Religious Titles Forbidden in Christianity

Years ago, I got into a discussion with a messianic Jew who insisted he had the right to use the title "Rabbi" without any violation of scripture. I pointed him to Matt. 23:8, "but you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren" (NKJV) to no avail. He is not alone, for you could point a Catholic priest to Matt. 23:9, "do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven" (NKJV), and it would have no effect upon him either.

Not only are men accepting religious titles, contrary to Jesus' teaching, but the general public is just as guilty in consenting to these titles. I have never seen a single instance in my lifetime of a Catholic priest being interviewed on TV without the interviewer calling him Father. Indeed, I suspect any interviewer who neglected to do so would lose his job. There is little doubt his superiors would call him on the carpet and accuse him of being disrespectful. There is no problem being disrespectful to Jesus and his command, but just do not offend the Catholic priest or the Catholic Church.

What did Jesus teach on this subject? The answer is found in Matt. 23:1-12:

"(1) Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, (2) saying: 'The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. (3) Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. (4) For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. (5) But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. (6) They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, (7) greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, 'Rabbi, Rabbi.' (8) But you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. (9) Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. (10) And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. (11) But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. (12) And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.' " (NKJV)

In his condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus says (verse 5), "all their works they do to be seen by men." The desire to be seen as a man superior to his fellowman, a man who ought to be bowed down to figuratively, if not literally, was the desire of the heart and the sin of the pride that resided within them. Jesus gives several examples of things they were doing and things they enjoyed that manifested this attitude. One of those things was to be called Rabbi, Rabbi. These men were being called Rabbi and loved it. It was wrong then to do this, but my messianic Jew says it is fine to do it today.

Albert Barnes, in his commentary on Matthew, says of the word Rabbi used here that, "It was a title given to eminent teachers of the law among the Jews; a title of honor and dignity, denoting authority and ability to teach." No doubt Barnes was correct in also saying that each time the word was used, "it implied their superiority to the persons who used it." (comments on Matt. 23:7) They thus reveled in having the title, for their desire was to be seen (recognized) by men (verse 5).

Jesus clearly gave the command, in verse 8 of Matthew 23, to not accept the title of Rabbi, for he says, "But you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren." (NKJV) He gives two reasons. (1) Christ only is our teacher. (2) You are all brethren. The individual I was in discussion with says that what Jesus wanted us to understand from this passage was only that Christ is our ultimate teacher, that we need to keep that in mind, and that we are not specifically forbidden from using the word Rabbi as a title. He never considers the second reason Jesus gave for forbidding the use of the title—"you are all brethren." We all stand on equal footing before God. No one is special, no one gets a pass, and no one gets to exalt himself above the rest of the brethren.

The reader might find it interesting to know that you will not find the word Rabbi in the Old Testament. The Bible commentator Adam Clarke says of the word Rabbi, "None of the prophets had ever received this title, nor any of the Jewish doctors before the time of Hillel and Shammai, which was about the time of our Lord." You will find this in his comments on Matt. 23:8. Man had come up with a title to give to himself that pleased his vanity.

Jesus likewise forbids our calling anyone Father, as a religious title, in Matt. 23:9 already quoted. The word father is used in the New Testament as well as in the Old Testament many times in many different ways. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words lists 9 different applications of the noun father as used in the New Testament alone. This means, obviously, that the word father can be used by men when used appropriately and not in the way Jesus condemned. What did Jesus condemn?

Jesus condemned me, you, and the neighbor next door from calling any man Father as a title in the spiritual realm. Reread Matt. 23:1-12 as many times as it takes to get the gist of what Jesus is getting at. There was a problem among men (the scribes and Pharisees in particular) in that they were seeking the praise, honor, and glory of men. They are proud and puffed up. They want to be recognized and acknowledged as superior. They desire titles. They do not want to be the servant of Matt. 23:11. They want to be exalted among men (Matt. 23:12). The warning to you and me is don't do it, don't allow it, don't call them what they want to be called, and don't reward their pride and vanity.

I am in full agreement with what Albert Barnes says in his commentary on the word father in Matt. 23:9 where he says, "But the word 'father' also denotes 'authority, eminence, superiority, a right to command, and a claim to particular respect.' In this sense it is used here. In this sense it belongs eminently to God, and it is not right to give it to people. Christian brethren are equal."

Yes, Paul said to the Corinthians, "For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." (1 Cor. 4:15 NKJV) Paul also referred to Timothy as his "true son in the faith." (1 Tim. 1:2 NKJV) He referred to Titus (Titus 1:4) and to Onesimus (Philemon 1:10) in a similar way.

