Bible Study "Pastor" Office or Gift?

[pjt]

I don`t want to sidetrack this discussion but I would like to tie it in with the topic of Joel Osteen. Several years ago my sister lived in Houston and asked me what I thought of Osteen. I had never heard of him before (I live overseas) so I could not comment, but just that week he was on Larry King and could not answer basic questions of our faith so I called my sister back, told her what I saw and advised her to stay away from his church. Well since then I saw a couple of his sermons and I realized 2 things 1) he severely lacks the knowledge for being a teacher or preacher BUT 2) he does have a wonderful gift of encouragement. So after hearing his sermon, I thought he definitely should not be in the pulpit but he does have a valuable place in the Body. He has a place of encouraging people and when I saw his church on a video that looked like a stadium FILLED with people, I realized people are hungry for Godly encouragement. Perhaps if everyone were allowed to use their gifts, people would not be starving in one area and fat in the other.
In the case of Osteens church, I guess the people get an overload of encouragement but are starved in sound Biblical teaching, and with that many people, I don`t know how a single pastor could be a shepherd. Yet other churches you get sound teaching but starved of love and care, prophesy, etc.

 

[Cornelius]

Today if you want to be a pastor you must go to seminary. In my country it takes seven years to study for a pastor in certain denominations.Most pastors study for a doctorate here and even their wives sometimes study with them and also become a pastor.

In the time of the first Apostles, the pastors did not go to seminary , their qualification was ......anointing. Once called, God anointed. It was a gift and they were a gift to the church.

What was once a supernatural ministry, anointed by God only , we have changed into something we control with our own set of rules.

We do not have the same church as existed in the beginning anymore.

 

[pjt]

Today if you want to be a pastor you must go to seminary. In my country it takes seven years to study for a pastor in certain denominations.Most pastors study for a doctorate here and even their wives sometimes study with them and also become a pastor.

In the time of the first Apostles, the pastors did not go to seminary , their qualification was ......anointing. Once called, God anointed. It was a gift and they were a gift to the church.

What was once a supernatural ministry, anointed by God only , we have changed into something we control with our own set of rules.

We do not have the same church as existed in the beginning anymore.

In small town churches in America you will still find people who are pastors who have no seminary training. They just felt called, but they still have all the duties of any seminary trained pastor. So in the case of this thread it does not make any difference because they are still expected to perform all the gifts regardless of whether they have all the gifts or not. I imagine many developing countries are the same, there are pastors who don`t go to seminary but because of custom they have the traditional role of an all comprehensive pastor.

 

[Cornelius]

In small town churches in America you will still find people who are pastors who have no seminary training. They just felt called, but they still have all the duties of any seminary trained pastor. So in the case of this thread it does not make any difference because they are still expected to perform all the gifts regardless of whether they have all the gifts or not. I imagine many developing countries are the same, there are pastors who don`t go to seminary but because of custom they have the traditional role of an all comprehensive pastor.

Its the system that is not of God. There are many wonderful Christians who are pastors. But if are to be honest, they are not pastors in the Biblical sense. We have just gotten use to them being around in this manner.

When we look around we see pastors everywhere. We have trimmed God's way and replaced it with the "One man = five" ministry and we still call it Godly. I do not agree with this system at all.

 

[pjt]

Its the system that is not of God. There are many wonderful Christians who are pastors. But if are to be honest, they are not pastors in the Biblical sense. We have just gotten use to them being around in this manner.

When we look around we see pastors everywhere. We have trimmed God's way and replaced it with the "One man = five" ministry and we still call it Godly. I do not agree with this system at all.

I agree, and I guess we have to blame men (as in gender) for this since it is supposed to be men who are leading the church . But really I think it is not just the pastor`s position out of order. I think the whole church system is out of order. The more I read and think about it, I think the church is supposed to be operating like a community not like a business. So the church is the community of Believers interacting in and out of each other`s lives throughout the week and ministering to each other throughout the week through encouragement, instruction, admonition, caring for physical needs, prophecy, prayer, wise counsel, eating and entertaining together, etc. I think the church is supposed to be how the Body functions together in daily life and then on the Sabbath, gather and rejoice in the Lord together as a community. The more I consider it, I don`t particularly see the Sabbath gathering as a rock concert nor a place of silent formal, stiff worship. I see it as holy but casual where people can openly discuss and ask questions and learn together like when Jesus went to the Temple. It is a place that welcomes children not stifles them with silence. It is a place to come to pray. It is a place where the main focus is on God not ourselves. It is a place where those gifted in teaching and preaching can share their gift like Jesus did.

