Should Pastors Be Obeyed? Part II

Pastoral-Theological Reflections on Hebrews 13:17

Below is Part II of a paper I presented in two different contexts between 2019 and 2021. Part I can be found here.

---

III. Pastoral Obedience in Exegetical Perspective

a.     The Hebrews’ Context

The epistle to the Hebrews is permeated by allusion, quotation, symbol, and Old Testament type, exceeding any other New Testament document. The extent of Old Testament symbolism repurposed for Christological exposition is breathtaking. Accordingly, it would be understandable for readers to overlook the deeply pastoral concerns of this letter. It remains, more fundamentally, a “word of exhortation” than a theological tract or doctrinal treatise (i.e., 13:22). We should hasten to clarify that doctrine serves a pastoral function, as does all New Testament teaching.[1] The indicatives of the Gospel provide the basis for the ethical imperatives of the Christian life.[2] Even though much of language of Hebrews begins not in Gospel indicative but in Old Testament allusion or imagery, the New Covenant fulfillment is never far behind. This then provides a basis for the hortatory appeal of the letter throughout the epistle. Specifically, the enjoinder “let us” becomes an important refrain, critical to the perseverance of the Christian community (4:1, 11, 14, 16; 6:1; 10:22-24; 12:1, 28; 13:13, 15).[3]

The community of believers had some cases drifted (2:1-4), doubted (3:7-4:19), or grown dull (5:11-6:12) to God’s Word. They were even warned about growing to despise the Word (10:26-39), a state that if not remedied would lead to an ultimate defiance of and denial of God’s Word (12:14-29). Wavering believers are admonished to persevere. While commentators and theologians have debated the rhetorical function and theological referent of these warnings, none deny the pervasiveness of the theme of spiritual warning.

However, presumably not every individual believer was at the same place of spiritual concern. Though some New Testament churches were generally characterized, whether the divisiveness of Corinth, or the doctrinal fidelity of Ephesus (e.g., Rev. 2:2-3), it is reasonable to assume that spiritual maturity was always uneven across congregations then as it is now. For the apostle Paul to urge those “who are spiritual” in Galatia to engage in spiritual restoration presupposes this (Gal. 6:1). It is then safe to assume that both wayward and stable believers alike were commanded in Hebrews 13:17 to obey and submit to their leaders.

b.      The Meaning of 13:17

With this larger context in view, we are now prepared to consider the meaning of the commands in 13:17, as well as the rest of the verse which provides the rationale for the commands. The verbs translated as “obey” (πείθεσθε) and “submit” (ὑπείκετε) are paramount to appreciating the force of this text. Obey here can mean to “give way to or yield to admonition.” But while we typically assume it signals strict conformity or unquestionable compliance, it also can convey the idea of persuasion or the placing confidence in another.[4] Indeed, the distinct form of the verb (pres mid, 2pl) is better rendered as “to be persuaded.” Some commentators such as Outlaw distinguish between the two verbs by saying obey pertains to responses when we agree, and submit covers those occasions in which we may disagree, or their instructions may initially appear harsh.[5] While I’m not convinced the distinction is entirely obvious, he is right to point out that the stronger word for obedience (in the conventional sense) is used elsewhere with respect to obeying God (e.g., 5:9, 11:8).[6] Spiritual leaders help inspire this type of obedience or following when it is born out of persuasion, which is the result of faithfully teaching the Word.

The stronger term to submit (hupeiko) on the other hand, “may indicate a strained relationship between the leadership and some members of the Christian community.”[7] It does possess more semantic force. “It only appears here in the New Testament and means ‘to submit to one’s authority’.”[8] While some rift is quite possible given the spiritual struggles of their community, we can only speculate.

