“Let me not, I pray you, accept any man’s person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man. 22) For I know not to give flattering titles; in so doing my maker would soon take me away.” (Job 32:21-22)
From these words spoken by Job’s friend Elihu many millennia ago, we can see that addressing someone using a flattering title is something that will provoke the wrath of God. The practice of flattery is likewise condemned elsewhere in scripture (Pro 26:28; Pro 29:5). But what exactly is considered a flattering title? Does addressing a person by attaching a title to his name such as “Pastor So-and-So” or “Elder So-and-So” fall under the condemnation of giving flattering titles?
Well, the first step in determining the answer to these questions is to define flattering.
Flattering – ppl.a. 1. a. Of a person, his actions, utterances, etc.: That flatters or tries to please by praise, generally insincere; adulatory.
Notice that a flattering person is one who flatters or tries to please by praise that is generally insincere. Since a flattering person is one who flatters, we next need to define flatter.
Flatter – v. 1. a. intr. Of an animal, bird, etc.: To show delight or fondness (by wagging the tail, making a caressing sound, etc.). 2. To try to please or win the favour of (a person) by obsequious speech or conduct; to court, fawn upon. 3. To praise or compliment unduly or insincerely.
Since we are not dealing with the animal kingdom, the first sense is eliminated. Given its direct correlation to and nearly verbatim language of the definition of flattering, definition 3 has shown itself to be the proper definition in context, which is to praise or compliment unduly or insincerely. There is one other word that is used to define flattering that will shed more light on the matter, and that is the word adulatory. Adulatory is defined as following:
Adulatory – a. Of or belonging to an adulator; full of adulation; servilely or fulsomely flattering.
Adulation – Servile flattery or homage; exaggerated and hypocritical praise to which the bestower consciously stoops.
So we can see that adulatory flattery is flattery that is full of exaggerated and hypocritical praise. Therefore, putting it all together, a flattering title is a title which gives insincere, exaggerated, and hypocritical praise to the person whose name it has been attached. This is the type of title that the Word of God condemns.
Now that we know exactly what a flattering title is, let’s get back to the question that gave rise to this little essay: Does addressing a person by attaching a title to his name such as “Pastor So-and-So” or “Elder So-and-So” fall under the condemnation of giving flattering titles? The simple answer is no; calling a pastor “Pastor So-and-So” is not giving insincere, exaggerated, or hypocritical praise to him, and therefore cannot be considered a flattering title since it in no way fits the definition of the word. Now that this horse has been killed, let’s beat him a little before laying him to rest.
Getting back to Elihu’s statement in Job 32:21-22: notice that Elihu was speaking in a general sense and NOT specifically in a religious sense. With that being the case, let’s look at some examples that the Bible gives of godly men who addressed nobles with what some might consider flattering titles. For instance, the apostle Paul addressed Agrippa as “King Agrippa” (Act 26:27) and Festus as “most noble Festus” (Act 26:25). Was Paul guilty of “giv[ing] flattering titles unto man” (Job 32:21)? No, he certainly was not in that he was nowhere in the scripture condemned by God for doing so. When Luke wrote his gospel to Theophilus, he addressed him as “most excellent Theophilus” (Luk 1:3). Was Luke guilty of giving flattering titles unto man? No, he was not for the same reason that Paul was not. Moreover, neither Paul nor Luke were giving a title that was insincere, exaggerated, or hypocritical, so therefore these titles were not flattering ones.
Now that we have seen that the Bible gives examples of godly men addressing other men with a noble title in the secular realm, let’s look at an example that the Bible gives of addressing men with a title that has a religious connotation. Church members in the New Testament are commonly referred to as brothers. The apostle Paul was specifically referred to as “brother Saul”(Act 9:17) by Ananias. Addressing a brother as “Brother So-and-So” would be just as much giving a “flattering title” as would be addressing a pastor as “Pastor So-and-So”. Like a pastor, a person that is a brother is in a special position that not all men are in and therefore is held to a higher standard than other men (1Co 5:11), which is similar to how a pastor is in a special position and is held to a higher standard than other men. A person is a brother because God fitted him to be one; likewise a man is a pastor because God fitted him to be one. Therefore calling a pastor “Pastor So-and-So” is fundamentally no different than calling a brother “Brother So-and-So”. Calling a pastor “Pastor So-and-So” and a brother “Brother So-and-So” is not giving them flattering titles, it is simply calling them what they are. Just to reiterate what was already said previously: calling a pastor “Pastor So-and-So” is in no way giving him a flattering title because it is in no way giving him insincere, exaggerated, or hypocritical praise.
In contrast, a truly flattering title might be one such as “The most magnificent, splendid, perfect, and majestic Pastor So-and-So”. Things that are different are not the same and the definitions of words along with a little Biblical reasoning have cleared up this little dilemma.