When I was a child, church was rather stiff and formal. These days it is very casual, but one thing has not changed and that is the focal point and basic definition of church is each Sunday going to a building where the pastor gives a sermon. Once the sermon is over, people chat a little and then go home. Church is over. In fact, most churches put on their websites or bullitons when church begins and ends. But I think in a true Biblical sense, church never ends. Church is the Body of Believers each and every day. So we should be in touch with each other even just briefly throughout the week. How can we operate as one body if we just see each other 1-2 hours a week? We go in too many different directions to function as one. We get out of sync with each other. Anyway, that is my opinion.

 

[Cornelius]

Amen. We are not an organization , we are a...........body ! Christ's body. We are His chosen vessel in which He moves on this planet at this moment. We do not have a starting time nor a finishing time. And yes the men are out of order as you have pointed out.But so are the women who have taken authority over the men.

We are community . You are correct about this being so every day. We are a "new creation" , we the many, represent the One. We cannot "go" to church because we are the church. When two of us are together the Body of Christ is there ! Jesus said : I am there in the midst of them.

C

 

[cyberjosh]

I would have to respectfully disagree with you here. Pastoring and preaching are two separate gifts. Someone can have the gift of pastoring without being a resounding orator. Pastoring is manual labor, preaching is vocal labor.

Would you mind showing the relevant scriptures for these (just so we can dive deeper)? I guess pastoring actually is the act of "shepherding" the flock, which can be done in other ways than preaching. So yes you are correct, I did not draw that clear distinction. They certainly are not incompatible though and are combined in our Pastors more than not. Although I would say that pastoring is more and office than a gift (but then again I'm sure the opinions go both ways on this - hence the thread ). I know Ephesians 4:11 is one verse for pastoring. And of course though if pastoring does not necessarily include preaching we also must realize that many of these offices and gifts may combine as I mentioned before.

I would have to study this some more in depth, but at first thought I would have to disagree that Paul "pastored" the Corinthians. Yes, I believe the "office" of Pastor was man made. But the gift of pastor is God made. What we see Paul doing is not pastoring. Teaching, yes. Evangelizing, sometimes. Apostleizing(I made up that word ), always!

Apostleship and pastorship are two seperate offices, but who is to say an apostle cannot pastor or guide the flock? Did not Paul constantly call those he minsitered to "my little children" whom he labored with until "Christ is formed in you" (Galatians 4:9)? Paul said he was all things to all men. He was a super-apostle, who labored more than them all, and did just about anything for the people of God. If you do a word study on the word for pastor in Ephesians 4:11 you will see that Jesus used it several times of himself as guiding the flock.

I dunno, I'm not trying to blur the lines between offices, I just see Paul as really being a pastor to all the Churches of God. Even pastors have pastors and spiritual fathers in the faith. Paul wrote the very Scriptures we use for how to conduct "Pastorship" and hence the name of the "Pastoral Epistles" (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus) where he instructed young Timothy and Titus how to oversee and organize the Church. Paul was even kind of a church planter, gathering together those who would worship Jesus and God from out of the pagan societies they were in and encouraging them to function as a body. And in the particular case of the Corinthians he stayed with them longer than any of the other Churches (although we don't know how long Paul was in Rome). I can just imagine him guiding, teaching, preaching, and even (if you like the distinction) pastoring and shepherding the people of God.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Nathan]

I do see what you are saying and maybe the word "office" is because we need a name for them and that would be tradition again. When the Bible does call them gifts and not an office or even a position. Can we say they are "operating" in the gifts?
If we take all the requirements of an apostle, which there are several, and He is called by God, then, we as humans, call that the "office of apostleship". It includes having the gift, but much more and it is not talking about someone who simply has the gift of "being sent out".
So the requirements of the 5 fold ministry are much greater than simply having the gifts. I could have the gift of pastoring or evangilizing but never have ALL the requirements to be a Pastor or an Evangilist.

