A Brief Study of God's Leadership of God's People
On Earth
By Art Thompson
Introduction
Before engaging this engaging study, it's important that we
"calibrate" ourselves. We just need to be sure we're using some of
the same definitions and concepts.
There is so very much confusion today about who should lead God's people.
What should we call them?
What authority do they have over us?
Who are the
clergy?
The laity?
Must our leaders decide things (doctrine/practice) for us?
Must our leaders "dispense the sacraments" to us?
May we be born,
married, and/or buried without them?
May we commune without them?
Answers to all these questions have divided God's people today or at some
time in our past.
In order to get off on the same foot, we need to agree first about who
"God's people" are. What are they called? How can we recognize them?
This study assumes that the examples set for us by the apostles and first
century disciples are proper models for us to follow. It is important for us
to emulate them.
Some Vital Figures of
Speech
We all speak in figures of speech, and we do it often. It's important to
understand that we do, why we do, and to recognize figures of speech when we
or others use them.
Let's start with a short elementary lesson in the use of language.
In its most basic sense, words themselves, spoken or written, are figures.
They stand for ideas, persons, places, actions, or things. Some words are
taken directly from what they attempt to describe and are simply imitations of
other sounds. Boom! Crack! Snap! Crackle! Pop! are some familiar and fairly
obvious examples.
Others are not quite so obvious, but are just a little more subtle attempts
to imitate the sounds of something. For instance, the word snake
attempts to imitate the hissing sound we associate with the slithering
creatures. To say that a bear growls is also an attempt at imitating
the sound a bear might make.
Other words which convey ideas, concepts, qualities, quantities, and other
of our thoughts are not quite as easy to associate with the words we use to
communicate them. Honesty. Truth. Desire. Love. Humility. Leadership. All are
examples.
Because some of these qualities are harder to convey, we sometimes reason
from a simpler, more concrete idea to the more abstract, just to make sure we
really are communicating with each other. In fact, one of the greatest, most
striking, yet simplest ways to teach is by using these "figures of
speech" - reasoning from a more concrete concept to the more conceptual.
Jesus recognized this, of course. Being our master teacher, he spoke mostly
in figures of speech, to assist his listeners in understanding the spiritual
concepts he wanted them to grasp. Ideas they had never heard before.
In the intervening years since Jesus, many have attempted to
"translate" his thoughts into concrete action. Sometimes they have
been very successful. At other times, they have only confused and muddled the
simple word pictures Jesus used. By doing so, they have made his simple
teaching very complex and often confused and confusing.
What I would like to attempt to do is to get us back passed all of that. It
is difficult to "undo" 2,000 years of muddling befuddlement. But
let's try. Let's attempt to peel off all the layers of misconception,
misunderstanding, tradition, self-aggrandizement, and all the other stuff I
call "fal-de-ral", and try to understand simply and only what Jesus
was trying to teach us.
There are several kinds of figurative speech. Language experts have given
names to them to help us distinguish them from each other, and to know a
little about each of them. We won't come close to discussing them all, but a
few are definitely in order.
First is the simile. This is a simple word-for-word comparison. A simile
is a one point comparison of two quite different things, using the words like or as.
Here are three examples from Matthew 10:16. Jesus said:
I am sending
you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as
snakes and as innocent as doves.
When he sent out his disciples among the Jews, he cautioned them about how
difficult things would be. To simplify the concept he wanted to convey, he
compared them to sheep among wolves. They were familiar with shepherding and
tending sheep. When your sheep are known to be among wolves - if they can't be
immediately removed to a safe haven - then they must be extremely alert,
cautious, and wise. Today, we'd say they must be "on their toes,"
(which is still another figure of speech!). Not only would there be things
about their mission that were easily compared to sheep among wolves, he could
caution them to be shrewd and innocent at the same time, by making the
comparison to snakes and doves. They could understand these word pictures.
The next most common word picture Jesus used is called a metaphor.
A metaphor is very similar to a simile, however, it makes a one point
comparison between two basically dissimilar things without using
"like" or "as".
In Luke 13:32, Jesus said,
. . . Go tell
that fox, "I will drive out demons and heal people today and tomorrow,
and on the third day I will reach my goal."