 Who are the leaders of Hebrews 13:17? While the word used here is a form of a verb (hēgeomai) that can refer to various forms of leadership, the references to speaking the Word and overseeing the flock points to the role of elder.[9] It does not refer to some generic leaders, but specifically those leaders who provide the instruction and sound teaching that elders are charged with providing (e.g., 1 Thess. 5:12, 1 Tim. 5:17). That these leaders are to be understood as pastor-teachers is justified not simply because the term for leading doesn’t refer to a separate office, but also by the rest of the verse. These leaders watch out for the souls of those obeying and submitting, and will have to give an account for them. This squares with the New Testament portrait of the pastorate. They are overseers or bishops (episkopoi). These elders, also called shepherds (poimen), are told that if they serve well they will be rewarded when the Chief Shepherd appears (e.g., 13:20, 1 Pt. 5:4). The connection between oversight and accountability later in Hebrews 13 and 1 Peter especially parallel 13:17, confirming our view that those leading here are pastors to whom obedience and submission is due.

It also seems that if the leadership were the primary problem, and not obedience, that would have been identified. After all, the apostles don’t mind speaking of the detailed standards for pastors and teachers. However, the author does not let the moment pass without reminding them of their accountability to God, of which more will be said below.

Some commentators also note the thematic connection between 13:7 and 13:17. An initial reading does evoke the idea of listening to leaders: “Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.” The main difference between the two commands might be the historical location of the leaders. Outlaw, for example, says 13:7 refers to church leaders who have already died. This would fit the flow of thought preceding this in chapter 11. Here the example and words of faithful leaders stand as guideposts to help orient believers to the superiority of Christ in the face of their trials, over and against the inferior ways of the past. Verse 17, on the other hand, is focused on current leaders.

a.     Dangers & Checks

The biblical authors were well aware of the possibility of excesses in the exercise of any form of authority. This is why we see so many qualifications connected to the exercise of spiritual authority, whether in the home or the church. Fathers, for example, must not provoke their children to wrath as they rear them. Whatever nurture and admonition they provide must be done “in the Lord.” And as mentioned above, the apostles no doubt recalled the warnings of their teacher Jesus, who cautioned them about lording authority over people as the Gentiles did.

But what of pastors? How can they be obeyed and submitted without it becoming an opportunity for evil? First, Divine accountability provides a powerful check on the abuse of pastoral authority in the church. We will consider this further below. Second, as we will see below, a plurality of elders and a healthy understanding of congregationalism and church membership also provides accountability. But other biblical texts also provide spiritual checks on any elder/pastor who may abuse or misuse the authority granted him in his teaching, leadership, or shepherding.[10]

First Peter 5 makes clear that there is no place for excess or abuse in the exercise of pastoral authority: “Shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly;  not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock” (5:2-3).  Interestingly, the language of responsibility and oversight is linked again to a caution about the inappropriate use of one’s pastoral position. On the surface, it might seem that the Petrine audience was especially prone to poor pastoral leadership. However, it isn’t just Hebrews 13:17 and 1 Peter 5 which associate accountability with qualification for pastoral leadership. When we consider the Pastoral Epistles, we also see much more attention given to the character and integrity of overseers rather than the actual task of overseeing (e.g., 1 Tim. 3:1-7). This pattern doesn’t diminish one’s competence for the ministry, for elsewhere the ability of pastors in its various facets is evident, whether teaching sound doctrine or admonishing the wayward. For example, pastors must teach with all patience (e.g., 2 Tim. 4:2). Notice that a skill must be exercised, in a specific manner, and presumably from a certain posture of heart.

We might then say that pastors aren’t best known as authorities. Rather, it is better to say that they are authorized, by virtue of God’s gifting and calling through the congregation, to teach, lead, and shepherd. The appropriate response of faithful is to be persuaded by this ministry, and in so doing to submit themselves. To grieve the shepherd is of no benefit to the sheep. Shepherds who have the Chief Shepherd’s reappearing in view are not infallible, but they are accountable. Therefore, they and the flock are to remember that pastors’ authority is derivative of God’s gifting and the congregation’s calling. This leads naturally into some further theological reflection on obedience and submission to pastoral authority. We will limit our reflection to two main ideas: the theological locus of authority as a key to its true significance, and the final accountability of pastors.

