Shepherds

MikeS:
To ordain does not imply successsion. The word simply to set,to designate, to appoint a person to a position. This is the meaning of Kathistemi.
Furthermore, we do not live in the day of miraculous confirmation. Some men were ordained miraculously. NOTE: Eph. 4:11-14.

However, today this is not the case. This is the precise reason I Timothy and Titus one were wirtten. If not for designating, setting, or conveying to one the role of a shepherd, what would be the purpose of the instruction?
The process or mechanism based on the inspire directions requires the following:
1. The shepherd must WANT TO BE ONE. I Tim. 3:1.
2. New Christians are not to be considered to serve as a shepherd. I Tim. 3:6.
3. He is one who displays self control. vs.2.
4. He must be a family man. vs.4,5.
5. He must be married. vs.2.
6. He must have a good reputation among the general populous in the community.
7. He must not be addicted to the things of the world. vs. 2.

Congregations are to consider these qualifications in their shepherds. If one desires the office, but is ont qualified, the congregation has the obligation to reject him as a shepherd. This could be done by placing the scriptural objection in writing and meeting with the members of the congregation as well as the one in consideration about the objections. The standard should be by two or three witnesses. II Cor. 13:l,2. The whole congregation would have to be informed of the desire to be set in the position. The congregation would be obligated to make sure this man was qualified. If he is not,they would reject his request.

Each congregation has the liberty within the divine standards to reject or accept the one desiring the role by written proclamation or by oral announcememnt. The guidelines are that it must be done decently and in order. I Cor. 14:40.

 

The sheep choose the Shepherd? The sheep hire and fire the Shepherd? This is why I asked earlier if the sheep know they are the sheep.


God Bless

 

Kathryn:
It would be a foolish for a man to try and lead those who would not be lead by him. Shepherds or elders are not fired. This is a role of service, not of hire. You are confussing denominational applications to the office. Elders are not hired in the sense one man serves in the capacity as what the denoiminational world calls a pastor. Pastors are elders. These men are to be qualified for the role as per I Tim. 3 and Titus 1. A man may be a shepherd, but not the preacher. The word pastor in the new testament is always in the plural where the office is concerned. Note Titus 1:5.
Furthermore, being a shepherd or elder, is not a lifelong role. If the man ceases to be qualified by the divine pattern, he ceases to be a shepherd.

 

Frank:

A shepherd would have authority from Jesus Christ to lead the flock. The flock would recognize the authority of Jesus Christ and follow the Shepherd. When Jesus told Peter “Feed my sheep” “Feed my lambs” “Feed my sheep” the flock didn’t do the choosing, if they wanted to follow Jesus they followed His appointed Shepherd. This authority is passed down.

You seem to be describing something very unscriptural that negates any idea of sheep and shepherd. I know a Pastor in my small town whose sheep fired him. And the sheep never saw themselves as sheep at all. When I have talked to my friends who belong to this congregation they say they have no Shepherd but the Lord Jesus Christ. It is a foreign concept to see themselves as sheep following anyone on earth. They don’t believe anyone has this authority. Even here on BB I have had many conversations among Baptists about not following anyone but Jesus Christ. It seems the very idea of Shepherd and sheep gets lost.

God Bless

 

An excellent point! The sheep must distinguish between the voice of Christ, the Chief Shepherd, and that of false shepherds. So the sheep must judge their shepherd, but the sheep have no right to either hire or fire the shepherd. God calls and removes pastors.

 

Kathryn:
Please provide book chapter and verse for one man serving as a pastor. There are numbers of so called pastors who don't meet the qualifications for this role. They are simply hired as a preacher under the pretense of him being a pastor. There is not one shread of evidence for one man to serve as denominations call "pastor." There is not one scripture for this practice. There is not one example of this in the new testament of Christ.
I know of a number of so called "pastors" who are really just hired preachers who are fired from their job as preacher. However, the word pastor and elder are synonymous terms. Just because denominations practice this does not make it scriptural. This is the case with the pastoral system. It is one created by man for man. It is not ordained of God. The Bible says so. I Tim. 3: 1-8, Titus 1;4-9.

 

Peter was given the position of Head Shepherd on earth:

Matthew 26:31
Then Jesus *said to them, "You will all fall away because of Me this night, for it is written, 'I WILL STRIKE DOWN THE SHEPHERD, AND THE SHEEP OF THE FLOCK SHALL BE SCATTERED.'

Luke 22:31
"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat;

Luke 22:32
but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers."

At this point here Jesus is telling Peter to lead the brothers. The (sheep of the flock that is scattered). Jesus tells Peter he will turn back to Him and Peter is to strengthen them and lead in Jesus’ absence.

After falling away and denying Christ 3X Jesus affirmed Peter 3X. Jesus Christ gave Peter the role of head Shepherd of all of Jesus Christ's lambs and sheep__the whole flock. This is a role not given to the others.

John 21:15
So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs .

John 21:16
He saith to him again the second time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep .

John 21:17
He saith unto him the third time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

No where else is anyone made Shepherd of the whole flock. This is unique to Peter. Peter also sees his first job as replacing Judas.

God Bless

 

Kathryn:
The passages posted do not delcare or imply Peter was the head or chief shepherd. The context indicates peter when restored would strengthen others. He was to do this through feeding them. A reference to teaching. This command is to ALL ELDERS (shepherds). Acts 20:28. If Peter were the Head Shepherd, he would be transgressing the will of God. Titus 1:5 declares that elders (shepherdS) were to be ordained in every city. There is no authority for one man being a single shepherd over all. Jesus is the Chief shepherd, I Pet.5:1-7. If Peter were the primary shepherd on earth, he did not know it.

 

So you can understand this scripture enough to know that it means you need a shepard to explain it to you? Or did the shepard tell you that this is what this verse meant? How do you know this is what the verse means?

Why would a good shepard leave a man illiterate? Peter said:

To make man reliant on you the shepard alone to know and understand the word of God would be a good example of "lording it over" your sheep. Of course, so would keeping the Bible out of the hands of the ordinary people.

~Lorelei

 

Frank:
You ignore here Jesus was speaking only to Peter. Scripture could have said Jesus said this to all of them, but it didn’t. Jesus first made Peter the head Shepherd on earth of Jesus Christ sheep and lambs, not just some of them. He was to lead. Peter knew this and led. He is the one that Scripture says took the lead and arranged for replacing Judas.

John 21:15
So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs .

John 21:16
He saith to him again the second time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep .

John 21:17
He saith unto him the third time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

This is later. Yes, they are Shepherds too, but not the head Shepherd. This was given to Peter along with the Keys (the authority as vicar of the King, see Old Testament) to the kingdom of heaven on earth.

Teaching, and the cup of blessing they bless and the bread they break in how they share in the body of Christ, and whatsoever he binds on earth shall be bound in heaven, etc.

Jesus Christ Himself made Peter the Head Shepherd when He gave Peter the whole flock, not an individual church in a geographical area.

Jesus Christ established His Church on a rock foundation___Himself, the Rock, as the cornerstone, then Peter the rock. The Apostles are also this foundation. The Church established by Jesus Christ must start with this foundation to be Scriptural.

You seem to want to start in the middle some where. You put a blindfold on in reading all the passages that Jesus is specifically telling Peter He is giving Him the authority over His sheep and lambs, not just some of them. Who has the keys in your church?

God Bless

 

Frank:

John 21:15
So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs .

John 21:16
He saith to him again the second time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep .

John 21:17
He saith unto him the third time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

What sheep and lambs of Jesus Christ was Peter not made Shepherd here in these verses? He was given all of them. This knowledge was not lost on Peter.

God Bless

 

Kathryn:
Those verses in John do not declare,imply the primacy of Peter. This assertion of yours is a feeble attempt to establish Peter as Pope. The evidence proves no such thing. John 21:15-17 is the restoration of Peter. He had denied the Lord three times. Jesus therefore, ask him does he love him three times. This was to clear his conscience through repentance and the forgivenss of Christ. Peter does repent affriming his love for Christ. Jesus then commands him three times to feed his sheep. There is no reference to the PRIMACY of Peter in the context of these verses. I did not ignore them. They simply do not evidence what you claim. Unless, the meaning to the words of english have changed.
The scriptures teach us Peter was no pope or head shepherd. Note the following:
1. There are 12 thrones in heaven. The Bible says in Matthew 19:28  And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. On which throne is the pope sitting? The 12 apostles are sitting on the 12 Jesus is referencing.
2. The Bible says in Revelation 21:14  And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
Where wil the popes names be? Jesus left them out.
3. Peter was often times subservient to the other 12. In Galatians 2:9  And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Peter is not mentioned second not primary.
4. In Acts 8:14  ¶Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John. Peter was an errand boy for the others.
5. Peter and Paul are seen as equals in the scriptures. The Bible says in Galatians 2:7  But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8  (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
6. The rest of the apostles were equal with Peter. In Acts 2:14  ¶But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
7.PETER ANTICIPATED NO SUCCESSOR. The Bible says in 2 Peter 1:13  Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance;
14  Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.
15  Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.
8. Peter refered to HIMSELF AS A FELLOW ELDER OR SHEPHERD. I Pet. 5:1 says,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:
9. Peter refused adoration from anyone. The Bible says in Acts 10:25,26, And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
26  But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man. Peter refused to have someone bow before him or kiss his hand.


Furthermore, Christ has ALL authority. Mat. 28:18. Shepherds of all congregations must act in accordance with his authority. Christ DID NOT AUTHORIZE ANYONE TO BE A HEAD SHEPHERD.

The Roman Catholic church claims that Jesus Christ gave Peter the authority to bind and loose religious law. Matthew 16:19 is a record of this occasion, they say. Was Peter singled out to become the first pope in this passage?
Jesus once said to Peter,
Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:19).
This is one of the texts employed by Roman Catholic authorities to buttress their conviction of the “primacy of Peter.” They argue that the Lord, by this language, was granting to His apostle “the right to teach and govern authoritatively, with the certainty of God’s approval” (B.L. Conway, The Question Box, p. 145).
The assertion is false for the following reasons.
First, the promise of binding and loosing, granted here to Peter, is also acknowledged of the entire apostolic group. Jesus later declared:
I say unto you [plural – the apostles] what things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 18:18).
Peter was not given any special primacy in terms of authority.
Second, the grammar of the passage suggests the very opposite of the claim made by Catholic theologians. The verbal forms “shall be bound” and “shall be loosed,” in the Greek New Testament, are perfect tense, passive voice participles. The perfect tense suggests that the binding and loosing had already occurred, and the effects of that action would remain.
The passage may thus be translated as follows:
Whatever you shall bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven (NASB).

 

Frank:
Peter alone was promised the keys by Jesus Christ. No one else. Peter was told to feed "My" sheep. Not just some of the sheep, but “My” sheep. No one else was given all the flock.

The foundation of Jesus Church is built on the Rock, Jesus Christ Himself. Jesus Christ prepared Peter all along for this role as keeper of the Keys and Head Shepherd on earth.

When Jesus breathed on the Apostles they were all ordained to be shepherds. After Jesus ascended into heaven, Peter took charge and arranged for the replacement of Judas. Only Peter has the keys. The Church has the keys and the power of Jesus Christ to bind and to loose.

This is not a Catholic version of the Bible, but the KJV:

Matthew 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 18:18
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Why do you think Jesus Christ changed Peter's name from Simon? All the name changes in the Bible were at critical points of Salvation history.


God Bless

 

Kathryn:
Uhnfortunately, the inspired Greek language teaches that your position is false. Please note once again from the inspired language the Holy Spirit used. The verbal forms “shall be bound” and “shall be loosed,” in the Greek New Testament, are perfect tense, passive voice participles. The perfect tense suggests that the binding and loosing had already occurred, and the effects of that action would remain.
The passage may thus be translated as follows:
Whatever you shall bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
Furthermore, the context of Mat. 18:18 indicates this binding and loosing was given to the 12. Note the instructions in verse 18 are spoken in context to the 12. Note Mt. 18:1.  ¶At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? The same language in Mt. 16:18,19 is also used in Mat. 18:18. The context of Mt. 18 indicates all were under consideration.
In summation, your position is not in harmony with the scriptures for three reasons. One, the original Greek language used by the Holy Spirit teaches that the binding and loosing had been done by the God of heaven by his authority. In short, the garmmar will not allow for your interpretation. Two, Mt. 18 uses the same langauge in the binding and loosing. The CONTEXT IN ENGLISH INDICATES THE 12 ARE IN CONSIDERATION. Three, the ENGLISH past tense verbs indicate the binding and loosing had already been done by the authority of heaven.

You can assert a thing to be true. However, assertions do not make truth.

Your argument reminds me of Henny Penny who cried incessantly " the sky is falling." However, we know this was not true. No matter how many times Henny Penny tried to convince people that the sky was falling it obviously did not. This was simply unsubstantiated assertion. It was false.

 

Frank:

All the translations KJV including the Young's literal translation from the Greek have the same meaning. It is the authority to bind and to loose. Yes, what the Church binds and looses is already done in heaven. The Church has the authority to bind and to loose according to God's will. There is no conflict.

God Bless

 

Unfortunately, the inspired Greek language teaches that your position is false. Please note once again from the inspired language the Holy Spirit used. The verbal forms “shall be bound” and “shall be loosed,” in the Greek New Testament, are perfect tense, passive voice participles. The perfect tense suggests that the binding and loosing had already occurred, and the effects of that action would remain.

Very simple question, Frank. If that is the case, then why didn't the Early Fathers of the Church, who spoke Greek fluently, understand it that way and teach your idea?

I'll be waiting for your answer....

 

Yes, what the Church binds and looses is already done in heaven. The
Church has the authority to bind and to loose according to God's will. There
is no conflict.

I offer myself as an experiment for the "Church" to prove themselves.

Use the powers of your "Church" to loose my blind eyes of Protestantism
tendencies and bind me into the confines of Catholicism ( according to God's
Will.)

You'll know by my posts when this great miracle happens.

Waiting,
Singer

 

Singer:

Read the Old Testament if you want to know what the Jewish people understood it to mean to bind and to loose.

God Bless

 

Catholic Convert:
There are several possiblities to your question. One, Theological BIAS. Mat. 15:8,9.
Two, Shoddy scholarship. Acts 17:11.
Three, Rebellion against God. Judges 21:27
Four, To receive the accolades of men. Mat.7,23.
Five, Hated truth. II Thes. 2:9-11.

By the way, which church fathers are you referencing? Do all or them agree with your asseertion? Why are there opinions more important than the original inspired language?

I could address the same question about this issue to you. Why do men not see it the way you do? This type reasoning is foolishness.

The important question is, What did God say? Now, take the original inspired text and defend your position. I will be waiting!