Here, Jesus made a dramatic and very pointed comparison between the known
characteristics of a fox, and King Herod. The Pharisees knew very well the
similarities between a fox and Herod - cunning, sneaky, intelligent,
dangerous. His figure of speech conveyed to them that he also knew what they
knew about Herod. Jesus was not being fooled by anyone, and he used a very few
words to convey it in a way that would stick in their memories.
Very similar to the metaphor is the allegory. My high
school English teacher described an allegory as an extended metaphor.
In other words, instead of only one point of comparison between two
essentially unlike things, the allegory compares several points without using like
or as.
Paul uses the allegory quite effectively to help us understand the
differences between the law of love and liberty given to us by Jesus, and the
law given on the mountain through Moses, 1,500 years earlier. The following is
a little lengthy, but worth the time.
Tell me, you
who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?
For it is
written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by
the free woman. His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but
his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.
These things
may be taken figuratively,(1) for the women
represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children
who are to be slaves: This is Hagar.
Now Hagar
stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of
Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children.
But the
Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written:
"Be glad, oh, barren woman, who bears no children; break forth and cry
aloud, you who have no labor pains; because more are the children of the
desolate woman than of her who has a husband."
Now you,
brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. At that time the son born in
the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is
the same now.
But what does
the scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the
slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's
son."
Therefore,
brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman. It
is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let
yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. Mark my words! I, Paul,
tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no
value to you at all.
Again, I
declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to
obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been
alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. But by faith we
eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. For in
Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only
thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. (Galatians 4:21-
5:6)
By understanding the method Paul used - his allegory - we are then better
equipped to understand the differences he is teaching between the two
"laws". One is law-keeping - bondage, slavery. The other is freedom
only through Jesus Christ.
The final one I'd like to consider is the parable.
Much of the teaching of Jesus is parabolic. All my life I've heard people
attempt to define what a parable is. You've heard them, too. "An earthly
story with a heavenly meaning." "Something 'thrown along side'
something else." There are others. All of them have some degree of truth
in them, but do not give the real meaning of parable. My own attempt
to define parable is "an extended simile." That is, a parable
makes several points of comparison between two essentially unlike things, using
like or as - just as a simile makes
only one point
of comparison, using like or as.
Before we notice an example or two, consider for a moment the significance
of parabolic teaching and references. Parabolic comes from and is the
adjective form of parabola.
One of the most common parabolas is a satellite TV receiving dish. You've
seen them. There are the new-fangled digital dishes, about a foot and a half
across. Then, there are the old-fangled dishes, anywhere from about 4 or 5
feet to 10 feet across.
It looks something like this:
comparing a point here - the familiar . . .
with a point here - the unfamiliar - using like or as is
a simile. (Matthew 10:16). Without like or as, it's
a metaphor (Luke 13:32).
comparing a point here - the familiar
and a point here,
and a point here,
with points here
and here - the unfamiliar - using like or as, is a
parable. without like or as, it's an allegory (Galatians 4,
5).
Now, I think we're ready for a parable. Let's try Matthew 13:47-50. Jesus
was saying:
Once again, the
kingdom (realm) of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and
caught all kinds of fish. When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on
the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but
threw the bad away.
This is how it
will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked
from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will
be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Jesus makes several points of comparison - as a parable always does -
between a net full of fishes and the realm of heaven. God will cast out a net
and will take in all kinds of people. "Inside the net" constitutes
and is parabolic to the "realm of heaven", or the KJV calls it "the kingdom of
heaven". Those gathered into the "net" will have been gathered
into the "realm of heaven," and constitute its population. During
time, the good and the bad in the kingdom are kept together in a bunch (net)
in heaven's realm. But, at the end of the age, angels will come who will
separate the good from the bad. The good in the realm of heaven will be
separated from the bad in the realm of heaven. The bad from heaven's realm
will be burned up in a place where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.
There are some things about heaven's realm (here on earth) that we can
learn from this comparison. However, stretching this or any other figure of
speech beyond the comparison's Jesus made causes error to creep into our
teaching, and clouds our understanding of what Jesus was really trying to
convey to us.
