1 Peter 5:3

Neither as being lords over God's heritage,.... Or "clergy"; meaning not ecclesiastical persons, as presbyters, and deacons, who are supposed to be under the government of bishops, though not to be

Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. Being lords , [ katakurieuontes (G2634)] - 'lording it' with despotic pride (2 Corinthians 1:24).

Neither as being lords; not exercising any such lordship or dominion over the people, as temporal lords and magistrates exercise over their subjects, ,26, &c.; : compare . Over God’ s heritage; the Lord’ s clergy, the same as flock before; the Greek word is plural, and so it signifies the several churches or flocks which were under the charge of the several elders or pastors. The church of Israel is often called God’ s inheritance, which as it were fell to him by lot, (as the Greek word signifies), and which was as dear to him as men’ s inheritances are to them: see 9:29 32:9 74:2 78:71. Accordingly now the Christian church, succeeding it, is called God’ s inheritance, and the word clerus is no where in the New Testament peculiarly ascribed to ministers of the gospel. This title given here to the Lord’ s people, implies a reason why the elders should not lord it over them, viz. because they are still the Lord’ s inheritance, and not their own; God having not given them a kingdom but a care, and still retaining his right to his people. But being ensamples to the flock; in holiness of life, practising before their eyes what you preach to their ears, .

3 Neither as being lords over God’ s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. Ver. 3. Neither as being lords] About the year 1620 the clergy and laity of England set themselves against the pope’ s exactions; and when the envoy alleged that all churches were the pope’ s, Magister Leonardus made answer, Tuitione non fruitione, defensione non dissipatione. Protect not fleese, defend not scatter. (Jac. Revius in Vit. Pontiff)

(3) Neither as being lords.—Rather, nor yet as lording it. The English version is somewhat too strict for the Greek and for the sense. There is a sense in which the heads of the Church are, and ought to be, lords and princes over the rest; but this is very different from “lording it,” acting tyrannically, forgetting the constitutional rights of their subjects. Over God’s heritage.—Quite literally, Over the lots. The word first of all means (as in Matthew 27:35 or Acts 1:26) the actual scrap of paper or wood that was tossed. Then it comes to mean (like the word “lot” in the language of auctions) the piece of property that falls by lot to any one’s share. Then all notion of chance disappears, and it comes to mean the portion assigned to any one. So St. Peter says that Simon Magus has “no share nor lot in this thing” (Acts 8:21). In Acts 26:18, Colossians 1:12, the same word is rendered “inheritance.” In Acts 17:4, our version endeavours, not very successfully, through the Latin word “consorted,” to keep up the underlying notion of the Greek, which literally is “were allotted to Paul and Silas.” Here, therefore, we must understand “the lots,” over which the clergy are not to lord it, to be the different congregations, districts, parishes, dioceses, which had been allotted to them. At the same time it does not at all imply that any process like drawing of lots had been resorted to in their appointment, as is seen from Acts 17:4, just cited. It will be seen that our version is misleading in substituting singular for plural, and in inserting the word “God’s.” The whole flock is God’s (1 Peter 5:2), purchased with His own blood; but the “allotments” are the portions assigned by Him to the different clergy. It is some consolation to see, when we groan under the lives and characters of some church officers now, that even in the Apostles’ days cowardice, greed, and self-assertion were not unknown. Ensamples to the flock.—The best way of becoming a real prince and lord over men is to show them by example what they ought to do, like Chaucer’s Parson, who— “Cristes lore and hys Apostlis twelve He taught, but fyrst hee practys’d it himselve.” Leighton well quotes from Nazianzen: “Either teach not, or teach by living.”

