Why did the Geneva Bible start using the word "Pastor"?

[Guest shiloh357]

So then what's the problem?  I fail to see any problem with the Geneva Bible using the word "pastor."

[carlos123]

So then what's the problem?  I fail to see any problem with the Geneva Bible using the word "pastor."

 

It strikes me as very odd that they started using the word Pastor, a Latin word, when a perfectly acceptable word (i.e. shepherd) had been in use for many years and in every English translation before the Geneva Bible came out (I am referring to the use of this word in Ephesians 4:11 and in Jeremiah). 

 

WHY did they make that change?  

 

It's the first time that the word "Pastor" made it into our English bibles. 

 

Any ideas?  

 

Carlos

[carlos123]

Wikipedia says...

 

The use of the term pastor to refer to the common Protestant title of modern times dates to the days of John Calvin and Huldrych Zwingli. Both men, and other Reformers, seem to have revived the term to replace the Catholic priest in the minds of their followers. 

 

Quoted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastor

 

Of course Wikipedia is certainly not authoritative but still...I thought that statement was interesting.  Would love to know what they base that on. 

 

If true...that points to there being a problem in the use of that word in place of the more general "shepherd" in that we as Christians no longer have priests that mediate between us and God. 

 

Carlos

[carlos123]

Here is an interesting quote regarding one of Calvin's views on the role of ministers...

 

 

Christ “ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things” (Eph. 4:10). The mode of filling is this: By the ministers to whom he has committed this office, and given grace to discharge it, he dispenses and distributes his gifts to the Church, and thus exhibits himself as in a manner actually present by exerting the energy of his Spirit in this his institution

 

 

This quote, which comes from his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Chapter 3 - see   http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.vi.iv.html is indicative of what I said earlier.  That Calvin had an overly exaggerated view of the importance of church leaders. 

 

Here he says that the Lord "dispenses and distributes" his gifts to the Church by the ministers!  

 

Not the Holy Spirit as God wills but rather the ministers!  

 

As if the flow of gifts to the church comes through the ministers!!  

 

Carlos

[Ezra]

Wikipedia says...

The use of the term pastor to refer to the common Protestant title of modern times dates to the days of John Calvin and Huldrych Zwingli. Both men, and other Reformers, seem to have revived the term to replace the Catholic priest in the minds of their followers. 

Quoted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastor

 

Of course Wikipedia is certainly not authoritative but still...I thought that statement was interesting.  Would love to know what they base that on. 

 

If true...that points to there being a problem in the use of that word in place of the more general "shepherd" in that we as Christians no longer have priests that mediate between us and God. 

 

Carlos

Because the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches had introduced a man-made priesthood into their churches they changed the term *presbyter* (Gk presbuteros = elder) to mean *priest* instead of elder, and called their priests *fathers* with the authority to forgive sins.

 

Whereas in Scripture *bishop* is another term for *elder* (Phil 1:1), these churches appointed bishops over several churches, and the priests were ordained by the bishops and held accountable to them.  On top of that the RCC introduced a hierarchy of clergymen including cardinals, and finally the Pope.  The Orthodox had patriarchs and refused to acknowledge the Pope as supreme.

 

They also suppressed the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, thus *the priest* had all the spiritual leadership and authority. The Reformers (such as Luther, Calvin, etc) came out of the RCC and tried to restore the true Bible doctrines, hence they introduced the term *pastor* which means shepherd, and is scriptural. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with this term.  It is the application that is unscriptural.

 

But at the same time, because of their backgrounds, they held on to some Catholic baggage (e.g. infant baptism, sacraments, etc), and also taught that men must be seminary trained and *qualified* before they can minister the Word.  Thus they accepted the terms *Reverend*, *Right Reverend*, *Doctor* etc. They did not go back completely to the New Testament pattern, and even Presbyterianism is a mixture of biblical and Catholic ideas, where the Presbytery controls several churches, rather than each local church having its own Presbytery (as in the NT).  Also all the elders in the local church are not considered pastors.

 

The Anglican church became more and more Anglo-Catholic in the 19th and 20th centuries, and they went back to many of the Catholic practices, included the term *Father* for their clergy, the confessional etc.  C.S. Lewis was an *evangelical* Anglican, but mixed up in his beliefs, so he also accepted the Confessional, Purgatory, prayers for the dead, etc.