God's People
Now, that we have our brief review of figurative teaching before us, how
did Jesus describe God's people?
There are several figures, and we can learn something different and unique
from each one.
Flock of sheep.
Ekklesia.
Fellowship (koinonia).
Those who believed.
Community.
Family.
He used several figures of speech to compare this quite abstract idea to
concrete things with which his disciples were familiar.
[Editor's Note: When completed, at this place we plan a brief study of
"ekklesia" as one of the figures of speech occasionally used
in New Testament scriptures to describe God's people. Then will follow
the text below about the God's chosen leadership design for his people.]
Overseers?
Bishops?
It seems to me that we've let the King James Version drag us around by the
vocabulary for almost four centuries too long.
How
many words will we continue to misunderstand before we finally realize that,
in several areas, the King James is an intentionally misleading book? I urge
you to get into a more current translation you can understand.
If simple misunderstanding of a single word were all that this involved, I
wouldn't get so upset. Just a single definition can easily be straightened
out. However, entire doctrines, contrary to the teachings of our Lord, have
been built on King James's deceitful translation. Too many of us have followed
along with this delusive denominational handbook for too long. It will be
difficult for us to straighten out our thinking.
As an example of the false concept and doctrine we've fashioned around this
translation, take the word bishop.
King James instructed his translators to "keep certain ecclesiastical
words", such as "bishop", which were in the older Bishop's
Bible. He wanted them kept because they reflected a picture of the church of
England of which James was the head.
To the King's translators, "ecclesiastical words", meant
"church words" -- or words relating concepts which belong
exclusively to "the church" or to "the clergy". with words
like these, the organized "church" concept would continue to exist
and be perpetuated. Without them, the concept of a "church
organization" would die, disciples would overthrow the
"ecclesiastical organization" and would return to the simplicity of
the first century.
The king did not want episkopos to be translated at all -- as we
shall see. When the context of the original language appeared to indicate a
"church office", or a "church official", he had bishop
or overseer "plugged in" to render the Greek word. King
James was so successful at misleading, that during the intervening centuries,
even respected expert Greek language scholars have been influenced to follow
his error. This must have happened with great subtlety, because I believe that
the scholars were sincerely trying to be true to the original language.
The
sooner we understand that the KJV was devised from its conception to be the
Creed Book of the Church of England, the better. Even the term
"Authorized Version (or AV)" which is very commonly used to refer to
it, came from the king's preface to the book. The preface said that the KJV
had been "authorized to be read in all the churches". What our
generation has failed to understand is that King James authorized his version
to be read in all the Church of England churches -- his churches. He did not
have any other denominations in mind at all!
Sadly, many have thought that "authorized version" means
"authorized by God"! One preacher I know even believes the footnotes
and marginal notes were inspired. Thank God, he is an exception! Or is he?
Further, properly translating episkopos would have meant giving up
his established church government. the Church of England and its American
branch have an episcopal form of government.
Episcopal.
Episkopos.
Get it?
In this form of government, all religious authority is vested in bishops.
Under their oversight. Sound familiar?
The king could not afford to have episkopos translated properly.
His entire church government and organization would fall (disappear?). He
couldn't have that. Neither can "our" bishops today!
Definitions and Pointy Hats
What do the words bishop and overseer mean to you? The
picture they should bring to your mind is the real function of some special
people among early disciples (1 Timothy 3:1). Instead of helping us
understand, these two words not only hinder us from understanding this
function altogether, but they teach us error about these people and their
work.
Because of the ecclesiastical connotation, "restoration churches"
have avoided the used of the terms "bishop" and "overseer"
like the plague, instead, using the term "elder" almost exclusively
-- even to the point of overuse.
When you think of a bishop, do you picture someone with a pointy
hat? If so, It's no wonder. My dictionary defines bishop as "an
overseer over a number of local churches or a diocese." It says that
"in the Greek, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and other churches, he is a
member of the highest order in the ministry, a spiritual overseer."
What does a bishop do? Of course, he bishops! Because the verb to
bishop means "to function as a bishop". That's not much help,
is it? I may "bishop" someone, because the verb from of the word
also means "to appoint to the office of bishop."