I think we could say they are using the gifts. I think that it might sound like splitting hairs, but there is a definitive difference between the two.

But again, the 'requirements' are included in the gifts. How can we say God's gifts are not perfect? Because that is what we are saying in effect when we say that we have the gift of something, but not all the 'requirements' to fulfill.

That goes against Scripture and the NT. 2Corinthians 1 deals with this. Paul relied on God for his strength. And in 1Corinthians, while speaking about the gifts, Paul lets us know exactly how they are given and used.

1Cr 12:11 All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

So yes, you may not have as much of the power from the gift of pastoring as someone else, but the simplicity is that you have just what you are supposed to have for the work He wants you to do. That does not mean you don't have enough to 'fulfill and office', it simply means you are not going to do the same exact thing as another person.

 

[Nathan]

The requirements. In Ephesians it talks about the "office", as in we need those people to build up the saints to perfection. These "offices" are the balance God gave the Church. It's not working well if there is simply a Pastor who may or may not have the gift of teaching or vice versa, and they are lacking in the other areas, so the Church is not functioning correctly.

The gifts are discussed in Corinthians, the requirements are not so stringent as what is talked about in Ephesians, but they are both gifts. Anyone can have any one or more of these gifts and they are to make up the Body in order for the Body to care for one another.

That's how I see it.

Where does it talk about the "office" in Ephesians?

Eph 4:7 But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's gift.

Eph 4:8 Therefore it says, "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men."

Eph 4:9 ( In saying, "He ascended," what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth?

Eph 4:10 He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)

Eph 4:11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers,

Eph 4:12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,

Eph 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,

Eph 4:14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.

What it is supposed to be is Christ working in these people, through the power of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it is simply a 'gift' that the person has. They have no 'ability' in and of themselves to fulfill use it properly. Yet we look at the gift as an gift of authority, or "office". But in context we see that as a completely false assumption, especially if you are looking at Ephesians for 'proof text'.

These '5' gifts, are merely words on a page unless the Spirit works in the lives of the individual. They are words used to describe a specific purpose that God uses humans to help other humans. What is the purpose? To equip the saints. Now, are these people not saints also? Yes they are. But 'tradition' also tells us that these '5' types of people are 'officially' supposed to train 'others' for the work of the ministry.

False. The gifts, in context, are given for the benefit of ALL. Even the ones who have been given the gifts! Otherwise, that would mean that He gives some gifts and others do not receive gifts at all. But interestingly enough, that is precisely what we believe! Why do I say that? Look around, the proof is 'in the pudding'.

People look to a specific 'group' of people that seem "gifted". And in doing so, they neglect the very gift that God has given them. Everywhere it speaks about the gifts it speaks of them as such. But what we have neglected so much is the fact that the NT also speaks against "offices", or people who have "positions" of authority.

Yes, we do have passages that deal with young(immature) Christians 'respecting' those in authority. But the context of those passages is not dealing with the gifts. And it certainly is not dealing with "offices".

 

[whitney]

I think we could say they are using the gifts. I think that it might sound like splitting hairs, but there is a definitive difference between the two.

But again, the 'requirements' are included in the gifts. How can we say God's gifts are not perfect? Because that is what we are saying in effect when we say that we have the gift of something, but not all the 'requirements' to fulfill.

That goes against Scripture and the NT. 2Corinthians 1 deals with this. Paul relied on God for his strength. And in 1Corinthians, while speaking about the gifts, Paul lets us know exactly how they are given and used.

1Cr 12:11 All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

So yes, you may not have as much of the power from the gift of pastoring as someone else, but the simplicity is that you have just what you are supposed to have for the work He wants you to do. That does not mean you don't have enough to 'fulfill and office', it simply means you are not going to do the same exact thing as another person.

I am simply saying that when a person holds an office position, their requirements are "heftier" than simply having the gift. I could be gifted in apostleship, but I could never hold the office of an Apostle because I do not meet all the requirements, those requirements of an Apostle in office are different than simply having the gift.
When you study the requirements for each of those offices, then a person can see God definitely prepares those people for their positions.

