YUCKABUCK'S TWO CENTS

ANSWERING A BIBLE QUESTION (AND ADDRESSING WHO HAS AUTHORITY)
The question has been asked what did Jesus mean by this:

MT 23:5 "Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them `Rabbi.'
MT 23:8 "But you are not to be called `Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth `father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called `teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Ahh...this former Catholic thinks that is a good question!

Also, didn't God say in the Law, "Honor your Father and Mother?"

KINGDOM CONTEXT

When reading the gospels (not to mention the rest of the New Testament) we must always keep in mind that the context for everything that Jesus said is His own proclamation that "the Kingdom of God has come" (Matthew 3:2, 12:28, Mark 1:15, Luke 11:20). This changes everything. How important was the Kingdom of God to Jesus? Look at how he grades John the Baptist: a prophet in Israel would have had enormous authority- but in referencing the prophet John (the Baptist), Jesus says, "Yeah, he's cool and all that, but the least person who has experienced the Kingdom is on higher footing" (Matthew 11:11, my paraphrase).

The Rabbis at the time were seen as the authority to be believed and obeyed, but Jesus came and asserted His own authority, and even had the audacity to begin a new community, in effect a new "12 tribes of Israel." (Today we call this community the "church" and recognize that it is made up of people of all ethnic backgrounds and not just Jews.) The "King" brought the "Kingdom," and nothing in the world could remain the same. The inbreaking of the Kingdom of God meant that all the previous power structures and lines of authority were null and void ("old wineskins" Matthew 9:16-17), and the new situation created by the presence of the King (Jesus) and the revealing of His power (the Kingdom) meant that an all new community with different power structures was being created.

GOD WANTS TO BE GOD OVER ALL

Jesus redefines the power structures of the time, declaring that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ (Mark 3:32-35), and no one is "over" another (Mark 10:42-45).



Going back to Matthew 23 and the phrase in question, the "rabbi" sentence is perhaps easier to grip, but the command to call no one "father" (even my own Dad?!) is tougher. But the main point is probably summed up by Jesus when He says, "The greatest among you will be your servant" (23:11). This same phrase is repeated in Mark 10:43, where Jesus had said that His followers were not to be like the Gentiles and "lord it over" and "exercise authority over" others. In the Jewish culture of the day, both rabbis and fathers were seen as authorities. Jesus is saying that they are to be downgraded a bit! I think this phrase also has to be read in light of the Mark 3 passage, which implies that the new bonds of relationship that are created when we enter the Kingdom takes precedence over the bonds of blood (see also Matthew 10:34-39). In the Kingdom of God, GOD IS KING, and is the only authority. All the old power structures have lost their authority, for "even the least in the Kingdom" is greater than the Law, the Rabbis, a prophet, or anything else.

Instead of authority referring to a hiearchy of command, a "pecking order" so to speak, in the Bible "authority" refers to God's sovereignty as doled out to a particular person for a particular task. God doesn't want anyone "over" another because He wants to be the only ultimate authority in our lives.

REJECTING GOD AS KING

A similar contrast between man's authority and God's can be seen in the Old Testament. After God rescued His people from Egypt He did not grant them a king, but gave them "judges," whom God granted authority for a specific task. The judges do not seem to have been particularly awesome leaders, except that they were effective in finishing whatever specific task God had raised them up for. The people rejected this setup, and demanded a king "like all the other nations"(1 Samual 8:5). God decides to grant their request, but He makes it clear that "they have rejected me as their king" (1 Samual 8:7). God even promises to give Israel a king with a heart like David's, and God "will establish the throne of his kingdom forever" (2 Samual 7:13). But it is still not God's plan to exalt human authority by setting up a king. Notice who God ultimately brings to fulfill this prophecy: a man who is really God in the flesh (Matthew 1:22-23). With Christ as our King, all authority is once again in the hands of GOD.

The main question, then, is WHO YA GONNA OBEY?