A bishop is appointed to the position of bishop or to the bishopric,
which is "the see, diocese, or office of a bishop." Bishopric
comes from a Latin word meaning "to dominate".
Can you believe that so many of us have fallen for this stuff? Many
problems among the Lord's people today stem from a belief that a bishop is in
fact over someone or is to dominate someone.
I used to believe a lot of this, but have never believed that a single
bishop should be "over a number of local churches". Instead, I did
believe that a "plurality" of bishops were to rule over one local
church. I believed that there was no higher "office" among God's
people -- that this was, in fact, the "highest order in the
ministry". Just like the dictionary says.
I also believed that the bishopric was the office of a bishop. And
I believed, just as the dictionary says, that bishop has something to
do with dominion over others!
At the same time, I believed that Christians are not to have dominion over
each other, but that we should be servants of each other instead. Please do
not ask me how I reconciled this in my mind. I don't really know, because I
now recognize that while believing this, I also was quite inconsistent.
With little questioning, we have also accepted the word overseer
-- King James's synonym of bishop.
An overseer is "One who oversees; a supervisor, a minor
official of a parish in England."
What does an overseer do?
To oversee is "to direct the work or workers; to supervise; to manage;
to survey; to watch."
So, according to these definitions, an overseer is someone who is
"over" someone or some activity to "see" that work is done
properly.
Is it any wonder that we think of overseers -- whether we call
them elders, pastors, shepherds, bishops or presbyters -- as the ones who run
the church? In today's terminology, of course, we could say they manage
the church.
Modern Scholars
Some students of the original language of the New Testament have attempted
to define the words bishop and overseer by breaking down the
Greek word into its component parts. Even this honest effort causes us to see
the wrong picture of what the word meant in Paul's writings. The KJV has
strongly influenced some of our scholars who broke the word apart in order to
arrive at the "authorized" definition: If you use Strong's
Concordance, you'll find: "from epi and skopos; a
superintendent, that is a Christian officer in general charge of a (or the)
church (literally or figuratively) -- bishop, overseer".
The respected W.E. Vine says it is "literally, an overseer (epi,
over, skopeo, to look or watch), whence English 'bishop,' which has
precisely the same meaning. The term 'bishop,' or 'overseer,' indicates the
character of the work undertaken."
Even Thayer, one of the principal translators of both the Revised Standard
and the American Standard versions of the New Testament fell into the King's
trap with "episkopos -- an overseer, a man charge with the duty
of seeing that things to be done by others are done rightly." Arndt and
Gingrich say" "overseer -- persons who have a definite
function or a fixed office within a group, including a religious group."
We have been led down the primrose path by old King James. Actually, by the
Devil. While we have earnestly believed that we are following The New
Testament Pattern, instead we have set up demigods over God's house.
Unintentionally, we patterned them after the bishops of the Church of
England of the 1600's. Is that what God intended?
Episkopos
Now that we have seen how others define the words, let's do our own study
of episkopos to see why the Holy Spirit chose that word. Epi
is a Greek preposition, meaning upon or over. Skopos
is a noun, meaning one who sees or one who looks.
However, in Greek as in English, when a preposition is combined with
another word, the definition of the new compound word is rarely the sum of the
two original words. In this case, the combined word, episkopos does
not mean one who sees (or looks) or oversees
from above.
However, that is just the mistake I (and many others) have
made for years. That was
the function King James saw in the Catholic church and in his own Church of
England. Those "officers" in the church did indeed look down from a
superior position. they looked down from above upon the
"ordinary (lay) people:, to see that those "under their
oversight" did the right things in the right way. They did
"manage" the people in the pews.
It seems to me that there is no question but that Satan certainly had a
hand in blinding the eyes of so many well-intentioned people for so long!
Rendering the word episkopos as bishop or overseer
is wrong. It was wrong when it was done. The intervening centuries have not
made it right. The error was born in the corrupted organization of religious
people that existed for a long time before 1611.
Thus, I believe that the "church organization" did not come from
the definition of this term. Instead, the definition of the term came from the
already corrupted "church organization". The "church" had
been corrupted already by an "organization" which had been in place
for several hundred years when episkopos began to be rendered
"bishop" and "overseer." Those definitions have been
confusing us a long time.
