Exegesis of Hebrews 13:17
As you know, I have been interacting with Steve Hays over at
Triablogue on the question of ecclesial submission. There are a number of texts
in the NT that deal with this question, but none of them addresses it as
definitively and as directly as Hebrews 13:17. The aim of this post is to
provide a simple exegetical approach to understanding Hebrews 13:17 without
muddying the waters with contextualization disputes, which is what I think
Steve does in his interpretation. By contextualization, I mean the
anachronistic method of seeing the text through modern culture. To be clear,
this is not an exhaustive treatment of the subject of ecclesial submission.
Rather, it is an attempt to provide a very short exegesis of Hebrews 13:17 to
understand what this text tells us about ecclesial submission.
The purpose for the Hebrew letter was to urge Jewish
Christians to “move on to maturity in the face of looming persecution,” and not
to retreat back into the Judaism from which they had been converted.
[Kostenberger, Kellum, Quarles] In addition, it has been argued that the
purpose was to counteract an early type of heresy within this predominantly
Jewish congregation(s). Some think it could have been the Colossian heresy or
even a sect of Jewish Gnostics. What is clear is that the Christian faith was
under attack as usual. The attack was in the form of persecution and doctrinal
controversy. The author set out to defend the faith and to encourage the
converts to stay the course.
The immediate paragraph in which the text appears begins at
verse 7 of the same chapter. The literary type is mostly in the form of an
exhortation. The fact that the writer references the elders of the Church twice
in what is essentially the last section of the letter is significant. He begins
the paragraph with the exhortation to remember those who led you. He ends the
paragraph with the exhortation and command to obey and submit to those leaders.
All of this exhortation is given within the context of a Jewish congregation
that is under extreme duress externally, via persecution and internally, via
heretical theology. It seems that in that setting, the believers are instructed
to have confidence in God who keeps watch over them and to have confidence in
their leaders for it is through them that God protects the body.
The only variant in the text that appears in NA 28 is ἀποδώσοντες. Rather than the
participle, D* contains the infinitive form of the same word with περὶ ὑμῶν. This indicates there are no
substantive textual variants with which we should be concerned. At a minimum,
this makes the exegetical task much easier and much less time consuming.
The Greek text reads as follows:
Πείθεσθε τοῖς ἡγουμένοις ὑμῶν καὶ ὑπείκετε, αὐτοὶ γὰρ ἀγρυπνοῦσιν ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν ὡς λόγον ἀποδώσοντες, ἵνα μετὰ χαρᾶς τοῦτο ποιῶσιν καὶ μὴ στενάζοντες· ἀλυσιτελὲς γὰρ ὑμῖν τοῦτο.
I have combined
the phrasing and translation as follows:
Πείθεσθε τοῖς ἡγουμένοις ὑμῶν (Obey the ones who are leading
you)
Καὶ ὑπείκετε (and submit to them)
αὐτοὶ γὰρ ἀγρυπνοῦσιν ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν (for they are keeping watch on
behalf of your souls)
ὡς λόγον ἀποδώσοντες (as ones who will give an
account)
ἵνα μετὰ χαρᾶς τοῦτο ποιῶσιν (so that with Joy this they
might do)
καὶ μὴ στενάζοντες
(and not deep stressing)
ἀλυσιτελὲς γὰρ ὑμῖν τοῦτο (for this is unprofitable for
you)
The terms
that call for syntactical analysis are as follows:
Πείθεσθε (PEITHESTHE); ὑπείκετε (HUPEIKETE); ἀγρυπνοῦσιν (AGRUPNOUSIN); ἀποδώσοντες (APODOSONTES); στενάζοντες (STEVANDZONTES); and ἀλυσιτελὲς (ALUSITELES).
PEITHESTHE
is a middle imperative. Hence, the writer is issuing a command that believers
are obligated ethically to embrace and to uphold. LN defines the word “to
submit to authority or reason by obeying—‘to obey.’” There is likely an
iterative sense in the word given it has a continual aspect. The idea is that
the Christian Group is to continue to obey and submit to their leaders.