In 2 Cor. 12:14, Paul implies that the church at Corinth is his children (making him their father), and likewise in Gal. 4:19 with reference to the churches of Galatia. John, the apostle, does the same sort of thing when he says, "My little children, these things I write to you." (1 John 2:1 NKJV) There are other passages with similar import.

It is said that Paul, John, and Peter also (1 Peter 5:13) are referring to themselves as spiritual fathers, so we can use the word father as a title in reference to priests who are spiritual fathers over their flock. There is a lot wrong with that line of thinking. Neither Paul, nor John, nor Peter was using the word as a title. They were rather simply describing the fact that by teaching and preaching the gospel, children of God had been begotten. That they felt some duty or obligation toward those whom they had taught the gospel, there is no doubt. Those who had obeyed the gospel under their preaching felt like children to them. They had a love for them and felt a kinship to them, much like a father toward his children, but that is as far as it went. They did not adopt the title Father and attach it to their name.

All three of these apostles would have recoiled in horror at the thought of being given the title Father. Paul says, "There is one God and Father of all." (Eph. 4:6 NKJV) Paul was not seeking the title of Father, had no desire to be called Father Paul, and that is just the opposite of the desire of the Catholic Church for their priests. I wonder what would happen in a Catholic congregation if all the membership suddenly stopped calling their priest Father and refused to do so. Would the fur start to fly?

[Paul compared himself and his companions not only to a father but also to a mother. In 1 Thess.2:7-8 Paul says to the church of the Thessalonians, "We were gentle among you, just as a nursing mother cherishes her own children. So affectionately longing for you, we were well pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of God, but also our own lives, because you had become dear to us." (NKJV) Dear to us like a mother's children are to her.]

None of the apostles even took the word apostle as a title. They claimed to be apostles, for such they were, but not one time in scripture (I just searched my online concordance) will you find the word apostle before their name. An apostle was what they were, just as a man might be an elder (a bishop) or an evangelist in the church. These words were never meant to be titles or given as titles, but were rather descriptive of the work or role one had.

But there is more wrong with the Catholic position than just this. Their idea is that only certain men are priests (one per local church) and they have a spiritual priesthood over "their flock." Peter and John both teach that all Christians are priests, not just a select few. (Read 1 Peter 2:9 and Rev. 1:5-6.) There is also nothing in the New Testament giving authority to one man only to rule a congregation, or flock, if you want to designate it that way. This desire for position over others is what led to one man rule. If you will read your New Testament, you will find that every congregation was to be overseen by a plurality of elders (bishops), not just by one.

Paul and Barnabas, on their first missionary journey, "appointed elders in every church" (Acts 14:23 NKJV). Elders is plural, not singular. Every church was overseen by a group of men known as elders or bishops, not by a singular man designated the one and only priest of the congregation with the title of Father. Paul told Titus, "Appoint elders in every city as I commanded you." (Titus 1:5 NKJV) Remember, in New Testament times, there was only one church within a city, unlike today, so when Titus appointed elders in a city, he was appointing them within the church in that city. Every church had not a single elder but plural elders. The terms elder and bishop were used interchangeably and describe the same set of men (read Titus 1:5-7).

The Catholic position is thus wrong not just on a single count but on multiple counts. The desire for position and importance, for power and prestige, is what led to the concept of one man rule and the title of Father within the Catholic Church, but, as all know, it did not end just within the local congregations. Indeed, it only started there, for all know there is now a hierarchy within the Catholic Church. The next step up after becoming a father or priest in a local parish is to become a bishop, then archbishop, then cardinal, and ultimately Pope. But, I say, with a little sarcasm, it is not about titles, power, and position -- not in Catholicism.

It is said, by both the messianic Jew I was in discussion with and by the Catholics, that we cannot take the passages literally in Matt. 23. Why not? Jesus did. He was describing a real situation that then existed—men being called rabbi—and he said to stop doing it. That is as literal as it can get. He was attempting to stop a practice then in existence. It is still in existence because men desire the titles and the glory that go with them, and thus want to get around Jesus' command by trying to make his language out to be figurative. The context will not allow it.

In Matt. 23:10 Jesus says, "And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ." (NKJV) The word rendered teachers here is in other versions rendered masters (ASV, KJV, HCSB), instructors (ESV, NRSV), leaders (NAS, LITV), or directors (YLT). All of these translations are helpful, when taken as a group, for they give us a better idea of the meaning of the Greek that is being translated, better than any single word alone would. God wants teachers of his word, or else the Great Commission cannot be fulfilled, but a man can go out and teach and preach the word without taking a title. It is good to teach, not bad. What is bad is to want to be exalted for doing so. Don't allow men to give you a title. You do not need it.