 

[Nathan]

Would you mind showing the relevant scriptures for these (just so we can dive deeper)? I guess pastoring actually is the act of "shepherding" the flock, which can be done in other ways than preaching. So yes you are correct, I did not draw that clear distinction. They certainly are not incompatible though and are combined in our Pastors more than not. Although I would say that pastoring is more and office than a gift (but then again I'm sure the opinions go both ways on this - hence the thread ). I know Ephesians 4:11 is one verse for pastoring. And of course though if pastoring does not necessarily include preaching we also must realize that many of these offices and gifts may combine as I mentioned before.

Well, the fact that there is no evidence pointing to them being the same thing should give us an indication. But the best way to understand is from 1Peter.

1Pe 4:11 whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies--in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ.

We would say, normally, that a speaker would also be one that serves, correct? Well he does, but we also understand that they are distinct. Here Peter separates them.

But here again, where do we get the idea that there is two separate and distinct things when it comes to pastoring? I still cannot find any Biblical basis. How is pastoring "more" of an office than a gift? Are we going to be presumptuous and call it something that it is not called? Where do we find the basis for calling it an office?

 

[Nathan]

Apostleship and pastorship are two seperate offices, but who is to say an apostle cannot pastor or guide the flock? Did not Paul constantly call those he minsitered to "my little children" whom he labored with until "Christ is formed in you" (Galatians 4:9)? Paul said he was all things to all men. He was a super-apostle, who labored more than them all, and did just about anything for the people of God. If you do a word study on the word for pastor in Ephesians 4:11 you will see that Jesus used it several times of himself as guiding the flock.

I dunno, I'm not trying to blur the lines between offices, I just see Paul as really being a pastor to all the Churches of God. Even pastors have pastors and spiritual fathers in the faith. Paul wrote the very Scriptures we use for how to conduct "Pastorship" and hence the name of the "Pastoral Epistles" (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus) where he instructed young Timothy and Titus how to oversee and organize the Church. Paul was even kind of a church planter, gathering together those who would worship Jesus and God from out of the pagan societies they were in and encouraging them to function as a body. And in the particular case of the Corinthians he stayed with them longer than any of the other Churches (although we don't know how long Paul was in Rome). I can just imagine him guiding, teaching, preaching, and even (if you like the distinction) pastoring and shepherding the people of God.

God Bless,

~Josh

I have never thought for a moment that a man cannot be gifted with more than one gift. That does not make them an office.

Pastors are a very real and needed gift. There is no doubt about it at all. But here is the point. And its the point that Paul makes himself. That the gift of pastoring is just that, a gift. It requires the same Spirit to enable the person as the person with the gift of helping also requires.

And it goes beyond that because the person who has the gift of pastoring has absolutely no 'better position' than the person who has the gift of service. That is what 'offices' do. They elevate certain people above other people. They say this is a 'position', therefore I have a specific role. But when we keep things in context, we understand that gifts require us to view things from God's perspective, which is that we are all apart of the same body.

We are not all the same part. No. But is your arm an "official" part of your body, more so than your liver? Just doesn't make sense does it. But in your arm you have white and red blood cells, you have muscles, and tendons. So yes, an 'arm' does have several things that make up that particular part. But your colon is no more and no less 'officially' apart of the body.

I am not at all trying to say that gifts are not important, but rather trying to understand why we 'classify' some above others by putting them in 'official'(office) status.

 

[Nathan]

I am simply saying that when a person holds an office position, their requirements are "heftier" than simply having the gift. I could be gifted in apostleship, but I could never hold the office of an Apostle because I do not meet all the requirements, those requirements of an Apostle in office are different than simply having the gift.
When you study the requirements for each of those offices, then a person can see God definitely prepares those people for their positions.

Ok. I see what you are saying. thank you for clarifying this, it could prove very helpful to get to the bottom of things.

Requirements are "heftier". Interesting. Why do we say that? Why would God, or better yet, why do we 'think' God would prepare some and then just through gifts at others?

Where do we pick up the notion that He does not equip all that He calls and gives gifts too? If God gives someone the Gift of Apostleship, why would He not also work in the life of the individual?

God would not do that is the point. No where are you going to find that God just 'gives' and does not work in them. The VERY NATURE of the gift means that God HAS to be working in the individual through the Spirit.

