Posted by Rick | Bible Studies | newtestamentpattern.net/

In the 'New Testament' of God's Word the Holy Bilble, the word Church is always used to identify believers and NEVER refers to a physical structure, temple, or building.  " For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”  Matthew 18:20

Review: 

in part 1 we established the definition of Church; Universal and Local.

in part 2 we examined the roles given to Christians in the Church Universal.

in part 3 lest us examine the roles given to Christians in the Local Assembly.

                                     Authority in the Local Assemblies

So far we have looked at four of the five specific ‘offices’ (distinct, recognized roles) mentioned in Ephesians 4. 

We will come to ‘pastors’ in the next section.  We have seen that these men have been given to the ‘One’ Church - v.4: “one body.”  Meanwhile, what about the individual local assemblies, is there any evidence of men being appointed to any special task on the local level?

There was indeed a form of government that the apostles established in each local assembly of believers.  In Acts 14:23 we read that the apostles Paul and Barnabas, on their return visits to the churches in Asia Minor, “ordained (appointed) elders (plural) in every church (singular).”  We know also that there were elders at the church in Jerusalem (see Acts 11:30), Acts 15 mentions those elders five times.  In Acts 20 Paul wished to speak to the representatives of the church at Ephesus, so he called for the elders.  In Titus 1:5 we read that Titus was charged with the task of appointing elders in all the cities of Crete.  There are abundant references that show without doubt that this form of government for each local church is the clearly established principle for the New Testament age: Jam. 5:14, 1 Pet. 5:1 and so on.

ELDERS [GK. PRESBUTEROS] - meaning seniors or a council. 

There is a synonymous term: BISHOPS [GK. EPISKOPOS] - superintendent, officer in charge, also trans. as: OVERSEERS. 

All three of the above terms relate to the exact same office.  This study mainly uses ‘elders'.

“For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.  For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.” (Titus 1:5-9)

(It is quite clear from the Titus account that these descriptions, i.e. elders and bishops, are used interchangeably).

“This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desires a good work.  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)  Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.  Moreover, he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” (1 Tim. 3:1-7)

Let us not think here that Paul is setting out some special code of conduct for such people that need not apply to everyone else.  He is simply outlining that which is stated elsewhere in scripture as the minimal expected morality and discipline for all believers.  The only exception here is that elders must be “apt to teach” (give didactic instruction).  This does not necessarily imply that all elders are, in the sense of the previous section, teachers, it may only mean that they must have some measure of ability to teach on a local level.  This small point is debatable and will be dealt with under the two possible interpretations in the ‘pastor’ section.

The following two passages give considerable insight into the role of elders:

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed (lit. shepherd) the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.” (Acts 20:28,29)

“The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed (lit. shepherd) the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.  And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fades not away.” (1 Pet 5:1-4)

Elders are spiritual shepherds in the local church.  It is known that shepherds of that day used to round up the sheep into a pen and then sit in the doorway to guard them. (This is the imagery that Jesus is alluding to in John chapter 10; in particular in verse 7 when He says, “I am the door of the sheep.”).  On the one hand they must not let the wolves come in, but at the same time they must not stand in the way of the ‘Chief Shepherd’ or His genuine representatives when they come.  This was what happened when Jesus “came unto His own (things)” in Israel.  The parable of the vineyard (Mat. 21:33-45) shows us that the ‘shepherds’ of Israel had taken control and rebelled against the rightful heir when he came!  

In this instance the metaphor is that of ‘Husbandmen’ (overseers of the vineyard) but the spiritual analogy is the same.  They also rejected the genuine prophets that were sent from God to them. 

The elders in a fellowship have the awesome responsibility of ‘judging’ between that which is from God and that, which is not.  A wrong judgement either way is something for which they will have to give account for to God!  They are not the owners of the flock; they are ‘under-shepherds’ who watch over the flock on behalf of another.  They are directly responsible to the ‘Chief Shepherd’ himself.  It is His flock not theirs.