Let Scripture Define
Let's study some other uses of this same word-family. The scriptures
themselves define the term. When it referred to something other than the
"ecclesiastical office", the translators actually translated it!
They don't put in the pointy hat!
For example, forms of the word are used in the following:
Mt. 25:36, 43 - Jesus said, "I
was sick and you visited me . . ."
describes watching over someone to care for them.
Acts 7:23 - "to visit
his brothers, the sons of Israel . . ." Moses near age
40, decided he should look in on his fellow Israelites to
see how they were faring under their heavy workload. His
actions when he saw one being mistreated indicate that the purpose of his
"looking" was to take action based on the needs he saw.
Jas. 1:27 - "to visit
the fatherless and widows . . ." watching out
for the needs of the fatherless and widows to see that they
are supplied.
Another demonstration of the King James's translators' intentional
inconsistency shows up when they translated the same word in two different
ways in the two following verses.
In Hebrews 12:15, they translated the word as "Looking diligently
lest any man . . ." Notice especially how this word is translated here.
This is its real meaning. Then contrast that concept with how the same word is
rendered in the ecclesiastical sense in 1 Peter 5:2. There the subject is elders
and their function of shepherding. To make sure that future
generations got King James's version instead of the apostle Peter's version,
they did not say "Looking diligently", as they did in Hebrews, but
rather "taking the oversight". Think what a different model we would
have had for nearly four hundred years if that one had been translated
properly! We would have a picture of elders "looking diligently",
instead of being authoritative. Disciples would not be putting themselves
"under the oversight" of these men, but would have been entrusting
their souls to their diligence, advice, guidance and tender, loving care.
Is there any way that I can honestly say that the translators of the KJV
did not intend to deceive us? That their purpose was to perpetuate their
church organization, along with its officials, by writing them right into the
scriptures -- where they had never been before the Bishops' Bible?
So then, just what does our word mean? Certainly not
"over-seeing" as you and I have had ingrained in us. No, episkopos
means carefully looking into someone's needs -- with the purpose of
supplying what is needed.
Proper use of the word does not teach us that "pure religion" is
to manage, or oversee widows and orphans, does it? Nor to
have them in "subjection" to us?
"Ridiculous!" you say? That's true, but, which is more
ridiculous: A child of God, trying to fulfill his or her responsibilities to
the sick, imprisoned, naked, hungry, widows or orphans by
"overseeing" them? Or an elder person attempting to manage,
oversee, or keep a group of Christians (a "local church")
in subjection? Each concept is just as foreign to God's thinking as the
other.
The Work -- "Be On Guard"
The responsibility or work which God gave to the episkopos is best
described and summed up by Paul in Acts 20:28-31.
Be on
guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the
Holy Spirit has made you careful watchers, to shepherd
the assembly of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after
my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to
draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be on the alert,
remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease
to admonish each one with tears.
Paul's instruction here certainly convinces me that their work is not
"managing" nor "overseeing," but "carefully looking
after" individual disciples. Notice the concept conveyed by the words I
have emphasized in these verses. What were they to watch so carefully? They
were to watch themselves, the flock, and (by inference) to watch
for wolves that would tear into the flock.
This concept, held by disciples in the first century, existed for many
hundreds of years until King James changed it for his "episcopal"
church, run by its bishops. In the beginning, there was not
even a hint of anyone
being business manager for the saints! But the KJV changed all that.
As a result, we have today's organizations, misunderstandings and divisions.
The responsibility of being a careful watcher is a real job, a
work, a tough assignment. But, to perpetuate his concept, King James called
this an "office" instead. Perhaps that's what the term office
actually meant in 1611, but it certainly does not today. Today's office is a
position, carrying with it some degree of authority, power and prestige. That
concept of authority, power and prestige is what has been brought forward into
today's churches.
The episkopos is not to be the boss nor the manager
of the flock, holding an office or a position above others,
with authority to run their lives, but rather he is to be a servant
of the flock who keeps on watching carefully on their behalf and supplying
what they need.