HONORING BUT NOT OBEYING PARENTS

The Bible does tell us to honor our parents (Exodus 20:12, Ephesians 6:2). We should still honor our parents, though keep in mind that the word for "honor" merely means "ascribe weight to." It doesn't mean that once we have left the house we still have an obligation to obey our parents! That is exactly what Jesus is coming against here. There is no more power structure with a father, a rabbi, a pastor, a bishop, a pope, or anybody else above another Christian. Jesus is clear that our main authority is GOD.

Another place in Scripture where you can see this is Luke 11:27-28:

LK 11:27 As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you."
LK 11:28 He replied, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it."

Once again, the old structures (mother/ father) are downgraded in light of the new bonds formed by making God our King ("obeying God"). By the way, this verse causes trouble for some Catholic views of Mary that exalt her simply because she was Jesus' mother. Blood ties are simply not carried over into the Kingdom, whether it be family ties, or a spiritual privilege from being descendants of Abraham (Luke 3:7-9, Matthew 21:43).

AUTHORITY AS PICTURED IN THE BIBLE

Here is my thesis: I believe authority is not vested in a position, whether it be "pastor," "pope," or "husband." But God grants authority in situations. In those situations, I should recognize where God has poured out authority and guidance, and follow that. The Roman culture saw all authority as being vested in hierarchical positions. They had their many legions of soldiers, and each one knew where they stood in the chain of command. But the church was not to have a chain of command, per se. The church recognized God as its ultimate authority, and only submitted to penultimate authority when they recognized God's leading and/or authorizing behind it. Here is an example, concerning governments:

ROMANS 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

Are we to submit to the government simply because it is in a position "over us," and we are "under it?" No. We are to submit because because we are to recognize that God has established government as a penultimate authority. And when we recognize that the government is telling us to do something that does not reflect God's ultimate authority, we are to disobey. If authority was merely in a position, then are we to obey a government that tells us to reject Jesus? Surely not! For "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

RECOGNIZING THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE

Even the Bible has a limited authority- it has authority where God has granted it, but it is not unlimited authority, for one reason because it does not address every question under the sun. When we read the Bible and try to apply it to today's problems, we are really extrapolating from the authority of Scripture. In those cases, we are praying for the help of the Holy Spirit to lead us into the correct applications for today. In other words, we are asking God the Spirit to provide more authority for those places where the Bible stops short. The final authority is still GOD.

WHO IS THE MINISTER HERE?

But what about in the church? The Bible is clear that "leaders" are "servants" (Mark 10:34-45, Matthew 23:8-12) The job of a "pastor" is to equip US to DO THE WORK OF THE MINISTRY. He is not "the minister," WE ARE! (See Ephesians 4:11-13).

It is true that the Bible does say:

HEB 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account.

But this should be read keeping Romans 13:1 in mind, that "there is no authority except that which God has established." Why must they give an account? Because they were given authority for the specific task of discipling, teaching, and training the church to carry out God's work. They did not have the authority of a position, but rather the obligation of a calling. They were the "elders," who had followed Jesus longer than the rest. The Christians who were not as far along in their walk were to recognize the authority of leaders who had followed Jesus longer than they did, and they were to submit to their instructions. Yet any authority these "old saints" had was a derived authority from God, and if they stepped out of the realm of His leading, then they were not acting in His authority. The authority in the church is GOD.

THE AUTHORITY OF THE BELIEVER

Today we hear much about the "authority of the believer." We are told by some that we have been given the authority to cast out demons and take authority over sickness. While I believe this is true, we must always remember the nature of derived authority: it's only there when it's there! We have not been given a "blank check from God," like some teachers in the Word-Faith camp have said. Even Jesus did not go willy-nilly, casting out whatever He wanted. He clearly followed the Father's leading:

JN 5:19 Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

All authority rests with God, and even the Son of God in the flesh would not deviate from God's authority. When God has given authority for casting something out or taking authority over an illness, then we should follow that leading. For the authority of the believer comes from GOD, and is not inherent to us just because we are in the position of a believer.

AUTHORITY IN THE HOME

Perhaps this will make it clearer. Here is my view on the whole "Head of household, Submission thing." Note that I am NOT saying that this is what Matthew 23:8 means, but that this might give a picture about what I mean about authority and submission, which is related to the Matthew 23 verse. (I am not giving much biblical proof here, for that would take a book.)