Analogy Warning!  Although it is quite correct to use the analogy of shepherds in reference to the role of elders, we need to take great care that we do not unthinkingly pursue this, or any other biblical analogy, too far.  The Bible is full of types and figures, some apparent, others not.  But we must understand that such are given purely as illustrations of a particular spiritual truth or principle, we must not get so carried away with the picture as to then construct all kinds of doctrines from it.  It is a wonderful thing to meditate on a biblical allegory and discover more of the background concerning these beautiful themes.  However, as an example of the limitation of analogies let me ask, have you ever seen a shepherd who was also a sheep!?  Although the role of an elder is likened to a shepherd we must always remember that at the same time those who are elders are still sheep themselves along with everyone else.  Overemphasis of the shepherd-sheep analogy could easily lead to all kinds of ideas and practises that go beyond the intended illustration.

Appointment of elders ... or Recognition of Elders?

With regard to how elders are selected, there are four main schools of thought:

1. Appointment by a higher authority.

2. Election by the local congregation.

3. A combination of 1&2.

4. Once established, the existing elders choose the new elders.

1. Appointment by a higher authority

This could appear to be the precedent set by Paul in instructing Titus: “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed (commanded) thee.” (Tit.1: 5).  This conclusion may also seem justified when we read again the account in the book of Acts: “And when they (the apostles Paul and Barnabas) had ordained them elders in every church...” (Acts 14:23).  However, there are many other factors that come to light on further exploration of these texts, which lead us to number two.

2. Election by the local congregation

Essentially, the word ‘ordain’ means ‘to appoint’.  The particular Greek word used in Acts 14:23 can convey, in its etymology (root origins of the word), the idea of ‘appoint by stretching forth the hand’.  This could, in fact, be taken in two different ways.  Either the raising of hands, as in a vote, or it could be interpreted as the ‘laying-on of hands’.  Arguments could be put forth for both of these concepts.

On the side of the first (congregational choice), we have already seen the instance of the ‘brethren’ being given the mandate to choose the seven at Jerusalem (Acts 6:3).  In defence of believing it to mean the second (laying-on of hands), one could argue that the choice aspect was only in relation to the selecting of deacons only, not elders.  One could further say that the laying-on of hands was clearly associated with ‘appointment’ in Acts 13:3 - “And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.”  If this latter view is correct, then when we read in 1 Tim. 5: 22 “Lay hands suddenly on no man ...” we could understand this to mean – “do not appoint a man to be an elder without much deliberation.”  We shall not delve any further into the development of these two arguments except to say that; while the origins of words can sometimes give us deeper insight into their meaning, it is just as often difficult to interpret.

3. A combination of 1&2

This was more accurately the case at Jerusalem when they appointed the seven: “Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.” (Acts 6:3).  But it is not made apparent that this dual method continues to be the same when we read of instances referring to the appointment of elders.

4. Once established, the existing elders choose the new elders

Although we do not have any direct precedence for our fourth consideration, a strong case can be made on the basis that it is the Holy Spirit who has authorized the existing elders.  “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers” (Acts 20:28).  Here Paul is addressing the elders from Ephesus (vs. 17). In this instance we understand that ultimately it is God who has validated the choice of the initially appointed elders. Seeing that it is the elders who are accountable to the Lord for all oversight of that assembly it would not be unreasonable to propose that the decision is theirs.

Conclusion of above

It is very difficult to arrive at a clear for-all-time pattern for the method of appointing elders in local churches.  I am not saying it does not exist, but it seems that the Holy Spirit, when ‘inspiring’ the biblical record, chose to lay the emphasis elsewhere with regards to the subject of eldership.  The point, which takes precedence over any ‘technical’ arguments of how elders are appointed, is who should be made an elder?  The passages in 1 Timothy and Titus show us that the main emphasis is upon the character of those appointed not the method of appointment.