Often, preachers are given titles like Reverend or Pastor. This is certainly a violation of the principle Jesus taught in Matt. 23 regarding the giving of titles. We can do the work God has given us to do without a title. Why desire a title? If I have a Ph.D. I can preach perfectly well without being called Dr. Smith. I do not need the title, and if my pride demands it and I want the attention, then I have a problem, don't I? If I want to be called Pastor or Reverend, I have a problem, don't I? To ask is to answer.

It is not wrong to say what we do. If I preach, it is not wrong to say I preach. If I teach, it is not wrong to say I teach. But the desire for a title and the recognition that goes with it is where the wrong comes in. Who am I? Who are you? We are just brothers and sisters in Christ, all equal within the body of Christ.

Finally, we have to recognize that Jesus was talking about the spiritual realm of life and not the secular in Matt. 23. He was talking about religion, not about medicine, not about education, not about the military, not about secular government, not about home and the family. We must have titles in the secular world. But I think that is so obvious that a child can see it. Jesus was not talking about the things of the world.

In this world, in secular affairs, we must have titles to designate knowledge and authority, but that is the whole point of Jesus' argument in Matt. 23 for he is saying in the spiritual realm it is different, as there is only one authority and that is God, so don't go around acquiring titles and making some pretense of authority you don't have. Don't accept a title and don't give one to others. That includes the uninspired Pope.

The teaching of scripture on these matters is plain enough, but men have sought out many inventions.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

Who Governs the Church if We Follow the Bible

Who governs the church ought to matter a great deal to all those who want to be Christians and Christians only by following what the Bible says. I know of no other way to be just a Christian, that and nothing more, other than to follow the Bible as closely as humanly possible. That means one must ignore the traditions of men in religion and all teachings that cannot be found in the New Testament.

Too often, men just inherit the past in religion. We were all born into a world full of denominations and the Roman Catholic Church. If we are not careful, we just inherit a religion from either our parents or our wife or husband and claim it for our own, all the while assuming it must be pleasing to God. The truth often is that the ones we are following after likely received their religion the same way we have when we do that.

One of the easiest ways to test one's religion is by comparing how the church of which he is a member is governed in comparison to the teaching of the New Testament on the subject. The New Testament is very clear on this matter, making it easy to find the truth and thus to see whether we are in a church that is a New Testament church. If it is not, we ought to get out of it.

"Christ is head of the church" (Eph. 5:23 NKJV) and whatever is done in the church or anywhere else is to be done "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Col. 3:17 NKJV), meaning by his authority. Jesus has all authority, "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth." (Matt. 28:18 NKJV) We cannot step outside the authority of Christ as found in his word and set up a way of governing the church to suit ourselves. Well, let me revise that a little--we can, but if we do, we are in rebellion against the head of the church and against the one whom God the Father gave all authority to. We disrespect him and his word when we do so, and involve ourselves in sin by supporting such a setup.

Christ did provide for government, oversight would probably be a better word, within local congregations of churches of Christ (Rom. 16:16), churches over which he is head. As just stated in the prior paragraph, those who would govern within a local congregation were given no authority to step outside his word, to add to it, to take away from it, or do anything that would take away from Christ's headship of the church. His word, his authority, has to be respected by those who would be appointed as overseers of the local congregation in a locality.

While the apostles lived, they had authority in the church (they still do through their writings). To disobey an apostle who was speaking the word of God by inspiration of the Holy Spirit was the same as to be in disobedience to the one who gave the inspiration--God himself. The brethren at Corinth who received instructions from the apostle Paul were not free to disregard those instructions because he was not present with them and was not one of them. However, the apostles were only 12 in number, could not be everywhere at once or know about every group of brethren in every village throughout the Middle East, Southwestern Asia, and Southeastern Europe, nor were they going to live forever.

Church oversight or leadership was needed on the local level. This God provided for in the appointment of elders in the churches, each church having a plurality of elders, with no one single elder being the chief elder. In Acts 14:23, when Paul and Barnabas were on their first missionary journey, the text says, "So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed." (NKJV)

Paul wrote to Titus, "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you." (Titus 1:5 NKJV) Where there was a church, a congregation, there were to be elders appointed, provided there were men within it that met the qualifications that Paul gave to both Timothy and Titus for the appointment of such men. One can read about these qualifications in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9.

Now, please read carefully and understand that the words elder and bishop refer to the same individual. This is easily seen in Titus 1:5 where Paul tells Titus to appoint elders and then in verse 6 begins giving him the qualifications for such men going on through verse 9 but refers to these men in verse 7 as bishops--he says, "For a bishop must…" (compare Titus 1:5 with Titus 1:7). These bishops were not like bishops in the Catholic Church today but ruled with other like bishops, or elders, in the local church only. (I add that this same group of men was also designated by words like shepherd and pastor.)