IV. Pastoral Obedience in Theological Perspective

Victor Austin invites us to participate in a thought experiment. He asks us to envision creation, fall, and redemption as points along a theological continuum. Now, where should authority be located? Many would hasten to locate it somewhere between the fall and redemption.[11] After all, the most glaring form of authority in most people’s lives is the state. As the state wields the sword, law and order are maintained and justice is upheld. Certainly law enforcement would not be necessary in a world unspoiled by sin! Yet Austin challenges this narrow conception of authority. He argues that it “is built into what it means to be human, and we never will escape from needing it for our flourishing.”[12]

If authority is in fact a “performative concept” in which people do what they were made to do or authorized to do, then would this not reach across the entire continuum of creation, fall, and redemption?[13] Adam and Eve, as Andy Crouch explains, exercise true power (or authority) by having dominion over the created order.[14] If human stewardship over creation continues, even in a sinful world, then legitimate authority is being wielded even then. What about in the future? Will there be authority in the life to come? If humans were authorized to cultivate and steward God’s world before the fall, and if they remain under some obligation as stewards now, why would that stewardship entirely cease in the future?

a. The Theological Nature and Pastoral Aim of Authority

Our stewardship of authority, as Austin would have us think of it, is much more like a symphony orchestra than a rigid hierarchy of increasingly powerful people.[15] A conductor exercises authority over the various instrumentalists by giving direction to the interpretation of particular pieces of music. Each instrumentalist plays a part, using his or her own instrument, reading the music according to his own skill or ability. Yet “the more complex the musical ensemble, the more the need for authority.”[16] Austin explains: “It is the complexities of social organization with their attendant localizations and focusing of authority, that make possible large-scale coordinated actions of human creativity.”[17] At this point we should observe the obvious parallel this has to local church leadership. Within the body there are many members with numerous gifts. Even if we could imagine an environment where a specific church was entirely sinless, it would still need some form of authority to direct the activities of body, as a conductor might do for the orchestra.[18]

If it is then true that authority is pertinent to all of life, ministry included, and it is for the purpose of human flourishing, authority could be seen theologically as “an aspect of God’s providence for the human race.”[19] This is one of the ways by which His authority is granted to humans to accomplish purposes, earthly and divine. Some authors have even pointed out that power, another variation on our theme, is itself a gift.[20] When properly used, it blesses. Real authority augments the human. Small wonder that the Latin root of authority is augere, meaning to cause to increase or grow.[21] This insight adds a degree of dimension to our understanding of Hebrews 13:17. Those pastors who oversee obedient and submissive members by teaching, leading, and shepherding well, cause them to flourish. This brings joy to the shepherd, and delight to the sheep.

As pastors provide doctrinal direction and oversight they are watching over the lives of the flock (agrupneō). As Hammett explains, this word has the “idea of constant wakefulness or unceasing vigilance. This care would be expressed concretely in acts like pastoral visitation, personal counseling, and ministry in times of sickness…and grief.”[22] This only makes sense given that the leaders are watching out for people’s souls. Picirilli explains, “In context, here, [soul] appears to refer to the person as a whole, but with some focus on the person as a spiritual being whose eternal welfare is at stake.”[23] Therefore, elders must be “spiritually alert or wide awake.”[24] Why? Because they will give an account. Yet the ministry of the elders is hindered and diminished by having to carry out their ministry of leadership, instruction, and oversight with the kind of stresses that accompany unyielding members. This ultimately undoes the entire body since the pastor is hindered, and thus his ministry of leadership is hindered. Such a conscientiousness approach to the flock fits the care implied by agrupneō.

b. The Final Accountability of Pastors

The theological entailments of authority cannot end with us only speaking of the affirmations that surround appropriate pastoral authority. We must also linger on the warning embedded in Hebrews 13:17. Peter’s reminder that judgment begins at the household of faith is more than a reminder to flee hypocrisy. It is a call to self-examination, to take caution, and give heed to one’s life and doctrine. Only in so doing can pastors be said to take seriously the reminder that they will give an account.