Further considerations

We must also bear in mind that the term ‘elder’ can be a comparative one.  For example, in a gathering of people mainly aged 30-40, the few people present who are 50 years of age may be considered, in the comparative sense, the elders.  But if age alone were the determining factor in the appointing of elders in a church, then all that would be required is an examination of birth certificates and that would be the end of the matter.  A second way that a man may be ‘comparatively’ an elder is the length of time since his conversion.  In other words, it is not his physical age that is relevant but the number of years of his spiritual lifetime.  Once again, if this were all that is implied in being an elder, a short rehearsal of conversion testimonies would be sufficient to settle the matter.  We are coming closer to the truth with this second point; however, the spiritual realm does not directly correlate with the physical.  The spiritual age (i.e. maturity) of someone cannot be guaranteed to always reflect the length of time since his ‘new-birth’.  Therefore, we conclude that ‘elder’ in its comparative sense means ‘of greater spiritual maturity’.  This does not mean that the first two factors are of no consequence at all. In an ideal situation spiritual maturity should be a result of the first two.

Now we come to the most important point with respect to the appointing of elders from among a congregation.  Whatever the method employed, the appointment is not so much a ‘choosing’ of the elders, but rather should be a recognition of those who truly are the elders (most spiritually mature) already.  No amount of doctrinal analysis will guarantee that this will happen.  

The ultimate governing factor in whether the right men are appointed or not, will be the ‘spiritual temperature’ of the assembly.  This should be our chief concern.

Elders, in Scripture, are always appointed from within a church, never sent to a church. If an assembly cannot at some stage in its development produce men of ‘elder’ quality there must be something fundamentally amiss!

Are elders paid for what they do?

First, and foremost, it must be stated that there are no ‘professionals’ in God’s Church, only bondservants.  We have already touched upon material support for those with a Universal Church ministry.  This should be given on the basis of need and the recognition that such a person is genuinely doing the work of God. Essentially the same principles can be applied at the local level.  There is precedence for this, which we shall look at shortly.  Before we do take a look at the relevant Scripture though, some meditation upon this question will lead us to see an important principle in interpreting and applying the New Testament in different ages and cultures:

We must realise that this is primarily a practical concern not a spiritual one and whilst all spiritual principles translate from the New Testament into every society and every age, this is not always true of every practical issue.  For example, the first half of 1 Timothy 5 tells us of the ‘widows roll’ - a list of widows, in particular those bereft of family support, who were to be provided for by the church: “Honour widows that are widows indeed” (vs. 3).  In those days there were no insurances, pensions or welfare state and it was fitting that a church should make provision for the needs of those who had little or no means of income.  Of course, where necessary, this still applies to the churches of today.  However, for many situations today the practical need isn’t the same.  It would be quite inappropriate for a church to regularly pass on money to a widow if she already had ample provision provided for her by various other means.  The following reference, which in part refers to the giving of material support to elders, flows directly on from this passage and the same common-sense principles must apply.

“Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith Thou shall not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And the labourer is worthy of his reward.” (1 Tim. 5:17,18).

We will now look in a little more detail at the practical applications that need to be considered in relation to this verse.  First of all, there is certainly no inference in Scripture that when a man is appointed as an elder he must cease secular employment.  Unlike the ministry of an apostle, there is nothing inherit in an elder’s role that would not allow for him to be employed in a normal fashion.  So why is this provision for elders mentioned?  We must think in terms of the practical situations that existed at that time.  In so doing we see that there are two important factors in many of today’s societies that place many of us in a different position in respect of practical needs:

1. Money - As a generalisation, most of us (particularly in the Western world) are financially and all round materially better off than they were.

2. Time - In at least two ways: First, travelling was a much slower process in those days.  Elders as a part of their responsibility must travel to some extent in order to visit the sick and the widows and orphans (this is not a conclusive list of situations that elders need to go out to).  Second, study in preparation for teaching.  They didn’t have the ‘instant’ tools that we have today.  Also, some of them would have had to hand write copies of Scripture for themselves and each other.

Even though there was a plurality of elders in every church some of these responsibilities were very time consuming which meant less time available to spend on their very labour-intensive jobs of those days.  Wages were not as good as many of us have today.  In fact, much of people’s labour went into producing their own food.  Of course, there are still parts of the world today where people have a similar existence.  In these circumstances and in cases where an elder does need to spend an exceptional amount of time to fulfil his duty, then the supply obligation continues to fall upon the local assembly.