The Hebrew writer said of them (13:17):
Obey those who lead
you, and submit to them; for they keep watch over
your souls, as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and
not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.
With our new understanding of the responsibilities of these persons, isn't
it much easier now to know the meaning of "submit to them"? In other
words, allow them to watch for you, follow their instruction
and example, willingly. Do this because you
love, respect and trust their wisdom and spiritual
maturity -- not because they enforce their
"authority" to rule over you! That's a
totally wrong concept. In scripture, there is no picture of one
"joining a 'local church' and submitting oneself to the oversight"
of its bishops.
How could we ever have begun to interpret "they keep watch over your
souls," as meaning that they are our "bosses", and that they
"manage" us, that they "rule" over us or "have
dominion" as King James said? What a crying shame that we have
misunderstood for so long!
Oversee The Sick?
Whatever one is to do to widows and orphans (James 1:27), and whatever Jesus
meant that we should do to our sick brothers and sisters
(Matthew 25:36, 43), is
what the episkopos should do for the flock.
If you believe it means "to manage" or "to boss" the
flock, then the devil in King James has been more successful than he
might have imagined.
What will you do about this?
Shepherds? Pastors?
One of the most frequent word pictures of God in Scripture is of a Shepherd
of his people.
Later writers, particularly John and Peter, place Jesus in the same role.
Among the gifts the Christ gave His people following his resurrection was
pastors (Ephesians 4:11). There is something vital in the concept of shepherd
or pastor that we need to understand. This concept of a shepherd is
conveyed in scripture by the original word poimen (probably
pronounced "poy-MAIN").
This
is the second concept used to describe the episkopoi we studied in a
previous article. Poimen is usually translated shepherd, but
one time as pastor (Ephesians 4:11). Many have trouble properly
understanding this word family, even as we also do episkopos. In my
opinion, though the King James' translation committee blinded us to the real
meaning of episkopos, it has been modern denominations which have
contributed a major part to the confusion over the poimen word
family.
Even though it appears only once in the English language New Testament
(KJV), many religious groups have appropriated pastor as a title for
their preacher or the leader of their local congregation. Some churches avoid the
term pastor altogether.
Having grown up in Church of Christ churches (some with a capital
"C" and some with a small one), I have seen brothers carefully avoid
the term pastor. It was easier not to use the word at all than to
explain how "our definition" of pastor was different from
its use in other churches. Can you question that since the original use of the
term, there has been a change in meaning of this perfectly good word?
Some Definitions
Most dictionaries define pastor as: a minister or clergyman, one
having spiritual care of a number of persons.
The adjective, pastoral, is something having to do with a pastor.
It involves a minister, or a clergyman, or his duties.
A pastorate is the office of a pastor; or a body of pastors.
Dictionaries are telling us that the pastor fills an office and
holds some official position in the church organization. Only a slight
"flavor" of feeding a flock ever appears in today's
definitions.
What do the Greek experts say?
Strong's Concordance defines poimen, as a shepherd or a pastor,
either a literal or figurative one. The work -- poimaino -- is to
tend as a shepherd or as a supervisor; to rule.
The respected Thayer says that the person is a herdsman, especially a
shepherd. He also says, "In the parable of the shepherd, others have
committed themselves to his care and control. They follow
the
shepherd's precepts." He concluded that the poimen is
really "the presiding officer, manager, director, of any assembly; Christ
the Head of the church is one, so are the overseers of the Christian
assemblies pastors."
Thayer continues, saying that the pastor's work is "to feed, or to
tend a flock, to keep sheep, to rule, to govern . . .
the church. To furnish pasturage or food; to nourish; to cherish one's body;
to serve the body; to supply the requisites for the soul's needs."
Bauer, Arndt & Gingrich define the original word as a shepherd, a
sheep-herder; one who leads the Christian churches. They said that a pastor
"leads the Christian churches along with other church leaders (that is,
the bishop)". By their definition, the work is "literally tend a
flock . . . figuratively, the activity that protects,
rules, governs, fosters . . . the symbol prominently in mind; of the
direction of a congregation . . . of the administration of a
congregation . . . protect, care for, nurture."