 

The whole concept of *clergy* vs *laity* probably began with the Nicolaitans (Rev 2:6,15), and became entrenched in the Orthodox and Catholic churches.  But when the Reformers should have discarded that altogether, they failed to do so.  The Baptists and Anabaptists (who were persecuted by the Reformers) did not originally maintain the concept of clergy vs laity, but gradually they were influenced by the Reformed Churches, and required their pastors to be seminary trained, ordained by the denomination, called *Reverend*, and then authorized to preach the Word.  They also had to be licensed by the State to marry the living and bury the dead.  Today, most evangelical churches demand that their pastor have a Master of Divinity, not that he has the spiritual gift of pastor and is called to be an elder.

 

Scripture does not present any such concepts.  Instead ordinary men are called and gifted and enabled by the Holy Spirit to become shepherds and both feed and lead the flock (Acts 20:17-38; 1 Pet 4:10,11; 5:1-4).  Those who minister are simply "Brethren" according to the commandment of Christ.  No *Rabbi*, no *Master*, no *Doctor*, no *Reverend* and no *Father*.

[carlos123]

Here is another interesting quote from Calvin...pay special attention to the parts I have bolded...I have added my own commentary in parantheses.  I have also added paragraph separations to make the quote easier to read. 

 

Accordingly, I have observed above, that God has repeatedly commended its dignity by the titles which he has bestowed upon it (it's dignity referring to the dignity of the church), in order that we might hold it in the highest estimation, as among the most excellent of our blessings.

 

He declares, that in raising up teachers, he confers a special benefit on men, when he bids his prophet exclaim, “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace” (Isa. 52:7);

 

when 2318he calls the apostles (as if the Lord meant to say this about the apostles and not Christians in general!) the light of the world and the salt of the earth (Mt. 5:13, 14).

 

Nor could the office be more highly eulogised than when he said, “He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me” (Luke 10:16).

 

But the most striking passage of all is that in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, where Paul treats as it were professedly of this question. He contends, that there is nothing in the Church more noble and glorious than the ministry of the Gospel (through ministers), seeing it is the administration of the Spirit of righteousness and eternal life. These and similar passages should have the effect of preventing that method of governing and maintaining the Church by ministers, a method which the Lord has ratified for ever, from seeming worthless in our eyes,

 

 

From http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.vi.iv.html

 

Exaltation of church leadership above other members of the body exudes out of this quote throughout.  

 

Almost as if the ministers are standing between God and man and dispensing God's grace to us all. 

 

In other words instead of all the gifts of the Spirit operating through individuals standing side by side as equals before God our common Father...though having different roles in the church, Calvin sees ministers as having a profound and significantly more important (even a superior) role in the life of the church than other members of a local body.  

 

It's a subtle but significant difference from the biblical perspective I think.  

 

1 Corinthians 4:6-7 (HCSB)

 

Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the saying: “Nothing beyond what is written.” The purpose is that none of you will be inflated with pride in favor of one person over another. 7 For who makes you so superior? What do you have that you didn’t receive? 

 

Carlos

[Guest shiloh357]

Calvin was talking about  Psalm 52:7 which  Paul also quoted in Roman 10  about how beautiful are the feet of them who bring good news.   Calvin was not unduly exalting man or the role of pastor or anyone, above other members of the church, but was talking about the wondrous privilege of the calling to be one who spreads the Gospel.    Calvin was talking about the office, not the man.  He was talking about how the Bible holds in esteem those teachers and preachers who spread the Gospel, and that is NOT limited to those in vocational ministry.  Your added commentary and parenthetical notation is a dishonest take on Calvin's statements. 

 

I went back and read the original quote without your additions, and you have completely misrepresented what Calvin said and you added things to the text to slant it in a way to make Calvin appear to be saying what he was NOT saying at all.  I am not a Calvinist, but an honest treatment of what he says, does not agree with your position at all.

 

 

And you still have not offered up a cogent reason why the use of Pastor instead of shepherd is problematic or even an issue at all, since you acknowledge that they are the same thing.

[another_poster]

 

You are making an aweful lot of assumptions Another_Poster.  

 

"you clearly don't want discussion" WRONG. 

 

"you don't like the answer." WRONG.

 

"you decide they shouldn't be involved in the the discussion." WRONG. 

 

I wish you wouldn't assume and instead that you would ask me whether this or that is true instead. 

 

I DO want discussion which means a give and take, a challenge to my thinking and that of others, etc. 

 

Whether I personally like an answer or not has absolutely nothing to do with anything.  What kind of discussion would it be if I insisted on everyone giving me only answers that I liked?  That's ridiculous. 

 

As for me deciding that Shiloh shouldn't be involved in this discussion why did I say what I did to him Another_Poster (not to mention that it is not within my power on this forum to stop anyone from participating in a thread)?  

 

It was because he said "nothing good is served by trying to manufacture a problem that doesn't exist.".  That left me perplexed as to why he was involved in this discussion at all which led me to suggest that it would be better for him not to be involved in this discussion since...he did not apparently see much value to it. 

 

It would further profitable discussion if you would not assume things about my motives or desires Another_Poster.  

 

Carlos

 

 

I was not making any assumptions. I could see by the words you wrote. Now Shiloh answered your question and part of that answer was that it is a pointless discussion as they mean the same thing. You then basically condemned Shiloh for taking part in the discussion when all Shiloh did was answer your question.

 

 

What I find most interesting is that the comments you make are not about corruption of bible but people not researching things for themselves. If people have allowed one single pastor to have total control then that is the fault of people not the pastor. I would say that is a result of people not wanting to do anything themselves. The main leaders at my church are all the small group leaders. The pastor & assistant pastor main role is to support them. At another church I went to they had a leadership team and it was majority rule. Another one they didn't take a vote but came to a consensus by discussion. Another group all votes had to be unaminous. People said that would never work but it did. So I guess the question is what on earth is happening in your country and perhaps it is a cultural thing not because of any bible translation.

 

Eph 4:12 does suggest that it is a position. However let me ask this. You say it is all about oversight. If that oversight is there then does it matter?

 

[another_poster]

 

So then what's the problem?  I fail to see any problem with the Geneva Bible using the word "pastor."

 

It strikes me as very odd that they started using the word Pastor, a Latin word, when a perfectly acceptable word (i.e. shepherd) had been in use for many years and in every English translation before the Geneva Bible came out (I am referring to the use of this word in Ephesians 4:11 and in Jeremiah). 

 

WHY did they make that change?  

 

It's the first time that the word "Pastor" made it into our English bibles. 

 

Any ideas?  

 

Carlos

 

 

I don't get why this is odd. Pretty much every bible translation has done this and used different words. There may be no reason at all. Perhaps it is in line with words in common use when the translation was done. After all the object of the KJV was to put the bible into common use language. These days it is nothing of the sort because language changes. Another reason could be learning new things about language. One ofthe languages of the original text is a dead language. It is not in use anymore. For that the method of translation is to use other texts to translate the words. That is find writings in that language where they know what is said and work from there. Or to look at surrounding context. Tenses is the latest thing they are learning is very difficult to understand. While in our language with far more words generally it is easy to tell what tense is meant it is not the case in greek. Unless you can build a time machine and go back and ask them personally you will never find out why. You can make a guess but thats about it.

 

[carlos123]

I appreciate the further input but I have decided to stop my re-involvement in this forum after a number of years being absent.  I had a hope that things might have changed in all that time but things have gone from the way they were then...bad...to worse.  

 

In this thread I have been accused of all kinds of ridiculous nonsense.  It's like I have stepped into a den of vipers intent on biting at my heels no matter what I say.  

 

Admittedly my views may need some correction and I thank whoever of you that may be that brought a true word of correction to me.  I appreciate that.  

 

What I say doesn't apply to everyone either.  Some on this forum are Christians that I find it beneficial to discuss things with and to learn from.  But overall...this forum has gone downhill and badly in that it is by no means a safe place to discuss things anymore.  The atmosphere here is anything but Christian. Religious maybe but Christian?  I don't think so. 

 

Anyway I wish you all well.  May the Lord do with you and this forum whatever he might wish to do with it.  

 

Let the further accusations and bombardment of ridiculous nonsense continue.  Be my guest.  I won't be around to hear any of it as I will unsubscribe from this thread and will blacklist any further emails from this forum advising me of further responses.  I will however still be available by PM if anyone wishes to say anything to me that way.  

 

Take care.  

 

Carlos