The supply of these needs for those who served the Lord was on a spontaneous (free-will) basis rather than a ‘fixed wage’.  Do not misinterpret the following passage: “Have I committed an offence in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely?  I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service.  And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all things I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself.” (2 Cor. 11:7-9).  The use of the word ‘wage’ here does not literally mean ‘regular salary’ any more than ‘robbed’ can be taken literally!

Note: In all of this we must be careful not to miss the much more immediate meaning of this verse.  While the reference to elders can be taken to apply to material need it is important to note that the primary meaning of the word ‘honour’ here is ‘value’, ‘esteem’, ‘respect’.  This can be clearly seen by a reading of all other places in the New Testament where this word [TIMÉ] is used.  Therefore, “double honour,” conveys both of these meanings – firstly, spiritual respect and secondly, (if necessary) material support.

In summary of money matters

 An elder is not a salaried professional.

 There is no inference in Scripture that elders must leave off secular work.

 If an elder, in carrying out his duties (nurturing, teaching, visiting) does need some material support then it is perfectly apt that he should receive such.

 The practical needs (never spiritual) in many societies of today may differ from those of the first century.

In conclusion of elders

 At some point in a church’s development a plurality of elders are appointed from within that congregation.

 The qualifications for an elder are primarily moral character/spiritual maturity.

 All elders must be ‘apt to teach’; even as they must all ‘feed’ (literally in the Greek ‘pastor/shepherd’) the flock.

 No formal training is required to produce any of the necessary qualities of an elder.

It is not within the scope of this study to examine all of the work and responsibilities of elders in relation to every Bible reference.  In addition to the simple summary above it/is should also be borne in mind that among the elders there will be a variation of their time available to commit to the congregation. Inevitably there will be difference of ability and diversity of personality among them.  All this, in the right godly environment, where there is unity in love and soundness of doctrine, makes for a strong and wonderfully rich assembly.

DEACONS [GK. DIAKONOS] - meaning, and also translated as: minister and servant.

“Likewise, must the deacons be grave, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.  And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.  Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.  Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.  For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (1 Tim 3:8-13)

What is the role of a deacon?  We can see from the above quotation how important character was, but there is no ‘outline of duties’ given as such.  The word DIAKONOS implies “acting as a servant.”  Given that spiritual responsibility in the local churches is clearly placed with the elders, this leaves the area of practical needs.

Are the seven men mentioned in the book of Acts, chapter 6, deacons?  Though the term ‘deacon’ is not directly used in reference to them, the related words in the Greek; DIAKONIA (translated as ‘ministrations’ in vs. 1) and DIAKONEO (translated as ‘serve’ in vs. 2) are applied to the function that these men were appointed to.  The church in Jerusalem was unique in many ways (see appendix 2) but I think it is reasonable to conclude that the seven are our earliest, and in fact only, example of deacons.  It is clear that the sphere of their responsibilities was: 1) local and 2) practical.

What about Stephen’s gifts of preaching and miracles (Acts 6:8)?  As will be shown in our section under ‘How should a church meet?’ spiritual gifts are not exclusive to any church ‘office’.  Stephen was not gifted in these ways because he was a deacon.  All who are enabled of God and filled with His Spirit can function in God’s gifts.  We must bear in mind that being ‘apt to teach’ is not a necessary quality for a deacon.  It does seem that ‘faith’ and ‘faithfulness’ are qualities that accompany this honoured role.

.

Women as deacons

Is there some argument from Scripture that shows that women can be deacons? Five times the Greek word DIAKONOS has been translated as ‘deacon’: 1 Tim. 3:10 & 13, 1 Tit. 3:8 & 12 and Phil. 1:1. 

