Hebrews 13:17 and Acts 15:24: To Whom We Gave No Such Commandment

"You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over (katakurieuo) them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you..." (Matthew 20:25).

"Unfortunately, the Western penchant for "offices" and "positions" has caused many Christians to bring these ideas to the Biblical text and view elders as official. But such thinking confuses the oversight of the early church with modern social conventions. It also strips the leadership terminology found in the Bible of its native meaning."[1]

"If you doubt that [the institutional] system is built on top-down [military style] control, try questioning it. If you do, it's quite likely that you will hear the rhetoric engines kick in. The frightening truth is that, all too often, those who raise questions about ecclesiastical authority send tremors through the ecclesiastical system. And they are often vilified as a result. If you are a dissenter who leaves the institutional church because you believe it to be unscriptural, you might be branded a "heretic," a "boat-rocker," a "troublemaker," a "loose canon," or an "unsubmissive rebel." Such invocation of religious rhetoric is designed to stifle thought. It's calculated to derail honest dissent with the partisan status quo."[2].

In the KJV, Acts 15: 24 states, "Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment." This statement is a response made by the apostles regarding the behavior of some Christians from Jerusalem who had traveled among the Gentile churches scattered throughout Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia attempting to bind circumcision and the Law of Moses on other Christians (Acts 15:1ff). The Gentile Christians had been troubled as a result of these men making laws where God no longer did. However, they were comforted when they learned that the apostles did not allow for a few Christians to bind as laws their strong opinions for which their was no apostolic authority.

In addition to binding on Christians today a temporary collection that began and ended near A.D. 50 for the poor saints in Jerusalem (See The Collection For the Saints), another primary characteristic of the modern, institutional church is mandatory "church building" attendance on Sunday nights and Wednesday nights. Most of us are unaware that there is no apostolic commandment or example for this practice. Where in the New Testament is the commandment that we must assemble twice on Sunday and once on Wednesday nights to be considered faithful to God? Where is the apostolic example of mandatory meetings other than once on the first day of the week, and that being only to partake of the Lord's Supper in the midst of a family meal? (Acts 20:7; cf. 1 Cor. 11:33; Jude 12).[3] There is no such command or example because the apostles did not bind attending Sunday and Wednesday night "services" at a public church building anymore than they bound circumcision and keeping the Law of Moses on the Gentiles (Acts 15:24).

Some think that the "authority" (the word means "persuasion:" see below) mentioned in Hebrews 13:17 gives elders power to make "expedient" laws over other members, yet they will condemn Catholics for binding laws of expediency for priests not commanded by the apostles like forbidding marriage and abstaining from eating meat. Elders do not have a right to make laws or "exercise authority" "as lords over" other Christians. If they do, then why was circumcision not allowed to be forced on the Gentiles by Jewish elders? Paul thought circumcision was expedient for Timothy (Acts 16:3). It did not violate other Scriptures, and in fact, was a commandment of God at one time. Why would elders not be allowed to bind circumcision if they thought it would help? But most importantly, and more relevantly, why does one assembly per week not fulfill Paul's admonition in Hebrews 10:25? Requiring Christians to attend on Sunday nights and Wednesday nights or else risk being "troubled" by means of false accusations of "unfaithfulness," guilt, or being ostracized is adding to the word of God (Rev. 22:18-19). Attempting to use a dualistic and legalistic hermeneutic of "generic" and "specific" authority does not change this fact.