There is no question but that, though these men are well educated in the
original language of the New Testament, their perceptions have been vividly
colored by both the usage of the King James Version and the practice of the
Catholic and Protestant churches through the past 2,000 years. It becomes
obvious to me when I look at only their first definitions of each word. When I
do that, I get shepherd; a herdsman; to feed; to tend a flock; sheep herder.
that's exactly what this word family means.
However, they cannot help but to put on their "church glasses" and
tell us what the function is in the modern church. They forget the real
meaning of the word and say these men are administrators, rulers, governors,
they give precepts (laws) for others to follow. What a difference between what
these men say and what God said! By no means were they ignorant men, but
apparently they
were not aware of being subtly mislead.
The religious world -- including "restoration churches" -- has
bought the whole package. Today these shepherds are no longer seen as what
they were among the first century disciples. Instead, today they give precepts
(laws) which others must either follow or be considered unfaithful to the
Lord!
Unfaithful to the Lord !?!
That idea just goes to show how insidious this
doctrine has become. People shift logical gears without even realizing it.
Being unfaithful to the precepts of men is not equivalent to being unfaithful
to the Lord! (Matthew 15:9; Mark 7:7; Colossians 2:22).
This is a modern
tradition. We did not learn it from God! (2 Timothy 2:15).
But who are these shepherds? What should they be? What should they do?
The Shepherd's Shepherd
Let us allow scripture to define its own terms.
In the Greek version of scripture quoted by Jesus and his contemporaries,
the Psalmist used the same term when he said "The Lord is my Shepherd."
If so, shouldn't our Lord be the example of what a poimen should be?
As Peter puts it:
For you have been
called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an
example for you to follow in His steps, who committed no sin, nor was any
deceit found in Him mouth; and while being reviled, He did not revile in
return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself
to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on
the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His
wounds you were healed. For you were continually straying like sheep, but
now you have returned to the Shepherd [poimen] and Guardian [episkopos]
of your souls (1 Peter 2:21-25).
In 1 Peter 5, Peter calls Jesus the "Chief Shepherd":
Shepherd the flock
of God among you, not by way of compulsion but willingly according to God,
nor from eagerness for base gain, but eagerly, nor as exercising lordship
over the lots [those allotted to your care -- NASB], but becoming examples
of the flock; and when the chief shepherd appears you will receive the
unfading crown of glory (Marshall's translation).
This passage teaches that Jesus is the primary One who looks after us. He
watches intently so he may supply whatever we need. Another meaning is that
our earthly poimen, who watch for us so they may supply our needs,
have Jesus as their own example of what to do and how to care for the flock.
The poimen should shepherd the flock as the "chief
shepherd" would also shepherd us, if physically
present on earth. The persons, who in this capacity are serving others,
should frequently ask themselves, "What would Jesus do in this
situation?"
A Shepherd's Staff Or a King's Scepter?
It seems to me that there is always a danger of mixing metaphors. When this
happens, we consequently come up with a muddled picture -- doctrinal error. It
has happened in this case, as well. Mixing pictures of Jesus Christ has
invented error, which has been taught, believed, and practiced.
We have several pictures of Jesus in scripture. One is the "shepherd
picture". It shows us Jesus as a shepherd. He leads by example. He feeds.
He tends. He cares for His sheep. He seeks the lost sheep. He heals the sick.
He fends off enemies with His shepherd's staff.
Another picture is Jesus Christ as King. In it, Jesus rules over all from
the authority of His throne at God's right hand. He rules by precept (law). He
is ruler over all others in this "king picture". In His right hand
is His scepter, a sign of His position of power and authority to rule over
all.
Shepherd and King -- these are separate and distinct pictures of our Lord,
meant to teach us different aspects of His role in our lives. When we mix
these metaphors, the result is error. Is it a mixing of these ideas of king
and pastor which has given us today's church rulers instead of shepherds?
Perhaps it is, since these "rulers" sometimes seem confused about
whether to feed the flock, or rule by their own laws. Whether to be out front,
ahead of the flock, leading to green pastures and quiet, pure waters, or
having the flock obey commands by being "under (oversight) rule".
Whether to drive away the wolf with the shepherd's protecting staff or to
command the wolf to leave and enforce it with the scepter of authority.