The only reason why someone has 'heftier' requirements is because WE place them on that person, or the person places them on themselves. God does the work in the life of the individual who He gifts.

I understand what you are saying, I do, but it is man's tradition that is being expressed. People look at particular gifts as prestigious. It is natural. Jesus knew it would happen. But His instructions were very clear.

Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them to him and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.

Mat 20:26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,

Mat 20:27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,

The fact of the matter is that an "office" requires the person who holds it to do something. Therefore you get the idea of the "office" as having a 'heftier' portion of responsibilities. That is not Christ's intentions. Peter grabbed a hold of this profound truth.

1Pe 5:1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed:

1Pe 5:2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly;

1Pe 5:3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.

1Pe 5:4 And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.

1Pe 5:5 Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."

Now. Where we do get the idea of "office" is from 1 Timothy 3.

1Ti 3:1 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task.

But here we simply have one Greek word, with a whole slew of English words attached to it. I am not a Greek scholar, but I do find it interesting.

episkopē - "to the office of overseer"

What I do find interesting is if you look at other translations and how they word the verse.

NLT
It is a true saying that if someone wants to be an elder,* he desires an honorable responsibility.

YNG
Stedfast [is] the word: If any one the oversight doth long for, a right work he desireth;

DBY
The word [is] faithful: if any one aspires to exercise oversight, he desires a good work.

So the crux of the matter is that Paul is simply talking about someone who is looked upon as being mature in the faith. We have taken the liberty to make it an 'official' position to be held on to. But Paul is talking about the marks of maturity that follow a believer who should be considered able to provide 'oversight' into the lives of others in the body.

 

[Nathan]

I think I am starting to see a similarity of thought in the case that without a specific office, mayhem can ensue. Right?

We look at the 'office' of the pastor as the top tier and then he has 'helpers', deacons, who then are the next tier down. And then the various 'ministries', which come next, followed by the people who 'make up the body'.

And this gives us a sense of 'structure'. But if you just take a moment and contemplate it, it seems more like a machine than a body. UNLESS, you think of the pastor as being the 'head' of the body. Then it all seems to make sense. But we know for a fact that no one is the head. Only Christ is the head of the body.

But what we have, and what we do see in the NT, is the simple distinction of those who are mature and the immature.

In Timothy we see this broken down a little further. The elder(overseer)-episkopos, and the deacon(minister)-diakonos.

If we would simply through our preconceived ideas, tradition, out the door and examine this for what it is, we might gain some insight into what Paul is saying.

And just to nip it in the bud, those who think it to be insane to just 'discount' 2000 years of tradition as rubbish, simply do not understand what I am saying. In fact, up until only 4 hundred(not long at all) years ago, "Protestantism" and all its denominations did not exist period!

It was not till some guys decided they were going to challenge the belief of 1600 years of the 'way' things are done. So our "baptist" beliefs were born out of the cradle of asking hard questions about the system of way things are done.

 

[whitney]

Ok. I see what you are saying. thank you for clarifying this, it could prove very helpful to get to the bottom of things.

Requirements are "heftier". Interesting. Why do we say that? Why would God, or better yet, why do we 'think' God would prepare some and then just through gifts at others?

Where do we pick up the notion that He does not equip all that He calls and gives gifts too? If God gives someone the Gift of Apostleship, why would He not also work in the life of the individual?

God would not do that is the point. No where are you going to find that God just 'gives' and does not work in them. The VERY NATURE of the gift means that God HAS to be working in the individual through the Spirit.

The only reason why someone has 'heftier' requirements is because WE place them on that person, or the person places them on themselves. God does the work in the life of the individual who He gifts.
.

I am not saying God does not work through the lives of individuals who He gifts, but He does prepare us all in different ways. What about to those He gives some and they do well, He gives more to them. We can see how the Apostles suffered for their position.

No, God gives more to some people than He does others and in doing so, they are prepared for what they must endure. In different ways, but very adequately for the Body of Christ.

There is leadership in the Body and they do have more responsibilities than other members.

 

[whitney]

I think I am starting to see a similarity of thought in the case that without a specific office, mayhem can ensue. Right?

We look at the 'office' of the pastor as the top tier and then he has 'helpers', deacons, who then are the next tier down. And then the various 'ministries', which come next, followed by the people who 'make up the body'.