The institutional church system is primarily maintained based upon a misinterpretation of Hebrews 13:17. Many elders, preachers, and teachers unwittingly use this verse to sustain ungodly control over and (mis) judge other Christians' faith—something Paul and Peter did not dare to do (2 Cor. 1:24, KJV; 1 Pet. 5:3; cf. Mat. 20:25-26). Some have gone as far as to say:

"If local leadership has commanded an assembly and attendance is expected, and the one who is forsaking the assembly is doing so habitually then, yes, it is a sin according to Hebrews 13:17." Further, "A matter of option can be turned into a matter of obligation by men, if those men are elders."[4]

These statements are profound. They contradict Matthew 20:25-26 where Jesus instructs that leadership in His church is not to behave as the rulers of the Gentiles who lord it over others (cf. 1 Peter 5:3). Jesus is not talking about "an improper attitude" the rulers of the Gentiles had. It is governing authority over another Christian's faith that Jesus forbids (please see 2 Cor. 1:24, KJV). No one in the church has this kind of authority over other Christians. Strong's Concordance defines the word Jesus uses (katakurieuo) as "to lord against, that is, control, subjugate: - exercise dominion over (lordship), be lord over, overcome." Elders don't have "control." Oversight is NOT "control." May elders bind a hundred services per week? If we do not attend them all, do we sin and risk eternal hell? Does this not show the fallacy of using a dualistic hermeneutic of "generic" and "specific" authority in a top-down, military manner? Also, the phrase "do all in the name of the Lord" does not mean in the name of "military law." See (Do All In the Name of the Lord). It is not wise to continue to allow the interpretation of one man, or tradition, to be repeated without an anticipated Scriptural discussion during the assembly (1 Cor. 14:29ff; cf. Acts 20:7). The church is not the hierarchical military.

Simply because a word (submit, hypotasso) "had a military usage" does not give a few older Christians the right to run God's church like the military. The word also "has a non-military usage."

"This word was a Greek military term meaning "to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader." In non-military use, it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden" (bold emph. mine, sp). 

Non-military usage has nothing to do with making laws for controlling others to "submit" to. "Submit" (hypotasso) is simply a respectful attitude all are to have toward one another--not obedience. Based on Jesus' comments in Matthew 20:25, which do you think He prefers?  All Christians are to have this attitude--not just "the younger" (Eph. 5:21). Also, why is the word "likewise" seemingly omitted from the traditional interpretation of 1 Peter 5:1-7? The younger are told "likewise" submit to the elders. The elders were to "submit" first by example! Does this mean the younger can make laws of expediency to govern the church? No. Churches of Christ have simply inherited the hierarchical model of the 4th century Gentile church and modified it.

In Matthew 15:1-14, Jesus further exposes the vanity of "teaching [binding interpretations] as doctrines the commandments of men" when He reproves the Pharisees for questioning why His disciples did not keep the traditions of the elders in their day. Jesus, in His wisdom, gives the final destination to this line of reasoning in Matthew 15:14 when he states, "If the blind lead the blind, they will both fall into a ditch." The reason both fall is because an inherited, clergy/laity mentality exists to which Christians have been culturally and repeatedly conditioned. Is not this kind of power over others the very behavioral apostasy that not only Jesus condemns (katakurieuo, Matt. 20:25), and that Paul and Peter dared not exercise over other Christians (2 Cor. 1:24; cf. 1 Pet. 5:3), but that church history records as the Great Apostasy (Acts 20:30; 1 Tim. 4:1-4)?

It seems that since we have focused for so long on "possessing the right doctrine" in a ritualistic manner, that behavioral apostasy not only goes unnoticed, but it is commonly accepted. And it will not do to compartmentalize Jesus' command as only an "improper attitude" elders are not supposed to have, but "really they can lord it over others in 'matters of expediency." The hierarchical church completely reverses the intent of God's word by making the attitude God wants all to have into "submission by the younger only," and the governing authority that Jesus forbids into a "matter of expediency."

The false doctrine found in the italicized quotes above is a slippery slope for "systematized error" (Eph. 4:14, Berry's Interlinear). It also provides opportunity for the kind of power struggle that occurred among church leaders for hundreds of years following Paul's warning to elders in the first century (Acts 20:30). Paul's prophecy to Timothy that church leaders would soon bind abstaining from marriage and eating of meat serves as a warning to anyone who make would make laws and bind them on other Christians (1 Tim. 4:1-4). The Great Apostasy resulted when leaders in the original churches of Christ organized a universal power structure over other Christians and the church morphed from functional service among equals unified on the basis of familial love into a top-down institutional, business-like system dependent on misinterpretation of verses like Hebrews 13:17 and 10:25 and 1st Corinthians 16:1-4 for its sustenance.