Ephesians 5:21 tells us to "submit to one another," before Paul goes on and describes what that would look like in the typical Ephesian household of his time (Husbands should love as Christ, wives should submit as to Christ, etc.). We should never forget that the context for "wives submit" is verse 21, which tells everyone, including men, to submit to one another. I believe authority is not vested in a position, whether it be "pastor," "pope," or "husband." But God grants authority in situations. In those situations, I should recognize where God had poured out authority and guidance, just like He raised up judges with specific authority for specific situations (see above). And even though I am "the Man," sometimes it isn't poured out in me.

When it came to whether ot not my daughter should be homeschooled, God poured the authority in me. Angela recognized God's authority in the things I was saying, and she submitted to it, even though she didn't like it at the time. (I had said no to homeschooling.) But she has since recognized that we did choose the wise thing. But sometimes I recognize that God has granted HER authority in a matter. In those times, I SUBMIT TO HER. In all of this, it is clear that the authority is NOT in me being a husband or her being a wife. The authority is all GOD'S, which is the point of what Jesus was saying.

I apply the same view to other authority as well. I submit to leaders in the church because I recognize that God has granted them a measure of authority in the faith, not because they are "over me" and I should submit.

And I still call my Dad "father," though I did not submit to him when he wanted me to stay Roman Catholic. And I have no problem with Catholic priests being called father- rather I have a problem with the whole hierarchical structure that the priests are a part of. But you see that the issues here are much deeper than whether or not a priest is called "father." It touches things like how much authority one's own father should be granted, and who has final authority in a marriage.

(I should plan a post on the Headship/Submission issue, after I post again about the authority/inerrancy of Scripture and why I am not a liberal.)

In Wesley's Notes on the Bible, he says:
"The Jewish rabbis were also called father and master, by their several disciples, whom they required,1. To believe implicitly what they affirmed, without asking any farther reason;2. To obey implicitly what they enjoined, without seeking farther authority. Our Lord, therefore, by forbidding us either to give or receive the title of rabbi, master, or father, forbids us either to receive any such reverence, or to pay any such to any but God."

UPDATE

DID I READ SOMETHING INTO MATTHEW 23?

I was worried that my take ( above ) on Matthew 23:8 was a case of "overexegeting," reading too much into a passage. ("Eisogesis" is when we read something into a passage that is not there at all. "Overexegeting" is when we are legitimately looking at the passage, but drawing huge conclusions from the tiniest clues, usually going farther than the evidence demands.)

I asked myself if I was perhaps "overexegeting" the passage, asserting that the whole context of the passage is related to issues of authority, submission, and obedience. For example, verse 5 begins by having Jesus criticize the Pharisees for doing everything "to be seen by men." Isn't that the main point of the passage? Could it be as simple as, " He means do not use these names to be praised by men," as one commentor said?

Perhaps. It is a theme of Jesus' that Matthew dwells on, for example in the Sermon on the Mount:

MT 6:1 "Be careful not to do your `acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
MT 6:2 "So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
MT 6:5 "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

So there definitely is a point here about using titles in order to receive praise from others.

However, I think that I have not missed the point of the passage, for these reasons:

1) First, it does not seem that to understand Jesus' commands this way would really solve a problem. We could drop using titles or else start using humble ones, but still ascribe to those individuals the same amount of authority and recognition. For example, the greek word for "Deacon" means servant, but has it not become an "authoritative title" in some places? Would Jesus only desire an outward change, that does not get to one's inner heart? Not likely.

2) The key to the Matthew 23 passage is in the contrasts: There are earthly teachers, but you have the Christ. The are earthly fathers, but you have one heavenly Father. This is why I say that the passage deals with authority and who you should (ultimately) submit to. Rather than changing the titles but retaining the power structure, Jesus is saying the exact opposite- You can still call someone "daddy," but your obedience is to God first. The power structure has changed, but labels are only useful when the proper lines of authority behind them are submitted to God.