And this gives us a sense of 'structure'. But if you just take a moment and contemplate it, it seems more like a machine than a body. UNLESS, you think of the pastor as being the 'head' of the body. Then it all seems to make sense. But we know for a fact that no one is the head. Only Christ is the head of the body.

But what we have, and what we do see in the NT, is the simple distinction of those who are mature and the immature.

In Timothy we see this broken down a little further. The elder(overseer)-episkopos, and the deacon(minister)-diakonos.

If we would simply through our preconceived ideas, tradition, out the door and examine this for what it is, we might gain some insight into what Paul is saying.

And just to nip it in the bud, those who think it to be insane to just 'discount' 2000 years of tradition as rubbish, simply do not understand what I am saying. In fact, up until only 4 hundred(not long at all) years ago, "Protestantism" and all its denominations did not exist period!

It was not till some guys decided they were going to challenge the belief of 1600 years of the 'way' things are done. So our "baptist" beliefs were born out of the cradle of asking hard questions about the system of way things are done.

The tradition of the Church, was the 5 fold ministry and the Pastor was only one of those positions. The Church can not adequality function without all of them and we do have all of them in the world today, it's simply that mainstream Christianity does not recognize these people. We can not speak solely of a pastor, he is simply one part of the entire Body.

 

[Nathan]

I am not saying God does not work through the lives of individuals who He gifts, but He does prepare us all in different ways. What about to those He gives some and they do well, He gives more to them. We can see how the Apostles suffered for their position.

No, God gives more to some people than He does others and in doing so, they are prepared for what they must endure. In different ways, but very adequately for the Body of Christ.

There is leadership in the Body and they do have more responsibilities than other members.

Ok. I completely agree. God does work in the life of the individual in different ways. That is precisely why we talked about as different parts.

I think this is where it might seem ridiculous to spit hairs, but is a must to get deeper, and that is with leadership having "more" responsibility.

I am a stickler for definitions. So lets define responsibility.

responsibility [rɪˌspɒnsəˈbɪlɪtɪ]
n pl -ties
1. the state or position of being responsible
2. a person or thing for which one is responsible
3. the ability or authority to act or decide on one's own, without supervision

In this sense, yes, 'pastors' are responsible. But, the question is are they more responsible?

I would disagree with this. We are all responsible. We are all responsible for our calling and gifts. Am I any less responsible for my actions if I use my left hand verses my right foot? What if I developed a way for my eyes to blink and be able to rob a bank. Can I claim that because my feet or hands did not do it they are not 'responsible' as much as my eye?

No. The different parts of the body have different responsibilities, but they are equally responsible for their parts. That does not make one 'higher' than the next, only different.

 

[cyberjosh]

I have never thought for a moment that a man cannot be gifted with more than one gift. That does not make them an office.

Pastors are a very real and needed gift. There is no doubt about it at all. But here is the point. And its the point that Paul makes himself. That the gift of pastoring is just that, a gift. It requires the same Spirit to enable the person as the person with the gift of helping also requires.

And it goes beyond that because the person who has the gift of pastoring has absolutely no 'better position' than the person who has the gift of service. That is what 'offices' do. They elevate certain people above other people. They say this is a 'position', therefore I have a specific role. But when we keep things in context, we understand that gifts require us to view things from God's perspective, which is that we are all apart of the same body.

We are not all the same part. No. But is your arm an "official" part of your body, more so than your liver? Just doesn't make sense does it. But in your arm you have white and red blood cells, you have muscles, and tendons. So yes, an 'arm' does have several things that make up that particular part. But your colon is no more and no less 'officially' apart of the body.

I am not at all trying to say that gifts are not important, but rather trying to understand why we 'classify' some above others by putting them in 'official'(office) status.

How do we know though that this is not just a distinction of semantics? Surely prophecy is a gift, yet can we really deny that the OT prophets (for example) were a caste/group of recognized men and women who prophesied? A 'Prophet' became a recognized 'role' (one could say 'office') in society, such as with the prophet Samuel. And Samuel was a prophet, priest, and a judge all in one. I'm just saying that if we want to determine what 'office' really is (which is a term we seem to have coined for roles in the body) then we need to look at what we are really trying to describe.

