Pastors Must Be Teachers

The general care of the Christian flock is the work of a pastor and, to this end, some receive the gift of being a pastor (Ephesians 4.11).  By its very title, it compares to the work of a shepherd caring for his sheep, the word “pastors” being the translation of “poimenas,” a word meaning, literally, “shepherds.”  A pastor is one who leads, provides, protects, and cares for his flock.  As in the natural figure no small skill is required to care for the flock properly, so, in the spiritual reality, a pastor needs a supernatural gift to be, to his flock, all that a pastor should.

A significant insight into the character of a true pastor’s work is afforded by the close connection between pastoral work and teaching.  In Ephesians 4.11, the use of “kai” ["and" - RZ] linking pastors and teachers instead of the usual “de” ["and," but can also mean "but" or "also" - RZ], implies that one cannot be a true pastor without being, also, a teacher.  The principle involved is of tremendous significance.  While it is not necessary for a teacher to have all the qualities of a pastor, it is vital to the work of a true pastor that he teach his flock.  It is obvious that a shepherd who did not feed his flock would not be worthy of the name.  Likewise, in the spiritual realm, the first duty of a pastor is to feed his flock on the Word of God.  Quite apart from being merely an organizer, promoter, or social leader, the true pastor gives himself to preaching the Word.

From: The Holy Spirit: A Comprehensive Study of the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit by John F. Walvoord (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958), p. 170.

John Flipse Walvoord (1910-2002) was President and Professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas, Texas, from 1952 to 1986.  He then served as the school’s Chancellor until shortly before his death.

 

John MacArthur on the New Testament – 15

Although Herod the tetrarch was not a Jew and had little interest in them or their religion, he eventually heard the news about Jesus.  The term “tetrarch” technically referred to a “ruler of a fourth part,” but it came to be used as a general title for any subordinate ruler of a Roman province or region.  He was not a true king in the sense that his father, Herod the Great, was, but he coveted the title and was often called by it (see verse 9).  He would later ask the emperor, Caligula, to proclaim him king, but was refused.  He was a relatively minor potentate in Palestine who had little power or influence outside his own jurisdiction.

Herod the tetrarch was a son of Herod the Great by his fourth wife, Malthake, a Samaritan, and was a half-brother of Herod Philip, the son of his father’s third wife, Mariamne the Boethusian.  Herod the Great was an Idumean and, because he not only was a Gentile but was a descendant of Esau and had married a Samaritan, he had been especially despised by the Jews.  His cold-blooded atrocities – such as his having all the members of the Sanhedrin put to death for daring to challenge his authority, his having at least one of his wives and two of his sons executed, and his slaying all the male babies of Bethlehem in an unsuccessfull attempt to try to destroy the Messiah – made him more hated still.

In secular history, Herod the tetrarch was known as Herod Antipas and, after the death of his father, Herod the Great, the Romans divided the kingdom (which comprised most of Palestine) among three of his many sons.  The two besides Antipas were his brother, Archelaus (see Matthew 2.22) and his half-brother, Philip (see Matthew 14.3).  Archelaus was given the southern provinces of Judea and Samaria, Philip was given the northern provinces of Trachonitis and Iturea, and Herod Antipas was given the area in between, which included Galilee and Perea.

From: Commentary: Matthew 8-15 (1987), p. 417.  Comment on Matthew 14.1-2.

 

The Temporary Spiritual Gifts

It is apparent, from 1 Corinthians, that speaking with tongues, by its very nature, is peculiarly liable to abuse.  With this in view, certain facts may be re-stated in conclusion.

First, speaking in tongues is the least of all spiritual gifts.  It was, therefore, not to be exalted as an evidence of great spiritual power or usefulness.  The prominence given to it by certain sects is quite apart from the Scriptures. 

Second, speaking in tongues was, in no sense, a test of salvation.  By its very nature as a gift, it is clear that not all Christians possessed it, even in apostolic times.  The total lack of reference, outside of Acts and 1 Corinthians, must imply that it was nonessential.  If tongues were essential, even as an outward sign of inward salvation, it is inconceivable that it should not be given a prominent place in the plan of salvation.  It is significant that neither the Gospel of John nor Romans mentions it.

Third, the gift of speaking in tongues was no indication of spirituality.  Of all the churches to whom Paul wrote, the Corinthian church manifested the most carnality and gross sin, yet speaking in tongues was more in evidence here than in the other churches.  It is a matter of history that the tongues movement has not led in holiness of living but, rather, has been guilty of all manner of excesses.  Many godly men and women through the centuries have been entirely aloof from any experience of speaking in tongues.

Fourth, speaking in tongues is not inseparable from baptism of the Spirit.  According to 1 Corinthians 12.13, every Christian is baptized by the Spirit, but it is obvious that all Christians do not speak in tongues.  The attempt to make speaking in tongues a necessary condition for baptism of the Spirit is one of many evils attending abuse of the scriptural doctrine.

From: The Holy Spirit: A Comprehensive Study of the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit by John F. Walvoord (Grand Rapids: ZondervanPublishingHouse, 1965), p. 187.  Originally published in 1954.

John F. Walvoord (1910-2002) was President and Professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas, Texas, from 1952 to 1986.  He served as Chancellor from 1986 to 2002.