It is clear that in the translators’ minds these instances refer to a church ‘office’ as opposed to someone being in a non-specific sense a servant or minister.  On other occasions DIAKONOS is translated as ‘servant’ or ‘minister’: Mat. 23:11, Mk. 9:35, Jn. 12:26, Rom. 13:14 and Rom. 16:1.  The last instance on this list (Rom. 16:1) is sometimes cited as an occasion where DIAKONOS could be translated as ‘deacon’ and therefore shows that this office is open to women: “I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant (DIAKONOS) of the church which is at Cenchrea:”

When Bible translators use more than one English word to translate the same one word from Greek or Hebrew, they are acting not solely as translators but also to some extent interpreters.  Their interpretation has to be based upon, among other things, context and the consistency of Scripture with Scripture.  On this occasion the translating committee of the Authorized Version of the Bible correctly make Scripture agree with Scripture because in 1 Timothy 3:12 we read: “Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.”  Not only is it absurd to say that a woman can be “the husband of one wife” but “ruling” (headship in the home) is clearly shown to be a male responsibility. 

We shall be considering briefly the topic of women’s roles in the Church/churches in the section entitled ‘Women and authority’.

In summary, the appointment of deacons is not given in Scripture the same attention and importance as the appointment of elders in the local church.  The seven were appointed at Jerusalem as the result of a practical need that arose. Therefore, if, when, and how many will depend upon the practical needs in hand.

The pastoral system

The above title is my own terminology for a system of government that exists in the majority of churches worldwide and across most denominations.  I do not know if others have used this phrase in any context but I hope that by the end of this section you will understand its intended meaning here.  I have heard the term ‘one-pastor-system’, which equally well describes the unbiblical practice that we are about to examine.  

On this particular subject there is a strong need to appraise the common tradition of the vast majority of churches and where they differ from the scriptural pattern. This structure is, by and large, not even examined but rather, taken for granted - “It’s just the way church is done!”

What is ‘the pastoral system’?

In most churches there is one focal person who is in authority and has overall responsibility for ‘ministry’ in that church.  Titles given to this person are: Vicar, Rector, Reverend, Priest, Father, Pastor, Senior Pastor, Minister, Bishop, Elder, Senior Elder, Pastor Elder, Leading Elder, Teaching Elder and many other variants.  This ‘office’ exists in churches whether they are Episcopalian, Presbyterian or Congregationalist, whether they are Reformed or Charismatic, Calvinist or Arminian.  The ‘title’ may vary, and the processes and qualifications for appointment may differ but the one common factor is, that there is an individual who is the focal figure for that assembly.  So much so that the title is always preceded by the definite article, i.e. The Pastor, The Vicar, The Minister, The Senior Elder.

We have already well established in this study the clear biblical precedent for mutual, plural eldership in each local church.  The apostles, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, organised churches this way for many reasons.  So where does this system come from then?

 The Old Testament priesthood. “And they said unto Moses, speak thou with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die.” (Exodus 20:19). Under the Old Covenant, even after the instituting of an atoning sacrifice, there was never the experience of a cleansed conscience (Heb. 9:9).  Any approach to God, or vice versa, for the ‘ordinary’ person usually had to be carried out through a mediator i.e. a prophet or a priest.  For the majority of the people that was exactly the way they wanted it.  It was a permanent and inescapable feature of the Old Covenant.

 Other World Religions.  When the world of religion, both current and past, is surveyed, we notice that every major religious organisation has a clear structure of ‘laity’ and ‘priests’.  Not only is this basic distinction made but also within the ‘priesthood’ there is further hierarchy.  After an initial period of terrible persecution the Church slowly found favour with the ‘powers that were’.  Part of the price of their acceptance with Rome was the absolute necessity for a clearly defined hierarchical structure.

 The ‘Church Fathers’.  By the time the first century came to a close all of the original apostles and witnesses of Jesus had passed away.  Other church leaders were coming into prominence and there are numerous and various writings from these men ranging from the 2nd to the 4th/5th centuries.  It is not in the scope of this study to discuss these men and their writings excepts to summarise thus: There were among them many good and godly men, some of whom were martyred for the Gospel’s sake.  They wrote letters back and forth to individuals and churches – letters which contain very interesting insights into (some sections of) the church at that time.  However, there is also in some of their writings clear evidence that in varying ways and to varying degrees some of these highly influential men promoted, or acknowledged, sacerdotal theology.  In fact, it is more than likely that these tendencies were even in existence prior to the close of the first century.