HUPEIKETE is
defined by LN as “to submit to the orders or directives of someone—‘to obey, to
submit to, obedience, submission.’” This word is also an imperative with the
continuous aspect. When someone says that we are not in fact obligated to obey
and submit to our elders, we are in direct contradiction with this passage.
This does not mean blind submission. In fact, one has to look no further than
this verse to see the required condition for continued submission. We shall
cover that in due course.
TOIS
HEGOUMENOIS are the ones to whom we must submit. Who is this group of people to
whom we must submit? First of all, I want to point out that the word is in the
plural. A plurality of elders exists for a very specific reason. LN defines
this word as “to rule over, with the implication of providing direction and
leadership—‘to rule over, to order, to govern, government, rule.’” BDAG says it
is to be in a supervisory capacity, lead, guide. These early congregations also
had the authority of Scripture as their final authority even if they did not
possess a complete canon. It would be utterly absurd for us to consider that a
completed canon nullifies or even downgrades the commandments to obey our
elders and to submit to one another.
AGRUPNOUSIN
is a present active indicative. The continuous aspect tells us that our leaders
are continually looking after us, looking out for our souls at all times. They
have our best interests at heart. LN says this word means “to take care of or
to look after, with the implication of continuous and wakeful concern for—‘to
look after, to take care of.’” I am sure these leaders were not perfect. I am
sure they were not fully developed in their theological understanding of the
New Covenant. Nevertheless, the principle of submission seems foundational to
their role and function in the body.
APODOSONTES
LN defines the word as “a marker of an agent relation with a numerable event,
with the probable implication of some transfer involved—‘to make, to perform,
to do, to give.’” The idea is one of great responsibility. These elders watch
over us as men who will be held accountable by God for the health of our very
souls. Most commentators take this as expressing necessity, hence the
translation “must.” However, Lane argued that such an approach misses the
subjective-voluntative force of this classical idiom. He suggested the
translation “as those who intend to
give an account” [David Allen, NAC]. The acceptance of this kind of
responsibility in and of itself demands only the highest respect.
STEVANDZONTES
is defined by LN as to groan or sigh as the result of deep concern or stress. The
word denotes feeling which is internal and unexpressed [Moulton-Milligan]. “The
author’s desire is that the leaders may do their pastoral duty with joy and not
with sighing or groaning, where the participle in Greek expresses manner. The
burden can be taken as what the leaders experience if the readers disobey or in
the sense of if the leaders had to give a negative account” [David Allen, NAC].
We should be considerate of our elders, doing our best not to add to the heavy
burden they currently bear by nature of their office and function.
ALUSITELES
which means, “pertaining to being of no advantage—‘of no advantage, without
special benefit.’” To create unpleasantness in the elder relationship by making
their job less than joyous is unprofitable for us. We derive no benefit from
making it hard on our elders to lead.
One of the
first signs of danger in the world of biblical studies is that men, educated
men, unnecessarily take the simple and direct and twist it into the complex and
convoluted. They seemingly are able to put together a five-thousand-word
explanation that does nothing but make the clear, vague. What can we learn
about Hebrews 13:17 by studying the historical context and language in which it
was inspired?
1. We learn
that God has placed spiritual leaders in the church. Since God does nothing
without a purpose, it is safe to say God had a good reason for doing what He
did.
2. We learn
that God has commanded us through the author of the Hebrew letter to obey the
authority He has place in the Church and to submit to it.
3. We learn
that godly elders are continually looking out for our souls as those who will
actually give an account to God for how they lead and for the health of our
souls. This applies to ethical as well as doctrinal purity.
4. We learn
that we are to submit with joy, making sure that we do not add to the burden of
those whom God has placed over us.
5. Finally,
we learn that it is unprofitable for us to add to the burden of those who lead
us in Christ. We derive no benefit whatever from making their task
unnecessarily more difficult than it already is.