Certainly the New Testament has much to say about Divine judgment, the judgment seat of Christ, and the watchful eye of the just Judge of heaven. These themes coalesce to form a robust basis for repentance and godly living in the present and hope for the future. But when coupled with James 3:1, one remembers that “professional talkers” have a greater reason for humility, caution, and care in their work than any other servant in the local church.[25]

Divine accountability functions as a check on the worst impulses of earthly leaders. When faithful congregations meditate on this doctrine it puts the church’s leaders on notice. Moreover, whenever the policies and practices of a local church take seriously the preaching of the church, they don’t assume members nor leaders are angels, but sinners saved by grace. Churches that take Divine accountability and judgment seriously, then, do not wait until the worst has happened to pursue measures that protect clergy, congregation, and community. There is, one could easily say, a theology of judgment and accountability implicit in the policies of the church. The lack of such policies presupposes far too little about the depth of depravity in people and the vulnerability of people, especially children. The lack of enforcement of well-written policies shows that the love which the church proclaims is mere ornament.  

While the reminder of Divine accountability is certainly vertical in its ultimate orientation, its implications must be fleshed out horizontally. For only then will we be able to say that Hebrews 13:17 is not only pastorally expedient, but theologically serious. Some of the pastoral and practical considerations of this substantial verse have already been mentioned, or at least implied. But in our final section we will seek to be more explicit in thinking through its import for today’s church.

---

[1] See Ellen Charry, By the Renewing of Your Minds: The Pastoral Function of Christian Doctrine (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997).

[2] W. Jackson Watts, “‘In One Accord’: Bridging the Divide Between Doctrine and Practice,” Integrity 6 (2016): 53–79.

[3] “Let us” is the commonly rendered English translation of what are typically aorist active participles, though not all of these references take that precise formulation. Nevertheless, the sense of a group of people being urged forward is clear in each reference.

[4] Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson: 2003), 497:3982.

[5] W. Stanley Outlaw, Randall House Bible Commentary: The Book of Hebrews (Nashville: Randall House, 2005), 370–71

[6] Outlaw, Randall House Bible Commentary: Hebrews, 371.

[7] George H. Guthrie, The NIV Application Commentary: Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 442

[8] Benjamin L. Merkle, “The Biblical Basis for Church Membership,” in Those Who Must Give An Account: A Study of Church Membership and Church Discipline (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2012), 34.

[9] Hammett, 164.

[10] These terms are intentionally chosen to reflect the three-fold understanding of the pastoral role as outlined in Robert E. Picirilli’s Teacher, Leader, Shepherd: The New Testament Pastor (Nashville: Randall House, 2007).

[11] Austin, Up with Authority, 1–2.

[12] Austin, Up with Authority, 2.

[13] Austin, Up with Authority, 3.

[14] Andy Crouch, Playing God: Redeeming the Gift of Power (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2013), 34.

[15] Hierarchy, he points out, is “but one possible structuring of authority.” See Austin, 17–18.

[16] Austin, Up with Authority, 18

[17] Austin, Up with Authority, 18.

[18] Here we may think of Kevin Vanhoozer’s concept of the church as a theatre, the Bible as the script, and the pastor as the director. See The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology (Louisville, Westminster John Knox, 2005), 445–449.

[19] Austin, Up with Authority, 9.

[20] Crouch, Playing God, 13.

[21] I am indebted to Austin for this insight.

[22] John Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005), 163–64.

[23] Picirilli, 99.

[24] Guthrie, NIV Application Commentary, 442.

[25] I have borrowed this euphemism from Dr. Jeff Robinson to refer to pastors. He further develops his insights on care with speech in Taming the Tongue: How the Gospel Transforms Our Talk (The Gospel Coalition, 2021).