Hello all, 
I have a question for you. In Matt. 23, Jesus seems to be against the use of religious titles, including the term "rabbi", which quite literally means "my great one", applied to anyone but himself. It is interesting because Jesus uses three of the main terms applied to the religious leadership at his time.
The "Av"/Father would be a term used for the de-facto spiritual leader of the Sanhedrin, as the "Nasi" was more administrative than anything else.
The terms "Rabbi" and "Rabban", literally "My/Our Great One", were applied to teachers who gathered many followers. A "Rabbi" whose teachings became greatly widespread would become a "Rabban" in latter generations.
The term "Master" would most likely refer to the term "Moreh", which was the Essene title for their own leader, the "Teacher of Righteousness".
There seems also to be a sort of a mild word-play on the term "cohen harosh" (head priest, which is the same as "cohen hagadol", that is "high priest"), when it is said that Christ is the "head", which would probably be seen as a call not to submit to the corrupt leadership of the Sadducees. The Essenes had a similar word-play, calling such a leader the "cohen hareisha" (evil priest), rather than the "cohen harosh".
In fact, this seems consistent with the rest of the narrative of the New Testament. I don't see Paul, Peter and James displaying or making use of any religious title whatsoever. I hear a lot of Messianics calling Paul "Rabbi Shaul" and while it is certain he was educated as such, why does he not refer to himself as such?
When looking at the "titles" in display in the New Testament, such as shephard/pastor, deacon and bishop, they all seem much more like roles than titles.
A shephard was simply one who oversaw the welfare of people, either physically or spiritually. It would most likely refer to those who did bikur cholim, or who patiently sat with others to tend to their needs.
A deacon in the Aramaic is called a "shamash", which is the older word for the office of a "gabbai". Essentially, people who helped in the preparation/execution of the liturgy of a religious meeting. Those people would likely distribute prayer books, control attendance, maybe clean the place, get the food ready, etc. Again, much more a role than a title.
A bishop is likely to be the word "zaken", which is basically a person who is older and thus more mature in religious affairs. Such people usually served as judges and members of the Beit Din for the purpose of orienting the younger. Again, not a title at all.
So my questions are:
1) Am I missing something here? If so, would you kindly point me to understanding?
2) How do you see this issue of religious titles?
3) Why does Christianity with so many titles seem so far off from the teachings of Jesus in this respect?
Kol tov,
Fremen
I have a question for you. In Matt. 23, Jesus seems to be against the use of religious titles, including the term "rabbi", which quite literally means "my great one", applied to anyone but himself. It is interesting because Jesus uses three of the main terms applied to the religious leadership at his time.
The "Av"/Father would be a term used for the de-facto spiritual leader of the Sanhedrin, as the "Nasi" was more administrative than anything else.
The terms "Rabbi" and "Rabban", literally "My/Our Great One", were applied to teachers who gathered many followers. A "Rabbi" whose teachings became greatly widespread would become a "Rabban" in latter generations.
The term "Master" would most likely refer to the term "Moreh", which was the Essene title for their own leader, the "Teacher of Righteousness".
There seems also to be a sort of a mild word-play on the term "cohen harosh" (head priest, which is the same as "cohen hagadol", that is "high priest"), when it is said that Christ is the "head", which would probably be seen as a call not to submit to the corrupt leadership of the Sadducees. The Essenes had a similar word-play, calling such a leader the "cohen hareisha" (evil priest), rather than the "cohen harosh".
In fact, this seems consistent with the rest of the narrative of the New Testament. I don't see Paul, Peter and James displaying or making use of any religious title whatsoever. I hear a lot of Messianics calling Paul "Rabbi Shaul" and while it is certain he was educated as such, why does he not refer to himself as such?
When looking at the "titles" in display in the New Testament, such as shephard/pastor, deacon and bishop, they all seem much more like roles than titles.
A shephard was simply one who oversaw the welfare of people, either physically or spiritually. It would most likely refer to those who did bikur cholim, or who patiently sat with others to tend to their needs.
A deacon in the Aramaic is called a "shamash", which is the older word for the office of a "gabbai". Essentially, people who helped in the preparation/execution of the liturgy of a religious meeting. Those people would likely distribute prayer books, control attendance, maybe clean the place, get the food ready, etc. Again, much more a role than a title.
A bishop is likely to be the word "zaken", which is basically a person who is older and thus more mature in religious affairs. Such people usually served as judges and members of the Beit Din for the purpose of orienting the younger. Again, not a title at all.
So my questions are:
1) Am I missing something here? If so, would you kindly point me to understanding?
2) How do you see this issue of religious titles?
3) Why does Christianity with so many titles seem so far off from the teachings of Jesus in this respect?
Kol tov,
Fremen
