What is a pastor, and what do they do?

Recently I have begun to wonder about this. Is a pastor simply someone who goes up once or twice a week and speaks? After having read the threa "What is a church", I have begun to wonder just what does a pastor do, if all have psalms, and all have teachings.My background is such that I went to "church" Wednesday, and Sunday to hear a man teach, and we all labelled him a pastor.Please do not turn this into a debate, I am just simply wondering as I have a small flock that God has entrusted to me, but I would never want to rob them because of my pride or arrogance.Blessings to you all,Pat

'pastor' is the Latin word for 'shepherd' and is only used once in the New Testament“And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;” (Eph. 4:11, KJVS)However the Greek word for 'shepherd or shepherding' is used frequently. Can I suggest we start from the "bottom up" with this one? In other words rather than trying to attack or defend modern models of 'pastor' can we see how the scriptures use this term and build from there?Other than the description of Joseph's family as 'shepherds' one of the earliest references is clearly Messianic“But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel:)” (Gen. 49:24, KJVS)I can't help but note that the emphasis in this particular passage is not of the shepherd's gentler role but is an focus on the power of such. Consequently one of the first links to the word 'shepherd/pastor' concentrates on his ability to defend his flock. This will give us a link with 'kings' whose primary role was to be 'shepherd' of God's flock.To answer roaringlamb's particular question 'what is a pastor and what do they do?' I would suggest at the outset that 'what do they do' is by far the more important question.

Time for a little more to chew on?I thought it might be provoking to see the original ideas of 'shepherd' from the OT. The period of the Judges was a fascinating and dangerous time. This was the 'wild west' of the promised land. The recurring cycle was for the people to forget God and come under the control of other nations. When Israel recognized its need they cried to God who provided them with a Shaphat; the word translated "Judge' in the OT. This cycle went through many iterations;“And they forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth. And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and he delivered them into the hands of spoilers that spoiled them, and he sold them into the hands of their enemies round about, so that they could not any longer stand before their enemies. Whithersoever they went out, the hand of the LORD was against them for evil, as the LORD had said, and as the LORD had sworn unto them: and they were greatly distressed. Nevertheless the LORD raised up judges, which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them.”(Judg. 2:13-16, KJVS)The Shaphat (Judge) is sometimes referred to by secular historians as 'charismatic'. This is their way of distinguishing between a settled and dynastic authority and the 'sudden' endowment of power and authority which set one man at the head of his contemporaries. The 'anointing' received by those 'shaphat' seemed to be sporadic. Samson is an example. When the period of the 'anointing' was over the 'judge' reverted to his previous pattern of life. There are however signs that the people of Israel did not like this pattern and some were ready to give them what they wanted. Abimelech, the illegitimate son of Gideon, is an example. (Judges 9ff) This follows on the heels of the people's clamour for Gideon to become a dynastic ruler and Gideon's refusal. “Then the men of Israel said unto Gideon, Rule thou over us, both thou, and thy son, and thy son’s son also: for thou hast delivered us from the hand of Midian. And Gideon said unto them, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you: the LORD shall rule over you.”(Judg. 8:22-23, KJVS)Although Gideon would not accept this role his illegitimate son was eager to do so. (Abimelech: means 'my father is king') This movement resulted in Abimelech becoming the first king over Israel. (Judges 9:22) In spite of Gideon's refusal to create a family dynasty we see this trend persisting and by the time of Samuel, the last judge, his sons are carrying on a clear dynastic pattern. “And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel.”(1Sam. 8:1, KJVS) This is a sharp change of direction from what God had given to Israel and it may be that this 'hereditary shaphat' pattern was partly to blame for Israel's plea for a king. “Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.”(1Sam. 8:19-20, KJVS)This is an interesting verse in that the people of Israel wanted a 'king' (malak) who would function like a 'judge' (shaphat). This is a really odd mixture; they wanted the stability of a monarchy on the pattern of the nations around them but with the role of a genuine 'charismatic shaphat-judge).They got Saul and it is key to see the 'job-description' for a 'king of Israel'. The people had petitioned for a 'malak-king' but God's choice of Saul gives a different label. “Now the LORD had told Samuel in his ear a day before Saul came, saying, To morrow about this time I will send thee a man out of the land of Benjamin, and thou shalt anoint him to be captain over my people Israel, that he may save my people out of the hand of the Philistines: for I have looked upon my people, because their cry is come unto me. And when Samuel saw Saul, the LORD said unto him, Behold the man whom I spake to thee of! this same shall reign over my people.”(1Sam. 9:15-17, KJVS)This passage has several important words.1. Saul was to be an 'anointed' man. Up until this time Israel had only known anointing for priests. This man was to be a 'God-ordained' 'God-authorised man'2. He was to be a 'captain' (KJV) As far as I can see this was the first use of the word 'nagid'. It is not the same word as 'king'. There had been many 'kings' in the Bible history until this time but this was the first 'nagid'. The word 'nagid' comes from a word meaning 'to be at the front' ie a leader. Young's Literal Translation translates this word as 'leader'. This is a very important distinction which we can see if we provide some prepositions to go with the word. The word 'king' is usually followed by the preposition 'over', but 'leaders' are not 'over' but 'in front of'. Can you see that distinction. It will become a vital distinction when we look at the pattern of authority in the church.3. This man's role was to 'save' or 'defend' them from the Philistines. Again, we are not looking at a typical eastern monarch here but a 'warrior leader'.4. The word 'reign' here too is interesting. This is the only time the KJV translates this word as 'reign' it usually translates it with a some word indicating 'restraint'. In fact, the meaning word could be seen in the action of a shepherd 'gathering' his sheep into a protective assembly. A fascinating picture of 'God's kind of king' is emerging. He is a shepherd warrior, equipped by God to protect and guide the flock. Whatever men may mean by the idea of 'king' this is God's. The emphasis is not upon monarchical control and privilege but upon solemn God-given responsibility. These are the roots of 'biblical rule and authority'.