Verse 3. Neither as being lords over God's heritage] This is the voice of St. Peter in his catholic epistle to the catholic Church! According to him there are to be no lords over God's heritage, the bishops and presbyters who are appointed by the head of the Church are to feed the flock, to guide and to defend it, not to fleece and waste it; and they are to look for their reward in another world, and in the approbation of God in their consciences. And in humility, self-abasement, self-renunciation, and heavenly-mindedness, they are to be ensamples, τυποι, types, to the flock, moulds of a heavenly form, into which the spirits and lives of the flock may be cast, that they may come out after a perfect pattern. We need not ask, Does the Church that arrogates to itself the exclusive title of Catholic, and do its supreme pastors, who affect to be the successors of Peter and the vicars of Jesus Christ, act in this way? They are in every sense the reverse of this. But we may ask, Do the other Churches, which profess to be reformed from the abominations of the above, keep the advice of the apostle in their eye? Have they pastors according to God's own heart, who feed them with knowledge and understanding? Jeremiah 3:15. Do they feed themselves, and not the flock? Are they lords over the heritage of Christ, ruling with a high eeclesiastico-secular hand, disputing with their flocks about penny-farthing tithes and stipends, rather than contending for the faith once delivered to the saints? Are they heavenly moulds, into which the spirits and conduct of their flocks may be cast? I leave those who are concerned to answer these questions; but I put them, in the name of God, to all the preachers in the land. How many among them properly care for the flock? Even among those reputed evangelical teachers, are there not some who, on their first coming to a parish or a congregation, make it their first business to raise the tithes and the stipends, where, in all good conscience, there was before enough, and more than enough, to provide them and their families with not only the necessaries, but all the conveniences and comforts of life? conveniences and comforts which neither Jesus Christ nor his servant Peter ever enjoyed. And is not the great concern among ministers to seek for those places, parishes, and congregations, where the provision is the most ample, and the work the smallest? Preacher or minister, whosoever thou art, who readest this, apply not the word to thy neighbour, whether he be state-appointed, congregation-appointed, or self-appointed; take all to thyself; mutato nomine de TE fabula narratur. See that thy own heart, views, and conduct be right with God; and then proceed to the next verse.

3. neither as being lords over God’s heritage] Better, not lording it over the heritages. There is no word in the Greek answering to “God’s,” and it is not wanted to complete the sense. The word for “lording” implies an authority exercised both wrongfully and oppressively. Ambition, the love of power for the sake of power, is, from the Apostle’s standpoint, as great a hindrance to true pastoral work as avarice. The whole history of the Church, in particular the history of the papacy, as e.g. in the history of Gregory VII., shews how fatally it has worked on souls that had conquered, or had never known, the baser temptation. Warnings against such ambition we find again and again in our Lord’s teaching (Matthew 20:25-28; Luke 22:24-26; Mark 9:34-35). A memorable picture of the working of such a temper in St Paul’s rivals at Corinth meets us in 2 Corinthians 12:20.The word for “heritages” (the Greek noun (êëῆ ?ñïò) is in the plural) means primarily a “lot;” then, as in Deuteronomy 10:9; Deuteronomy 12:12, the “portion assigned by lot.” So Jehovah is said to be the “portion” or “heritage” of the Levites (Deuteronomy 10:9). Here the idea would seem to be that each separate Ecclesia was thought of as the “portion” of the presbyter who watched over it. The later history of the word presents a curious series of transitions. (1) From the congregations it was transferred to the presbyters, as being, it was supposed, in a special sense, the “portion” or “heritage” of God. They accordingly were described as the clerus, the clerici, of the Church, and hence we get the common words, “clergy,” and “clerical.” (2) From the educational superiority of the clerical order in the Middle Ages, the word came to be applied to any person of a higher than average culture. So Chaucer speaks of Homer as a “great clerke,” and the legal phrase “benefit of clergy” retains a trace of the same meaning. (3) From this elevation it has come to be applied, as by a facilis descensus, to the lower forms of culture, and the “parish clerk” and the copying “clerk” at his desk, present the fallen greatness of the word that was once so noble.but being ensamples to the flock] Comp. the word and the thought in 2 Thessalonians 3:9 and Philippians 3:17. It is obvious that the teaching of the verse does not condemn the exercise of all spiritual authority as such, but only its excesses and abuses; but in doing this, it points out also that the influence of example is more powerful than any authority, and to seek after that influence is the best safeguard against the abuse of power.

Neither as being lords - Margin, “overruling.” The word here used (κατακυριεύω katakurieuō) is rendered “exercise dominion over,” in Matthew 20:25; exercise lordship over, in Mark 10:42; and overcame, in Acts 19:16.

3. As (3) to manner. Neither… lords over—Not as lording it. History furnishes a sad commentary on this injunction in the pretended successors of St.