Matt. 23:10 "Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ..."

Eph. 6:5 "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh...as unto Christ."

So do we call men "master" or don't we? Once again the skeptics don't know there's a difference behind the Greek. Paul uses kurios, an all-purpose word equal to "sir" in modern terms. Jesus uses kathegetes meaning guide or teacher. This matches the context of the Matthew, which warns against using titles associated with teaching (Rabbi, Father) and is in the context of warnings against those who teach the law.

In issue #17 of the BE newsletter, Dennis McKinsey writes that he sees no reason to not apply this to calling our biological fathers "father". A letter writer in the 20th issue pointed out:

In reading the Bible we have to understand what is behind the words, otherwise what we read is subject to misinterpretation. The verse you cite is part of a passage in which Jesus is rebuking the Jewish religious establishment,.... He condemns their use of three titles: rabbi (master), abba (father) and morah (teacher), implying that they are not worthy of these titles. He also doesn't mean that you shouldn't call your dad your father, or refer to a teacher in school as teacher.

McKinsey correctly pointed out that pater, not abba, is the word at issue. But other than that, the explanation is correct. What does he say in reply? He says that the explanation relies on "unwarranted assumptions" and that the writer "inserted something that isn't there." In other words, the writer's knowledge and experience with Jewish custom and tradition means nothing, and we are warranted in rejecting it because "...I will have to assume the Book says what it means and means what it says." Which is to say, it "means" whatever McKinsey "says", and never mind the relevant historical context!

Here is a related issue:

1 Peter 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the forward.

How does this square with Jesus' words to Satan, to serve God only? It is matched up in part by the precept that God sets earthly authorities to be obeyed (Romans 7), and in that sense, we serve God through masters. However, Peter specifies that we obey masters; the word used by Jesus, latreuo means "render religious homage," or worship -- not the same thing!

And now another confused train wreck from the Ebon website. Ebon curiously rejects the notion that kathegetes means teacher or guide because "[t]he chapter could equally well be said to be in the context of warnings against obeying masters in the master/servant sense." An example is verse 4:

For they (the scribes and Pharisees) bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

Ebon is seemingly unaware that the scribes and Pharisees bound the people with heavy burdens through their teachings rather than by literally being in command of the rank and file Jews, ignoring even the fact that skeptic Dennis McKinsey seems to understand the passage adequately. (Note as well that kathegetes appears nowhere else in the NT but in the passage in Matthew.) Indeed, rank and file Jews would have given the scribes and Pharisees as much "ear" as Ebon gives to reputable Biblical scholarship. They went around pestering people, but in terms of "enforcement" there wasn't a whole lot they could do about it. There just wasn't much call for jailing people for picking grain on the Sabbath, and the Romans kept the Sanhedrin from enforcing more serious penalties without permission. Contextual and background education would help Ebon keep from making these sorts of oblivious errors.

Not surprisingly, Ebon's response to the point about different Greek words being used is to suggest, rather naively, that all of the words are synonyms. This from a man who tells us that we need to read what the text says and not import ideas into it. He goes on to suggest we have been dishonest for not noting that Strong's says the "teacher" meaning of kathegetes is figurative while the "master" meaning is not. No, he just doesn't get the point because he hasn't got enough background knowledge to proceed without his hand being held. Jesus' admonition follows specifically upon warnings against the scribes and teachers of the law who specifically claimed the titles Rabbi, Father, and Master. Because they are "teachers" kathegetes carries with it the meaning of teacher, whether the word is literal, figurative, or whatever. Owner-slave relationships simply aren't in view here, and that renders Ebon's original case irrelevant.

Now here is a final amusing error by Ebon:

But there is a far more serious problem here, one Mr. Holding has not begun to address. Kurios, which is used by Colossians and Ephesians to describe whom servants should obey, is a term of respect that means, among other things, "God"! Isn't this a far more serious matter than what Jesus talks about in Matthew 23? If we are not even to call men "teacher" or "father" - presumably because those titles are reserved to God - how much worse it must be to call one's fellow mortals by a title that does in fact mean God!

Ebon apparently derives this goofball statement from the Strong's definition which says:

kurios, koo'-ree-os; from kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, i.e. (as noun) controller; by impl. Mr. (as a respectful title):--God, Lord, master, Sir.

Strong's does not say here that kurios "means" God and Ebon will find no scholar of Greek who says that, either. It means "lord" or "sir" and as such was an appropriate title for God (or a god) in the ancient world, or for any person one respected. If it meant "God" then the Greeks called Philip "God" in John 12:21.

Ebon closes with a request for a condemnation of slavery from the Bible. He needs more clues from the social context and he can get them here where he will find out that slavery wasn't the elephant in the ancient world that he thinks it was.