Hi Ron,This just adds weight as to why God rejected Saul. Clearly He did not want a people 'led' into an attitude of disobedience.

Ron thank you so much for your insight into this. Recently I have been reading through Joshua, and Judges so it is of interest that you bring up that book. I think that for now, I am also wondering how to set things up as to not push the Spirit out but also instruct, and make disciples. Perhaps multiple meetings through the week. I really do not know, but I am realizing that when the Spirit is allowed to move it is wonderful, and you begin to sense the Body, not the individual.

The word 'king' is usually followed by the preposition 'over', but 'leaders' are not 'over' but 'in front of'. Can you see that distinction. It will become a vital distinction when we look at the pattern of authority in the church.Ah, yes, I see it! I never thought about that before. A fascinating picture of 'God's kind of king' is emerging. He is a shepherd warrior, equipped by God to protect and guide the flock.Philologos, what you have written so far is fascinating, and I am eager to read your next installment. In my church life, the institution has always been of utmost importance, and has taken a lot of time and energy from the pastor. Also, the "king" model has been generally the practise - because that has been the DESIRE of the people (I think). I'm not sure if I've really ever had a pastor in the sense of its real meaning - to protect and guide. However, I can honestly say that Christ has been a true Shepherd for me. Once I learned that I could trust Christ as my Shepherd, I could enjoy and appreciate my pastors as fellow pilgims on the same journey as me. Each one I have had has always contributed to my life in some way. God works regardless. Diane

Ron if you would give us some more to chew on that would be wonderful. :-)

Yes, there will be a little more...I thought I ought to just underline this shepherd-king theme first. The appointment of Joshua is another indication of the kind of role that God had in mind for Israel's leaders:“Let the LORD, the God of the spirits of all flesh, set a man over the congregation, Which may go out before them, and which may go in before them, and which may lead them out, and which may bring them in; that the congregation of the LORD be not as sheep which have no shepherd.”(Num. 27:16-17, KJVS)There is also a strong contrast between the behaviour of Saul and that of David which is expressed in these 'shepherd' terms:“Also in time past, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel: and the LORD said to thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be a captain over Israel.”(2Sam. 5:2, KJVS) Three key words appear in this sentence:1. Saul was 'king': melek "king over us"2. David 'led them out and brought them in', 3. 'feed' - the word is shepherded, It is interesting that of 172 uses of the word 'shepherd' and 'to shepherd' in the KJV, 75 of them are translated 'feed' or something similar.4. and captain which is 'nagid'; the one at the frontThere are some famous rebukes to 'pastors' in the OT prophets, sometimes in contrast even to Gentile kings; God called Cyrus 'My Shepherd' (Is 44:20) more than 200 years before Cyrus was born! These anti-shepherd references are scattered throughout the prophets: Is. 56:11; Jer. 2:8; 10:21; 12:10; 23:1-2; 25:34; 50:6; Ezek. 34:2-3,5,7-8,10; Nah. 3:18; Zech. 10:3; 11:3,8. It is easy to forget that when the prophets bring their accusations and judgements against the shepherds they are talking about Israel's kings not their priests nor their prophets but against their 'leaders'. It is good too to remember that the 'teaching' role was really the responsibility of the 'priests' rather than the 'kings'. eg“For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.”(Mal. 2:7, KJVS)I was 26 years old when I was first inducted as a 'pastor' in a UK church. I remember well an older man putting his arm around my shoulder and saying 'the pastor's role is really very simple; lead, feed and bleed.'In many ways the concentration is on the 'shepherd disposition' rather than on great gifts. I think it was E M Bounds who said 'it is not so much great gifts that God uses, but great likeness to Jesus Christ'.