Do you consider it strange that men were never told to imitate our Lord's
kingship and His authority over men? His image as our Shepherd, Guide, Feeder,
Care-Giver, Protector and Friend is the pattern for our own lives and for our poimen.
"The Good Shepherd"
Jesus teaches us about this relationship between the shepherd and sheep. In
John 10:14, he relates an allegory of Himself:
But, he who enters
by the door is a shepherd of the sheep. To him the doorkeeper opens, and the
sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name, and leads them
out . . .
As the "good shepherd" knows his sheep and his sheep know him, so
it also should be with our earthly shepherds. They have a responsibility to
those they lead. Just "being acquainted with" individual sheep is
not enough! To the contrary, the good shepherd will know each individual well;
will know their needs and supply them; will know the degree of spiritual
maturity of each, in order to properly feed them; will know them enough to
recognize when one is straying, then will "seek the lost" and bring
them back into the flock.
Of course, this picture argues for small flocks of sheep with one shepherd
each. How can the shepherds in today's larger and larger flocks give this kind
of care and leadership?
In short, like Jesus, our earthly poimen should know each disciple
in his care very well -- well enough to know the needs, the hurts and losses,
the joys and happinesses, the ambitions, the griefs and troubles of each. The
shepherd needs to know everything there is to know about the well-being of
each sheep in the flock so every need can be supplied.
Perhaps you know men today who have been selected and designated by a
church to serve as shepherds, and who are not capable of watching over many of
the disciples in their care. There are sheep in the flock ("people in the
pews"?) who could tend their shepherds much better than the tending
they're getting. They study more, they have grown more, they spend more time
guarding the souls of other disciples, they teach other disciples more than
their shepherds are capable of doing . . . and the list could
(sadly) go on. So then, in cases like this, just who is feeding whom? Who is
watching over whom? Who is the poimen? Just who is the "tender-er"
and who is the "tend-ee"? Selecting and appointing someone to be a
shepherd in a flock, certainly does not give the abilities needed to do so.
The followers of the Good Shepherd are loyal to Him.
And a stranger they
simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the
voice of strangers (Jn. 10:5).
They follow him because he shows by his example that he is a worthy leader
and should be trusted and followed:
This figure of
speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things
were which he had been saying to them (John 10:6)
Even though he had been teaching these principles all along, the disciples
still did not understand. Sadly, they are not alone. It seems to me that many
today have the same trouble understanding and implementing what Jesus was
telling his disciples. We prove our own lack of understanding by placing men
in the role of poimen who are literal strangers to those they should
lead -- men who do not know, and sometimes do not try to know, the real needs
of the sheep in their care. Why do we wonder that they are not
"followed"?
Our Lord makes shepherds, churches do not! Saying some words or holding
some ceremony does not make a person capable of leading as the Chief Shepherd
leads. Only the Lord can give those abilities. Men can only recognize (those
having them) and follow. The shepherd is the natural leader, the feeder, the
one who nurtures and gives care, while driving away all danger. The true
shepherd is the one who teaches, pastors, feeds. Not the one who believes it
is his responsibility to carry the key to the thermostat lock box, but who is
incapable of teaching.
Paul's Perfect Picture of Pastors
Luke relates the instructions of Paul to the Ephesian elders (presbuteros)
as he was seeing them for the last time:
Be on guard for
yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you
careful watchers [episkopous], to shepherd [poimen] the
assembly of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my
departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and
from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw
away the disciples after them. Therefore be on the alert, remembering that
night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each
one with tears (Acts 20:17-38).
These men are called watchmen (episkopoi), shepherds (poimen)
and older ones (presbuteroi). Paul makes a strong comparison of their
total responsibilities to the work of a literal shepherd. His entire discourse
is pertinent to their work. Otherwise, it would not have made sense to have
them come all the way from Ephesus to Melitis just to hear him speak in
generalities.
Paul was an episkopos, a poimen, a presbuteros,
himself. He reminded them of what he had done during three years among them,
and held up his shepherding works as an example for their own activities.
Please observe that he told them to imitate his own actions. They should work
among disciples as he had done among them:
