Why translate _poimeen_, shepherd, in every other place, and cover up the word shepherd with the Latin word pastor in one place? Whatever idea the Lord and the apostles intended to convey in this matter, they deemed the _one word_ sufficient. What reason can any man give for representing the original word _poimeen_ by the word shepherd in every instance but one, and there using the Latin word _pastor_? Rome loves Latin. It is not the _vulgar tongue_. What reason is there for departing from the otherwise invariable rule and giving us _pastor_, Eph. iv. 11? Why not give us “Chief-Pastor,” or “Arch-Pastor,” and not “Chief-Shepherd?” Why not style the Lord “the Pastor of the sheep,” and not “Shepherd of the sheep?” _Pastor_ would not read well as the correlative of _sheep_. We hear sermons on the offices of our Lord, as King, Priest, Prophet. Why not have a sermon on his office as _Pastor_? Then we might have a sermon on the office of the church as a _flock_, or the office of the members as _sheep_. Could we not say _flock’s_ office, _sheep’s_ office? The Lord has no such office as _shepherd_, or, in Latin, _pastor_. There is no such office as _pastorate_, nor officer as _pastor_. There is not one word in the New Covenant about the qualifications of a pastor, the election of one, the calling of one, or the installation of one. As the correlative of the word _flock_, when the church is figuratively called _flock_, the Lord who cares for the flock and has the oversight of it is figuratively called _Shepherd_, or, when the followers of the Lord are figuratively called _sheep_, the Lord is figuratively called “the Shepherd of the sheep.” When the Lord is called “the Chief-Shepherd,” or “Arch-Shepherd,” the church is in view as the flock of which he is Shepherd, and the _overseers_ in the church are _under_ shepherds, but there is no _shepherd’s_ office, nor _flock’s_ office. The bishops or overseers are as certainly _bishops_ or _overseers_, when figuratively called _shepherds_, as if literally called _overseers_. No other office or work is meant.
Coming now to the practical matter, we desire Bible things and Bible names for them. We desire to preserve the church and everything in it as the Lord gave it. We desire, in the matter in hand, to prevent the creation of any _new office_ in the church. There is nothing new or unscriptural in the idea of an overseer who devotes himself wholly to the word and teaching. There may be other overseers who do not give themselves wholly to the word and teaching. Then there is nothing unscriptural in an evangelist remaining with a church one, two or more years, to set in order things that are wanting, assist in qualifying the church to take care of itself, and preach the gospel to the community. In this capacity he is not a church officer at all, but doing the work of an evangelist. He is not with the church to “perform divine service” for it, to lord it over it, or as a ruler, nor _permanently_, but assisting the church in her infancy and enabling her to take care of herself.