Thank you, Philologos. Again, some thought I was never aware of ex the role of Israel's kings. In another post you mentioned the miss-translation in the KJV of related words - "ruler" to justify eclesiastical control and hierarchy. Can you develop that here a bit? Diane

I was 26 years old when I was first inducted as a 'pastor' in a UK church. I remember well an older man putting his arm around my shoulder and saying 'the pastor's role is really very simple; lead, feed and bleed.'So is it safe to say that 'pastor' is not who one is, but what one does?In many ways the concentration is on the 'shepherd disposition' rather than on great giftsThis must be an 'attitude' of the heart towards God's children- as one would have for their own children. The old cliche' says that "folk don't care how much you know, until they know how much you care." Our Lord took it a step further when talking to Peter at the end of John's Gospel and essentially said, 'if you love me more than these, feed my sheep.' The question is what is meant by 'feed'? Would this be teaching or providing for their 'other' needs as well? We are used in the West to the sheep feeding the pastor's in one sense (in many cases); mainly materially or monitarily through tithe and offerings. Or we could look at it as the shepherds feed the sheep spiritual things and the sheep provide the wool (material things). What is causing the confusion for me is the whole 'body ministry' thing. If the body is ministering one to another as we find in Acts and I Corinthians; what would be left to 'feed' them?

If the body is ministering one to another as we find in Acts and I Corinthians; what would be left to 'feed' them?We will get onto this hopefully. I just wanted to root our thinking as firmly as possible into raw biblical concepts rather than looking at current practice and trying to decided how biblical it is.

I would just like to say that I have been so blessed thus far, and cannot wait to hear and chew on more. Blessings to you all!

OK, here's another hand-granade.;-)The only reference to the word 'pastor' which we have in our KJV's is “He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.”(Eph. 4:10-16, KJVS)This passage gives us the source, the nature and the purpose of a New Testament pastor. The NKJV makes it clear that the sense is not a specific and limited number of such people ie some pastors, but he gave 'men' and some of those men were given to be 'pastors etc'.Let me say a little about the letter to the Ephesians. It may not be a specific letter to Ephesus but more in the nature of a circular. Very old manuscripts exist where instead of the word for 'Ephesus' there is a space as thought it were waiting to be 'addressed'. This may be a very early example of 'word-processing'. There are other features which make this more likely. Paul spent a considerable time in Ephesus and had many freinds there, but there are no personal greetings in the manner of the letters to Rome, Philippians, Colossians etc. But there is something which I think is much more in important and that is the way that Paul uses the word 'church'. Here are the references:Eph. 1:22 (KJVS) And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Eph. 3:10 (KJVS) To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, Eph. 3:21 (KJVS) Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. Eph. 5:23 (KJVS) For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Eph. 5:24 (KJVS) Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Eph. 5:25 (KJVS) Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; Eph. 5:27 (KJVS) That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. Eph. 5:29 (KJVS) For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: Eph. 5:32 (KJVS) This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. I have quoted them in full so that you can check what I am going to say... I don't think the 'local church' is in view in Ephesians; it is the universal church which is the continuing topic. Have a look at the list before you read more.Why is this significant? Well, if Paul has 'the church' in mind rather than 'a church' his teaching on the topic of 'apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers' is most likely to have to do with the universal church rather than a local church. This is why I wanted to examine the scriptures before trying to work out how well current 'pastors' are doing their jobs. If this next sentence is a new idea to you it may be shocking. There is no reference, in the New Testament, to a local church with its own 'pastor' in fact, the scriptural narrative that we have in the Acts and through the Epistles would suggest that 'apostles, prophets, and evangelists' were all itinerant rather than residential functions. The point I want to make is that, used in the New Testament sense, 'pastors and teachers' are gifts to the whole church not to a local gathering and that, more that likely, they were itinerant too. If that is not a new idea you will take it in your stride. If it is a new idea, take a while to digest it with its implications.While you're digesting that how about this? In some circles this little list from Ephesians is referred to as 'the fivefold ministry gifts'. But are there five in this list or four? Just a reading of the KJV might indicate what we are looking at “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;”(Eph. 4:11, KJVS)Notice that in the KJV there are only 4 uses of 'some' rather than 5. The Greek bears this out. I'm sorry about this bit of Greek but I need it to make my point.Eph. 4:11 kai autos edOke tous men apostolous, tous de prophEtas, tous de euaggelistas, tous de poimenas kai didaskalousThere are special 'conjunctions' used here which have a special sense. The Greek word 'men' in the above quotation warns you that something additional is on the way. It is the equivalent of the way we might say 'on the one hand...' This phrase would alert you to the fact that there was something more coming. The Greek word 'de' is the equivalent of saying 'on the other hand...' That gives us this kind of paraphrase "also, on the one hand, he gave some (as) apostles and, on the other hand, some (as) prophets and, on the other hand some (as) evangelists and on the other hand some (as) pastors and teachers"/We seem to be short of one 'on the other hand..." Surprize, the fivefold ministry gifts of Ephesians 4 are really the fourfold ministry gifts; the phrase 'pastors and teachers' is describing one group not two. At the very least this strongly associates 'pastoring and teaching'So what conclusions do I draw from this? I think the Biblical evidence shows that the 'function' of 'pastor/teacher' was not part of the hierarchy/organisation of the local church but was an itinerant function of the same kind as that exercised by 'apostles, prophets and evangelists'. The 'governing functions' in the local church are not in view in this Ephesians passage. If we want to learn more about the 'governing functions' we shall have to look at a different set of words...

BOOM (grenade goes off)I have wondered about these things for awhile, but how dp we implement this into "a church" as it seems it would be near impossible to do it in "the church"? :-o

So what conclusions do I draw from this? I think the Biblical evidence shows that the 'function' of 'pastor/teacher' was not part of the hierarchy/organisation of the local church but was an itinerant function of the same kind as that exercised by 'apostles, prophets and evangelistSo this answers why our Lord tells Peter that he is to 'feed' my sheep (as this is a 'pastor' or shepherd function); likewise Paul said that after his departure grievous wolves would come in not sparing the flock, as if he were functioning in the protective aspect of a shepherd (Acts 20:29). The 'governing functions' in the local church are not in view in this Ephesians passage. If we want to learn more about the 'governing functions' we shall have to look at a different set of words...I should wish to hear those words. :-D Likewise I am greatly enjoying this study.

Brother philologos,Perhaps you are headed in this direction already, but could you explain the difference then between a bishop, an overseer, and a pastor. Simply is there one(a difference) or or they one in the same? Since a bishop should be "apt to teach", and Paul also instructed Timothy to teach and do the work of an evangelist etc.

roaringlamb's could you explain the difference then between a bishop, an overseer, and a pastor.There are some passages of scripture which may help. btw I am not trying to create a 'first century organisation' but just to identify principles which I think have continuing relevance.“For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus, so that he would not have to spend time in Asia; for he was hurrying to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the Day of Pentecost. From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church.” (Acts 20:16-17, NKJV) Just to set the scene; the people that Paul will be speaking to later in the chapter are 'the elders' of 'the church in Ephesus'. Note that he did not send for the 'pastor' but for 'the elders'. These are the beginnings of some of the words that RobertW wanted to hear more about. Let's begin with elders.elders.I hope I'm not going too slowly with this but I want to build from solid foundations. I am working on the assumption that there is enough evidence in the Book to establish identifiable principles. I'm not into methods, that's another issue.The first elders mentioned in the Bible are Egyptian! “And Joseph went up to bury his father: and with him went up all the servants of Pharaoh, the elders of his house, and all the elders of the land of Egypt,”(Gen. 50:7, KJVS) This is really a great place to start because it shows us that 'elders' is something of a relative term. The 'elders' of Pharoah's household would have been of a different 'order' to the 'elders' of the land of Egypt. Who are these people and what is their function? It would seem that these people had both recognized status and authority. I presume that everyone in Pharaoh's house knew who the 'elders' were, and that the people of Egypt knew who their 'elders' were.Sometimes folks say 'it doesn't matter about recognition, an elder will always be an elder whether he is recognized as such or not'. I think there is a truth in this but it omits another truth which is that 'eldership' really has to be recognized for it to function. Who are these men? I can see no evidence for their election but at some stage men who were obviously reckoned to be able to carry the responsibility were officially entrusted with the role. They were 'publicly' acknowledged as men with authority 'in Pharaoh's house' and in the 'land of Egypt'.I will make another point here which is that these men, when publicly acknowledged can carry a representative role. These men, attending Jacob's funeral were representing 'Pharaoh' and the 'land of Egypt'. This will have its relevance later in our thinking. So these men, of suitable qualification, have become the publicly recognized representatives of Pharaoh and of Egypt; there are two distinguishable groups.When the sons of Israel and their families migrated to Egypt they had no elders. Families don't need elders. The structure is much less formal and all authority within the family is really just delegated by the father. It is plain to see the authority that Israel has over his own family in the narrative of Joseph and Benjamin. The blood descendants (and wives etc) of Israel who migrated to Egypt are said to be 70. (Ex 1:5) However this may not be the total of all who migrated to Egypt at this time; this 70 are "out of the loins of Jacob" in other words his blood-relatives. The invitation from Pharaoh to Israel however was not just for the 'blood relatives' but for “...your father and your households, and come unto me: and I will give you the good of the land of Egypt, and ye shall eat the fat of the land.” (Gen. 45:18, KJVS)At an earlier period, Abraham's 'household' included 318 men who were able to bear arms. The 'migration' of the sons of Israel to Egypt may have been much larger than we usually think.However, the households were under the rule of the family heads; Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah etc., and there is no need for a class of representatives or 'elders' in this context. The population grew and by the time of the Exodus we have 603550 adult males able to bear arms .(Numbers 1:44) This is not the only change. By this time the people of Israel also have 'elders'. Ex. 3:16 (KJVS) Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt: Ex. 3:18 (KJVS) And they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days’ journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God. Ex. 4:29 (KJVS) And Moses and Aaron went and gathered together all the elders of the children of Israel: Ex. 12:21 (KJVS) Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Draw out and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill the passover. This is an enormous transition. Jacob's family clan has become a community and in the larger context there is now a need for 'organisation'. In such a group 'organisation' may be imposed or may just develop. Such a group will inevitably gain 'elders'.btw did you know that the Internet has 'elders'? This article traces the instinctive development of the Internet and identifies the Internet Elders; it is an interesting concept. I quote it here only to show how a community must develop an organisation. It may be good or bad, formal or informal, but the organisation must develop. Have you ever heard the phrase 'man is a political animal'? In its origins it doesn't really mean what you think it means. 'polis' is a Greek city state. This statement, in its origins, actually says that human beings create social organisations.Another point I would like to make. Eldership in Israel arose because of necessity rather than by divine imposition. The men that we usually refer to as 'deacons' in Acts 6 also arose because of necessity. Neither Israel of old, nor the Jerusalem church of the First Century were working to a blueprint. They were developing and God was at work in the development. This is why I want to point out again the danger of trying to create a blueprint for 'the New Testament Church'. There are 'New Testament Church' principles but not a strict 'pattern'. As a local church develops we ought not to be trying to outwork a pattern but following the Spirit's directions in our hearts and testing those developments against the principles that we can see at work in the First Century. I would like to suggest that Barnabas and Paul's action in 'ordaining elders in every city' was not as the result of following the perfect pattern for a church but was simply the God given provision for a need which arose with the growing numbers just as the 'deacons' of Acts 6 were God's provision for the need which arose with the growing numbers. Let's digest/talk about this before we move on.

Wonderful thoughts, shall we procede? :-)