They did, however, rule in the church. This can be seen in 1 Timothy where Paul says one of the qualifications is that an appointee must be "one who rules his own house well … for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:4-5 NKJV) In the book of Hebrews, we are instructed to "obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account." (Heb. 13:17 NKJV) The elders were to take care of the local church of God, of which they were members, and from which they had been appointed, ruling it in accord with God's word.

In the book of Acts, chapter 20, verse 17, Paul called for the elders of the church at Ephesus to come meet him at Miletus. One of the things he said to them was this, "Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." (Acts 20:28 NKJV) Several comments are in order on this passage.

Take note that they had a flock to oversee, and that flock was specific -- the Christians in the church at Ephesus from whence Paul had called them to come to Miletus. They were elders in the church at Ephesus. He did not tell them to go and try to oversee the flock at Colosse or the one at Derbe or any other such place. The flock they had been appointed to oversee was specific--it was the flock at Ephesus and nowhere else.

The modern-day idea people have of a bishop, as in a Catholic bishop, is nowhere found in the Bible. Remember that an elder is a bishop; they are one and the same (Titus 1:5 compared with Titus 1:7), but they were not like today's Catholic bishop. There was no such thing as a single bishop ruling over even a single congregation in the New Testament, let alone over multiple congregations spread out over a wide area. As is the case with most of Catholicism, no Bible required, none wanted for authority, will be ignored if found, and burned if we could go back to the Middle Ages, to a time when ownership was barred from the public. (You have to remember Catholics claim authority for the church and thus do not need Bible authority from their point of view.)

However, the Bible foresaw the development of Catholicism and of the bishops seeking greater power than what was granted to them. Paul, in talking directly to the elders at Ephesus (and remember an elder is a bishop, one and the same), said to them, "Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves." (Acts 20:30 NKJV) Now no one can deny what Paul said, and no one can deny who he was talking to when he said it.

The second thing I want to note from the Acts 20:28 passage is the fact that these men were to be in charge of the church at Ephesus as overseers. When decisions needed to be made and plans made for the specific work of that church, it was their duty to see to it and to oversee it. It is not the purpose of this article to go into all the work of an elder, so I leave it at that. Our purpose is to define who is to govern the church.

In the third place, they were to shepherd the church of God, of which they were made overseers. The word shepherd refers to their duty to guard the flock, feed, and care for it. They were "pastors" of the church as per Eph. 4:11. But, please note that they were pastors in the plural, not the singular. The idea men have today that one man can be the only pastor of a congregation is unscriptural. Such a character cannot be found in the pages of the New Testament. No New Testament congregation ever was led by a single person, not one.

If you have a pastor in the denominational sense of the way the word is used today, you are not a New Testament church in your organization and government. Find the church that had a single pastor in the New Testament. That is a challenge. It cannot be done.

The truth is, the word "pastors" (as per Eph. 4:11, the only place it is found) means shepherds, and the Greek there (poimenas) should have been translated by the word "shepherds" to be consistent. To prove that the word pastors as used in Eph. 4:11 is the same as "shepherds," see how the Greek is translated in that passage in the English Standard Version, which I here quote. "And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers." (Eph. 4:11 ESV) See also Young's Literal Translation, which also uses the word "shepherds" instead of "pastors." Barnes, the well-known Bible commentator, says this is the only place in the New Testament where that particular Greek word is rendered "pastors" rather than "shepherds."  My own research has found the same.

All of this contrasts greatly with the way most churches today are governed. In the New Testament, each congregation was self-governed by men appointed as elders after having met the qualifications given by the Holy Spirit via the apostle Paul's instructions to Timothy and Titus for such. There were no national or international bodies that ruled all the churches. There were no Popes or rule by a single man designated as "the pastor" as per some denominations today. Each congregation, through its elders, made its own decisions about its work based on New Testament teaching concerning that work and how it was to be done.

God made the provision to govern the church this way, not me. Do not grow angry with me for simply pointing it out. It is his way. Man has to decide whether they are going to abide by God's way or go their own way. There is little doubt but what most will go their own way for that is their preference--my way or our way, not God's way. What this simple little study does do, even if it does not change minds, is show one whether or not he or she is in a New Testament church. You do not have to judge anyone to do it. All you have to do is look at the church's government. Who governs the church where you are?

On a personal level, I think the thing that bothers me most about this issue is that people seemingly do not seem to care about the truth. One wonders sometimes – does truth really matter with anyone anymore?

I add this as a postscript: God set up this form of church government in his own wisdom. Under this form of church government, if one church goes wrong, it does not drag others along with it, for they are not tied together administratively.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]