We will consider this third point a little further.  When we turn to the letters to the churches in the book of The Revelation, we see that two of the churches were upbraided for having in their midst those that held the doctrine of the ‘Nicolaitanes’ (Rev. 2:6,15).  One possible meaning of the origin of this word is: NIKOS - victorious, and LAOS - the people – ‘victorious over the people’.  In other words, the teaching that in God’s Church, there were those with the ability to uncover the mysteries of God, and the remainder, who needed the intercessory ministry of the former.  In any case, we know from Church history that sacerdotalism (the belief in a ‘priest-class’ and the ordinary people) rapidly spread throughout the Church.  When this grew to its fullest, hideous form it became the apostate church.

At the time of the Reformation there were those who protested about the many unscriptural beliefs and practices in the Catholic system.  Many wrongs were righted and God wrought favourably for those who were His people.  However, the Reformation was by no means a completed process that brought everything back to the New Testament pattern.  In the area of Church government and the way that church meetings were conducted there was not a return to New Testament principles.  Luther, Calvin, the Church of England bishops, and many other newly formed church systems continued to model their ‘form’ of churches similarly to those of Rome.  Though many of the ‘non-conformist’ denominations of today do not adopt all of the Episcopalian structure, with respect to the ‘one-priest/pastor/minister-per-church’ practice, it is their common way.

Note: In using the above expression (one-pastor-per-church) I am not ignoring the fact that there is usually some-body of people under this person’s authority.  In some instances this person, while remaining the focal figure of the congregation, is himself under the authority of a governing body.  Some examples of these ‘co-workers’ under/over/with the ‘pastor’ are: The Elders, The Co-Pastor(s), The Junior Pastor(s), The Board of Elders/Deacons, The Pastoral Team, The Ministry Team, The church committee etc.  Regardless of whether or not this body has a scriptural sounding name, it is none-the-less all part of the unbiblical ‘pastoral system’.

What am I saying then?  Is every church that has adopted the pastoral system an apostate church?  No, because the state of apostasy is more a condition of the heart than solely an erring in doctrine or practice.  It is also necessary to recognise that not all ‘one-man’ leader figures are in it for their own self-advancement.  Furthermore, I am very grateful for the Reformation and the vast change for good it brought.  But if we profess belief in the completeness of Scripture, then we must accept that what the New Testament reveals concerning the practice of the early churches is there as a pattern for the whole Church age.

What then of this word ‘pastor’?  Interestingly, though so much has been built around it, the word ‘pastor’ occurs only once in the New Testament.  All that is plainly stated of such a role is simply “... there are some ...”  So how can we gain any further understanding of what this may be?  There are no examples of any individual who was called a ‘pastor’.  We cannot rely on historical definitions because we do not know whether they are accurate or an example of how this role has been misused; so, once again, using only ‘God breathed’ Scripture what conclusions can be drawn?

It will be helpful to us if we see again, the one New Testament verse that uses this word: “And He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.” (Eph. 4:11).  In seeking to analyse the meaning and role of a pastor, solely from the evidences in the New Testament, one is left with two areas of inconclusiveness:

1. Reading the text where this word occurs, some scholars would say that the role of ‘pastor’ and ‘teacher’ are but one because the article ‘some’ is left out in front of ‘teachers’.  Others say, that though the ‘some’ is omitted, the ‘and’ is still sufficient to indicate that these are two distinct persons.  I am unable to come to any clear conclusion on this point based solely on grammatical analysis of this sentence.  All further comments therefore will be with open-mindedness as to which of these views is correct.

