Matthew 23:7

And the salutations in the market places, and to be called of men, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven.

They were little men, puffed up with their supposed learning, parading like peacocks before the admiring eyes of their followers, and inwardly gloating over titles of honor and deference. Such empty superficiality blinded the Pharisees and will also blind all others in all places in all times who become infected with the deadly virus of human pride.

Christ assuredly condemned the employment of religious titles denoting any kind of authority. The acceptance of title, no less than its bestowal, was forbidden by Christ. "Be not ye called ... Call no man ..." In the teaching here, Christ struck at one of the great failings of mankind, the reliance upon human authorities for the settlement of religious truth. In apostolic times, the living teachers were called "rabbis" and the ones who formerly lived were called "fathers." (The latter term even crept into the speech of Stephen, Acts 7:2). But Christ taught there is just one authority in religion, namely, God, and that which God has revealed in Christ through the apostles. Plummer expressed it: "They were to abandon the practice of appealing to `the fathers,' which had done so much evil in perpetuating misleading traditions."[2] The sense of Christ's teaching recorded in this place is always violated when men are willing to accept the authority of "Doctor So and So" instead of the teachings of the word of God.

Call no man your father on earth ... At least the Jews are consistent who, rejecting Christ, reject also what he said about "rabbi"; but it appears unbelievable that so large a part of Christendom should be so blind to Christ's commandment as to flaunt the title "father" as the just inheritance of all their priests and to bestow upon their sovereign the near-blasphemous title, "Most Holy Father"! Such reminds one of the custom of Wilhelm II, emperor of Germany, the Kaiser of World War I, who allowed it to be printed in the court circular, on the occasion of Wilhelm's going to church, that "This morning, The All-Highest paid His respects to the Highest"![3]

Wherever the title "father" is received and allowed, there is also a sinful implication of the authority of such persons and of the deference due their opinions regarding religious questions. It is precisely there that the damage is done. Positively no Father, Rabbi, Reverend, Doctor, or other religious title-holder has any authority at all to legislate, absolve, bind, loose, require, or demand, in any religious sense, anything whatsoever, upon anyone whomsoever! The principal heresy of the ages has been and continues to be the human failing in this very area. Humanity confers upon itself, in the person of those whom it denominates "fathers," "rabbis," etc., prerogatives which pertain and can only pertain to God. As for the titles themselves, they are forbidden to all who honor the word of Christ. Let any person who uses such a title in a religious sense beware of the consequences. Titles, apart from their religious implications, are not necessarily condemned by Christ; the distinction is seen in the fact that one may refer to his earthly parent as his father without violating the prohibition taught by Christ; but if the very same title, or any other, should be applied in a religious sense and in order to confer dignity and authority upon the conferee, then Christ's law is violated. The consent of long centuries of men to disobey Christ's law on these matters does not change it.

The word "reverend" may be used of a man if it should be used in the sense that one is revered, respected, or God-fearing, and if not at the same time intended as a title of religious authority or distinction. Psalms 111:9 reads, "Holy and reverend is his name." The words HOLY and REVEREND are applied to God in that passage, or rather to God's name; but it is not true that all words so applied are therefore forbidden to be used as applicable to men. The word HOLY, for example, is applied to people, even by the apostles (Hebrews 3:1; 1 Peter 3:5, etc.); and it would be hard to find authority for any dogma to the effect that there are no reverend men, or that it would be wrong thus to describe them. But both those words (holy and reverend) violate Christ's plain word the moment one is made a title or symbol of religious authority to which other men are expected to give obedience, allegiance, submission, or deference. All titles that seek to elevate one man above another in the solemn business of the faith in Christ are wrong. Some of the arguments brethren use to maintain this truth may sometimes be described as illogical, but the truth is overwhelmingly plain and undeniable. Christ condemned religious titles of preferment and authority because all of them are founded upon a false premise: that one man, more than another, has the right to interpret God's word.

Needless to say, such terms as Brother, Evangelist, Elder, Minister, Bishop, Deacon, Cardinal, Pope, Metropolitan, Monsignor, etc., etc., violate Christ's law when such are used as food for vanity of the designate or for procuring the acceptance of his views by others. How far the race has drifted in this matter might be realized by the imposition of some modern terminology upon an ancient incident. Could we say, for example, that His Eminence, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Christ, His Holiness Simon Peter, the Pope of all Christendom, was once withstood to his face by the Right Reverend Monsignor Paul, Metropolitan and Bishop of Ephesus! This writer has no delusion that these words on this subject will be much noted or long remembered; but to the devout, who believe in Jesus, we dare to suggest that they are true. It is prayerfully hoped that Christ's warning against the virus of seats (the chief ones, of course) will be heeded by those who truly desire to follow him.

[2] Alfred Plummer, Commentary on Matthew (London: Elliot Stock, 1909), p. 315.

[3] Edmond Taylor, The Fall of the Dynasties (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, 1963), p. 149.