly. But he could see that there IS a big deal there. That demand for respectability and emotional flattery that comes from using the titles distracts away from our relationship to God. The fact that so many people disregard Jesus' command in this area is the evidence that there is a problem.

What is abundantly clear to me is that we are not going to agree on the interpretation of these scriptures.
God Bless you in your walk with Him.

You're the only one who responded to this topic. I appreciate that you took the time to discuss it with me. Thanks Deborah.

 

[john darling]

I consider this to be a good teaching on these scriptures and easy understand.
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/matthew/23.htm

I had a look at the link.

But be not ye called Rabbi,....

This is how the guy interprets this command.

Do not be ambitious of any such title, fond of it, or affect it, or be elated with it, should it be given you;

This interpretation is different from what Jesus said. Jesus said do not be called rabbi. This guy's interpretation implies that it's okay to be called rabbi so long as you're not ambitious about it, or fond of it, or affected by it or elated with it, "should it be given you".

It's a way of sounding spiritual but doesn't have the guts to come right out and say, "Jesus said don't do it, so don't do it". In the end people will convince themselves that the titles really are okay because they don't get elated or ambitious about it and in the end Jesus' teaching becomes of no effect with all these modifications.

But as you should be able to see from our discussion so far, people DO get ambitious and elated and especially fond of these titles. Otherwise, why would there be so much argument about being allowed to hold on to them? Why fight so hard for the right to use the titles if people are not fond of them?

 

[Deborah13]

This is how the guy interprets this command.

".......our Lord does not mean, by any of these expressions, to set aside all names and titles, of natural and civil distinction among men, but only to reject all such names and titles, as are used to signify an authoritative power over men's consciences, in matters of faith and obedience; in which, God and Christ are only to be attended to. Christ's sense is, that he would have his disciples not fond of any titles of honour at all; and much less assume an authority over men, as if they were to depend on them, as the founders of the Christian religion, the authors of its doctrines and ordinances; and to take that honour to themselves, which did not belong to them; nor even choose to be called by such names, as would lead people to entertain too high an opinion of them, and take off of their dependence on God the Father, and himself, as these titles the Scribes and Pharisees loved to be called by, did: and who were called not only by the name of Rabbi, but Abba, "Father", also: hence we read of Abba Saul, or "Father" Saul (n)......"
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/matthew/23.htm

 

[john darling]

our Lord does not mean, by any of these expressions, to set aside all names and titles, of natural and civil distinction among men,

Sometimes we just need to let Jesus mean what he actually said.

but only to reject all such names and titles, as are used to signify an authoritative power over men's consciences, in matters of faith and obedience; in which, God and Christ are only to be attended to.

But Jesus didn't give these modifications. His method for rejecting the abuses that come with using special titles is to not use the special titles. That is his solution to the problem. He didn't say, "if you feel like you can use the title without exalting people then it's okay". We can, today, argue that Jesus didn't quite understand that some of us CAN use the titles without any bad intentions, but our good intentions don't matter when it comes to a command. We are expected to obey. That is the point of Jesus making it a command.

You may disagree with the teaching on the basis of all these reasons you have, but when it comes to a command it doesn't matter if we agree with Jesus' reasoning or not; we should obey the command simply because our master told us to.

All this stuff about "what Jesus really meant was blah blah blah" is just a convenient way of getting around the command.

For example, if a father tells his two children, "don't watch any TV on earth", then he probably means don't watch any TV. However, the children reason among themselves, "lots of kids these days watch TV programs which have violence and sex. I think that's what our father meant when he told us not to watch any TV; he doesn't want us to be like those bad kids who watch those bad programs. If we watch only healthy kids shows then it's okay" at which point they proceed to turn on the TV.

They had pretty good reasoning and intentions, but they still disobeyed their father.

I think this kind of reasoning is why Jesus asked, "Why do you call me Lord, but do not obey me"? (luke 6:46).

 

[Sinthesis]

Jhn 19:25 - ¶ Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
Jhn 19:26 - When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
Jhn 19:27 - Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.​

Either the teaching in the OP is a misguided extrapolation of scripture, or Jesus is a hypocrite. I choose the former.

 

[john darling]

Jhn 19:25 - ¶ Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
Jhn 19:26 - When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
Jhn 19:27 - Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.​

Either the teaching in the OP is a misguided extrapolation of scripture, or Jesus is a hypocrite. I choose the former.

Hi sinthesis. No, the interpretation in the OP is not misguided. You're making the same mistake Deborah made in understanding the interpretation. There is a difference between using the word as a title and using the word as a noun.

For example, "Jesus saw his mother". He's not addressing her. The word mother is not being used as a title. When he did speak to her, he did not say, "mother behold they son". He said, "woman, behold they son".

When he spoke to John he said, "behold your mother". Again, the word mother is not being used as a title here. It's not being used to address any specific person, but rather to talk about a person.

The problem is not with the words themselves. Father and mother, dad and mom etc are just words. It is in HOW the words are use where the problem comes. That is the issue Jesus was addressing; when we use these words with special meaning as titles for people rather than using their names.

Can you please address that issue, sinthesis?