roamer_1:
Ok but Rabbi as a term would connote a Master/Teacher of Jewish Doctrine, Law, practice and thus one who teaches. So all educators are indeed teachers, but a PHD would be in essence a Master/Teacher of a discipline and thus could teach a subject at a University, and elementary school teacher while still be an educator like the PHD, but not a master teacher.
As for Father, so you do note that it does have usage in a context other than to refer to God the Father, as in Hebrew it had patriarchal links with the likes of Abraham. THe early Church viewed certain sees [Rome being first among them] as patriarchial sees [Antioch and Alexandria also] thus the Bishops of those Churches were seen as Fathers, i.e. Greek Pappas, which would be what a little child would call his or her Father. That word became Papa in Latin is where Pope Comes from. Pater is also used as a title for Father, but that would be not the child’s use of papa, So Pater would be also Father and used in Latin for God and also honorific like Papa for Pope and Pater for a spiritual Father. Now why did the Popes want Papa reserved for them and pater for parish priests, perhaps in the sense that they saw all of the Church as being under their spiritual care taking cue from Christ command to Saint Peter “Feed my Lambs” and only he was given that command. So what type of Man, if is a true man, does not work to provide food to feed his family, so in that sense Saint Peter was given a charge to be a spiritual father to his fellow apostles, not to Lord over them but to serve and strengthen them [which Christ also specifically commanded Saint Peter, and only him, to do in Luke 22].
Correct, but I think you miss the essence of the point here. A mother, teaching her child the alphabet is being a 'rabbi'... a 'teacher'. That is fine. If she were to insist upon her child calling her 'Rabbi' because she is his teacher, that would not be fine. If she were to insist upon wearing special robes and cause the child to assume some submissive posturing in her presence, while in her robes... well, that's just awful.
As for Father, so you do note that it does have usage in a context other than to refer to God the Father, as in Hebrew it had patriarchal links with the likes of Abraham.
Of course it does, and that continues throughout the NT.
I am an 'original image' guy - I think that the adversary gets unending pleasure from corrupting the images that YHWH set forth (which is why, btw, I am an avid iconoclast). the alternate image skews what the Father intended.
The title of father is ordained by YHWH upon one type, and one class, and the two are intimately inter-related. It is a title with tremendous power... Perhaps the most powerful office ever bestowed upon men:
The father is the strong man of the house. He is empowered to write his own law, and his wife and children, all who are in his house, must obey him. He is, to that house, the chief lawgiver, the chief judge, the chief prosecutor, the chief educator, the chief protector, and the chief provider. He is rightly given honor. As his house grows, and he ages, he becomes an elder, a grandfather, to be honored because of his wisdom. His power is also projected externally, as he is given a seat at the community's table, and participates in decisions there too.
This is the original image of a father. The seat of all human power and wisdom. This is the image given to us, and the one YHWH uses to describe himself. That image needs to be perfectly preserved, because otherwise, if the image changes, then what YHWH calls Himself is changed. And that image IS perfectly preserved right where YHWH ordained that it should be. ALL the rest are false. They do not have the power YHWH put upon the father.
There is little surprise that men would want to co-opt that image to suit their own purpose. And they did, and still DO.
But in the very same passage (Matt 23), Yeshua removes that tendency - beginning with discipleship - The first verses tear down the patriarchal system of the Pharisees. Every disciple is a disciple of Moses, not Shammai or Hillel (as instances). There IS NO succession. There is no tradition.
Likewise, every disciple of Yeshua is a disciple of Yeshua, not Peter, or Paul, or Francis, or Calvin or Luther. All of those spurious spiritual 'bloodlines', the offense of false patriarchy, all of that is down the tubes. And all of the traditions, honorific titles, pomp and circumstance - all of that went with it.
We are left with ONE Father, and ONE Master, over all of us. They deserve to be bowed down to, and they deserve all the honorific titles.
We, who put our pants on one leg at a time, are to be brothers. Equals. Service requires servant-hood - being less than equal to your brothers. the race is to the bottom as far as prestige is concerned.
And by the way, no man's words can hold the weight of the Father and the Master - That only follows.