6. We learn
that obeying and submitting to ecclesial authority is not an option that we can take or
leave. It is a commandment. We also learn that this situation in the Church was
not temporary. There is no reason for anyone to think that once the canon
became complete that those who can read are no longer under any obligation to
obey and submit to their elders. Such thinking introduces an unjustifiable pragmatism
to the text.
Hays’s
argument can be boiled down to two basic thoughts: first, since we have the authoritative
revelation and can access it ourselves, the need for submission to local elders
is no longer necessary. Second, there are pseudo-elders out there, wolves in
sheep’s clothing and therefore to teach ecclesial submission is to place people
in harm’s way.
So long as
believers walk around with a sin nature, the need for godly oversight and
humble submission is necessary. The current state of affairs in many Western
and especially American churches is quite frankly pathetic. The Church is
filled with self-authoritative individuals from top to bottom. No one takes the
sermon seriously because they have decided for themselves that the old man is a
buffoon; that his beliefs are antiquated and outdated and that they have the
same proficiency in handling the text as the next person. If the Church doesn’t
play the right music, or have a strong hedonistic entertainment environment for
the self-centered, Jesus-loving youth, we are free to move on without
hesitation. Hays’s approach, rather than correct and rebuke the current cafeteria-like,
marketing approach that most people take to Church selection, encourages it.
Without a
proper understanding of the nature of the Church, and what it means to be part
of the body of Christ, a sound view on the subject of ecclesial authority is nearly
impossible. As long as Church is viewed through the modern lens of American
culture, that is, a place where I decide to go because it meets “x” need or
makes me feel like “x” or provides “x” for my family, the NT concept of “the
Christian Group” will never be understood, appreciated or realized in modern
times. The consequences will continue to be church hopping on a whim,
self-appointed apostles, prophets, and leaders who set out to start ministries
like most Americans start a business. The thought of elder sanction and submission
rarely cross our minds. Hays completely misses the point when says that his
view is not anachronistic. It is his pragmatic and modern way of looking at
things that leads him to draw the conclusions about the text that he does. Like
so many others who handle the text, Hays fails to remove his cultural bias to
get to what the writer is saying and more importantly, why he is saying it.
The truth of the matter is that in Steve Hays's understanding of the nature of the authority of the Church, and her elders, it seems that the modern existence of elders would be superfluous at best. I would be interested in understanding Steve's view of what submission to the Church or elders actually looks like. If it isn't any of the things I have pointed out, then what is it? So far, Hays's only positive statement about submission is that we submit to the authority of special revelation. But bound up in THAT authoritative revelation itself is the command to submit to something other than the authoritative revelation. In other words, the one thing Hays admits we must submit to, Scripture, commands us to submit to our leaders. Hence, refusal to submit to one's elders biblically, is ipso facto refusal to submit to the authority of Scripture.
The truth of the matter is that in Steve Hays's understanding of the nature of the authority of the Church, and her elders, it seems that the modern existence of elders would be superfluous at best. I would be interested in understanding Steve's view of what submission to the Church or elders actually looks like. If it isn't any of the things I have pointed out, then what is it? So far, Hays's only positive statement about submission is that we submit to the authority of special revelation. But bound up in THAT authoritative revelation itself is the command to submit to something other than the authoritative revelation. In other words, the one thing Hays admits we must submit to, Scripture, commands us to submit to our leaders. Hence, refusal to submit to one's elders biblically, is ipso facto refusal to submit to the authority of Scripture.
Ecclesial submission
was never put in place because the Church lacked the canon. Ecclesial
submission was put in place because, “I know that after my departure savage
wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your
own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples
after them. “Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a
period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears. (Acts
20:29-31)
Ecclesial
submission was put in place "for the equipping of the saints for the
work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the
faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure
of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. (Eph. 4:12-13)
No comments:
Post a Comment