So do you agree that the OT prophets were a caste or had a recognized 'role'? Many OT commentators think so as indicated in 2 Kings 6:1 in which the "sons of prophets" were recognized as, even if lesser known, prophets like Elisha. I believe these prophets (many of whom were killed earlier by Jezebel during Elijah's ministry) were among the remnant that God had preserved for His people.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

So I read this one little book this week while sick and it brought up a point.

Personally, I have always believed way to much predominance was placed on this "position". So much so sometimes that it is sickening how much it resembles what Catholics think of the Pope as.

But I have heard in the past that the "position" of Pastor was one of an 'office'. In other words, I believe what they mean is, that it is something 'set up' and 'set apart' from the other so called gifts.

So is it something that we should put above all other things? Is it really what we deem it to be? Seems to me, personally, that the pastor is a simple gift that God gives to us. Not any different than any of the other except in its function.

Whats everyones thoughts on this?

Let's start by determining what the word 'pastor' means in scripture and then comparing it to what we understand it as in religion. The word itself is derived from the Latin word pastor which means "shepherd". The term "pastor" is also related to the role of elders who became overseers of the christian "flock" within the New Testament. It is important to point out that in scripture, "pastor" simply means shepherd or overseer and IS NOT synonymous with the modern Minister concept where the "pastor" is the spokesperson and leader/head of the local church. So to rehash, a PASTOR from a purely scriptural standpoint was simply an older person (elder) who, along with other older ones took the lead among brethren by being overseers and shepherds within the christian locality.

Today, for various reasons, we have made preacher and pastor basically synonomous. In the eyes of most, especially in the protestant world, the pastor, or should I say head pastor, is the individual who gives the Sunday sermon each week and has his name on he building. Other pastors may or may not exist within the congregation, but that varies from church to church. The modern pastor is no longer subject to an age or marital status requirement in order to be ordained. He or she in today's church is simply the preacher that usually carries the title of Reverend whose church it is (for example, XYZ Church on Main Street is Pastor/Reverend Smith's Church). So rather than being synonomous with shepherd, overseer, or watcher, the terms PASTOR and Reverend have become synonyms.

Consider the following translations and why the work of shepherding has been made into an office and a positional rank.

NIV 1984 Edition
Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task.

New Living Translation(©2007)
This is a trustworthy saying: "If someone aspires to be an elder, he desires an honorable position."
English Standard Version(©2001)
The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task.
New American Standard Bible(©1995)
It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.
International Standard Version(©2008)
This is a trustworthy saying: The one who would an elder be, a noble task desires he.
GOD'S WORD® Translation(©1995)
This is a statement that can be trusted: If anyone sets his heart on being a bishop, he desires something excellent.
King James Bible
This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
American Standard Version
Faithful is the saying, If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
Douay-Rheims Bible
A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
Darby Bible Translation
The word is faithful: if any one aspires to exercise oversight, he desires a good work.
English Revised Version
Faithful is the saying, If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. Young's Literal Translation
Stedfast is the word: If any one the oversight doth long for, a right work he desireth;
2001 Translation
You can believe that if someone is reaching out to be an Overseer, he’s looking for good work.
A Non Ecclesiastical NT

This statement is reliable: "Whoever longs for oversight is strongly desiring a good work." ​

 

[cyberjosh]

Where does it talk about the "office" in Ephesians?

One more thing on this about where terminology/semantics may come into play (see previous post).

The idea (in our minds as we have traditionally understood it) of role or office seems to be descriptive of the person (as if in a position) exercising the gift.

Such as:

Gift = prophesy
Office = prophet

But even if we decide to only call it a gift, we cannot deny the place of official 'roles' in the scripture, unless we want to say that that was "only" an Old Testament concept. Because clearly in the OT Priests (Levites) held an office and the the High Priest was a very specific 'office' or role for one man (which was filled by many men successively until Christ came). And it is clear that we can think of the priests in terms of an 'office' or role because of the mention in Psalm 110 of the order of Melchizedek. Different term, but same concept. An order of priests. I only say all this to try to illustrate how we might approach looking at what we are attempting to describe (however accurate or nonaccurate we may be doing so) as an office.

Does at least what I'm getting at make any sense to you?

God Bless,

~Josh