2. Regardless of the inconclusiveness of the above, there are two relatively strong arguments from scripture as to what a pastor really is.  We will therefore be giving consideration to both of these.  It must be said however, that though there is some scope for argument in seeking to determine what is the exact nature of a pastor’s role, it is abundantly clear from study of the New Testament what a pastor is not.  There are two modes of examination open to us that lead to two possible interpretations: 1) the context and the list in which this word appears; and 2) associated words and ideas with the Greek word translated as pastor.

PASTOR [GK. POIMEN] - meaning shepherd, either figuratively or literally. POIMEN is also translated as ‘shepherd’ 17 times, on these occasions it is either referring to literal shepherds or figuratively used in reference to the Lord Jesus. 

This only leaves us with the one reference where it is translated as ‘pastor’ and listed as a ministry in the Church.

Interpretation 1 - looking at the context:

This is quite simple and seemingly consistent with what we have looked at earlier regarding the other ministries of Ephesians 4.  In this passage the sphere of ministry is not any local church, but the ‘One’ Universal Church.  It would seem quite reasonable that number four on the list is an ‘universal’ ministry just like the rest.  It has already been seen that ‘teachers’ operated in this wider sphere, if pastor and teacher are but one then all we read of teachers is really showing us pastors as well.  Even if they are not one it would still seem consistent that ‘pastors’ also travelled visiting various churches to further feed and encourage the churches.

By this interpretation we might conclude that Paul’s return visits to previously established congregations were more in a pastoral capacity rather than apostolic. He was a teacher in addition to being an apostle therefore he could have been a pastor as well.  Titus and Timothy could be viewed in the same way, it is clear that they were not permanently stationed at any one particular church.  Their ministries could be seen as apostolic and/or pastoral in this way.

On further reflection on this idea: there are many names mentioned of men who were of note among the Church, but it is not mentioned if they were noted for any particular ‘ministry’, could it be that some of these were pastors?  There are many mature men of God in every age who labour much to encourage and stimulate (feed/pastor) the faith of many.  They may not be recognised as ‘pastors’ because they have not been given that title and because of the preconceived belief that this function is the role of leading a particular local assembly.

Interpretation 2 - looking at the Greek word:

Although the Ephesians 4 list is focussing upon the Universal Church it could be argued that the Universal Church also encompasses all local churches.  Seeing that we do not have any other references to pastors in the New Testament it can’t be proven that they were itinerates operating in the wider Church sphere like others in that list.  Therefore, this leaves open the possibility of another interpretation.

In examining the original Greek word for pastor we can see that there are related words used in other forms in the Bible.  The verb form POIMAINO is used several times translated as ‘feed’ and ‘rule’.  The following are two of the occasions where POIMAINO is translated as feed: Firstly, Acts 20:28, already quoted twice: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over (or ‘in’) the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed (pastor) the church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood.”  And secondly, 1 Pet. 5:1-4: “The elders who are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed (pastor) the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight of it, not by constraint but willingly; not for filthy lucre but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd (ARCHIPOIMEN) shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fades not away.”

In these two passages we see that it is the elders/overseers that are told to ‘pastor’ the church/flock.  The portrayal of elders as ‘shepherds’ is common to both the Old and New Testament.  From this and other information we have looked at regarding elders it could be easily thought that the term ‘pastor’ is yet another synonymous term with that of elder, overseer and bishop. If this interpretation is correct then it is still absolutely clear that there is no distinct person among a group of elders who is the pastor - all elders are pastors with equal responsibility for the oversight of the assembly.

A note in conclusion: In looking at the subject of ‘Authority in the Church/churches’ there are many unequivocal facts to be seen for any who care to look.  It would have no doubt become clear to the reader too that there are a few finer points that appear to be somewhat ambiguous, at least to me.  It would 

be much easier (in terms of effort) and far more supportive (seemingly) to the main argument to simply take one line and hammer it through.  

However, it would give me no pleasure or peace to only make my point at the expense of pursuing 100% accuracy.  This study is a pure quest for truth.  This makes me as the author vulnerable, but beware, it makes you as the reader accountable!  Whether we accept interpretation 1 or 2, I cannot find in Scripture any further alternatives, what is most clear is; what a pastor is not. 

In the all-final, authoritative written Word of God there is no mention of any such role in the local church as The Pastor!

                                       Women and authority

This topic is better discussed under a much broader biblical study of Male and Female.  However, it may seem unreasonable to some to simply state that women are not permitted to function in any of the aforementioned roles and leave it at that.  That this is the case is quite clear in Scripture, there are many references that make this patent.  Here is one verse of Scripture that would automatically exclude women from all authoritative office in the Church/churches: “But I suffer not (do not permit) a women to teach (DIDASKO), nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence (lit. distil from bustle).  For Adam was first formed, then Eve.   And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (1 Tim. 2:12-14).   Some may think that this is only with respect to women teaching men but if this were the case why does Paul go on to talk about the woman being deceived?   If Eve’s susceptibility to the Devil’s deception is part of the reason, how then could we say that it doesn’t matter if they are only teaching (DIDASKO) other women?

This quote from the Epistle to Timothy may lead one to think that the exclusion of women from serving the Church in these ways is solely a matter of susceptibility to deception.   If it were only a matter of natural strengths and weaknesses, there would always be enough exceptions to the rule to give ground for argument against such restriction.   No, the whole topic of Male and Female and our God-given roles is much more glorious (headship principles).   When we begin to see these things in our spirits, every true child of God should glory in what He has made him or her.

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion ... So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.” (Gen. 1:26,27). 

The whole essence of male and female is that God in Divine Order has created us as a pictorial reflection of the Holy Trinity.   God is three in one, and Man + Woman (which equals child/children) is a purpose-made ‘tri-union’ for the glory and pleasure of God.

We cannot here begin a study of the Trinity, but most relevant to our topic are two manifest facts: 

1) there is absolute equality of being between Father, Son and Holy Spirit; and 

2) at the same time there is clear order and authority among them. 

Here are just two examples where these two principles can be seen between the Father and the Son: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery (a thing to be grasped at) to be equal with God.” (Phil. 2:5,6) and the centurion addressing the Lord Jesus recognises that He was a man under authority: “For I also am a man set under authority ...” (Lk. 7:8). 

There is no ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’ quality to male and female.  We are of equal value and worth, interdependent and yet at the same time we were made to reflect the order of the Godhead.

This paradoxical principle is something rarely reflected in our fallen, distorted world, but in God’s Church, as we live by His Spirit, this should be restored, and correctly displayed. 

The Devil hates this image of God in mankind and his first tactic in seeking to corrupt God’s creation, was to reverse this order by approaching the woman first (Gen. 3:1).  Any subsequent role reversal or even merging works to destroy this testimony of God’s image.  Throughout the Bible, the allegories of God found in male and female vary; e.g. in Eph. 5:22-33 we see that the man represents Christ and the woman His bride i.e. the Church.  In 1 Cor. 11:1-16 the relationship between man and woman is likened to the correlation between God the Father and Christ.  In this instance the man is representing the Father and the woman, Christ.  This latter portion of Scripture is a beautiful picture of the equality of men and women while displaying absolute obedience to God’s order.  Although the pictorial roles we play vary, it is always consistent that the man represents the higher authority and the woman the submissive.  This is the way God chose to make us.

It is our wonderful privilege as believers to live out before men and angels (1 Cor. 11:10) the roles for which we have been begotten of God.  To put this in its perspective let us note the fact that the majority of males will not be called on by God to serve in a specific office during their lifetime.  Remember James 3:1! Every child of God has already received the highest calling that any created being can have - to know God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent. 

The whole Bible testifies that God has created us according to His pleasure.  It is not for the vessel to say unto the potter “why hast thou made me thus?”

Next, we will view 'more on the local churches' ...

To continue this study, go to: 'The New Testament Church Pattern - Part 4'

This page created by Peter Brenner on Wednesday, November 1, 2023

Some content is borrowed by permission from www.newtestamentpattern.net

FOR MORE BIBLE TEACHING VIDEOS SEE: Gospel Hall Audio | Homepage