So, how has Hebrews 13:17 been misunderstood? Note the contrast between the King James Version and the more modern English Standard Version for the rendering of this passage: 

            "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves…" (KJV)

             "Obey your leaders and submit to them…"  (ESV).  

Note that the KJV translates the Greek word "hegeomai" as "them that have the rule over you," whereas the ESV translates it as "leaders."  The phrase found in the King James encourages the concept of elder rulership. The problem with this translation is that none of the three Greek words for elder (presbuteros, episkopos, poimen) are used in this passage.  Support for translating the word hegeomai as "leaders" is found in Acts 15:22 in speaking of Judas Barsabbas and Silas. Here they are called "leading men," in contrast to the apostles and elders:[5] 

"Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men (hegeomai) among the brothers, with the following letter..." 

For those who may argue that "leaders" could refer to "elders," it is of note that this verse specifically separates the leaders (hegeomai) from the elders (presbuteros). It certainly does not assume it, as is commonly taught today.

Second, the word translated "obey" in both the older and newer translations is peitho and it means "to lead or guide," or "to be persuaded or won over" by the conduct of the leaders.[6] W. E. Vine states, "The 'obedience' suggested is not by submission to authority, but resulting from persuasion."[7] The idea is trust based on persuasive conduct, not inferior/superior status as the phrase "obey them that have the rule over you" infers. Persuasive conduct has nothing to do with an imaginary, military style authority to make "laws of expediency." Hebrews 13:17 had first century application for leaving the city of Jerusalem, and if we are to make application today, it is simply advising all to be persuaded by mature Christian examples of conforming to the character of Christ for one's own benefit. It will be "profitable for us" if we behave like Jesus Christ. There is no virtue in being another man's slave as many translations would lead one to believe. Further, there is danger in being enslaved to those who may "arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after themselves" by making laws where God does not (additional assemblies, the collection, etc., Acts 20:30).  

Peitho is also found in the very next verse--Hebrews 13:18--and is translated as "trust" (KJV), rather than "obey," as the writer states, "for we trust that we have a good conscience…" If Hebrews was written by Paul, an apostle, then he was persuaded or won over in his conscience, not ruled over or commanded by Hebrew Christians! It is not an apostolic command that we be controlled by a group of pseudo-lawmakers in the church.

Third, the word for "submit" (hupeiko) is found only here in Hebrews 13:17 and simply means "to yield" to example—not positional authority. Again, the example that is to be followed is conforming to the image of Christ (Rom. 8:29; cf. 2 Pet. 1:5-8; Mat. 5:3-12; 28:19), not submitting one's self to a supposed superior. The most common word used for submission and subjection in the New Testament is hupotasso. It refers to a voluntary attitude of cooperation, but submitting and subjection in the Bible have nothing to do with a group of Christians controlling other Christians through hierarchical power. Subjection is simply an attitude of childlike openness in yielding to others. Christian subjection is universal among old and young and male and female. Ephesians 5:21 states, "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." All Christians are to manifest a submissive attitude toward one another. Submission is not the western concept of one up/one down relationships that is found in militaries, governments, and businesses. If elders and preachers can be submissive and tell me that I "have to go to church" on Sunday and Wednesday nights, then I can be submissive and tell them, "No I don't." Submission differs from obedience in that submission is unconditional, but obedience is relative. We are always to have a humble attitude of submission toward all authority, but we only obey Jesus Christ (Acts 23:5; cf. Acts 5:29). He alone is the sole source of law making among His churches (Mat. 28:18).[8]

Being persuaded, maintaining a submissive attitude, and following the example of others as they conform to the character of Christ as Hebrews 13:17 commands requires personal responsibility. Being commanded by men to sustain an institutional system of public buildings and salaried preachers based on false pretenses does not. Being persuaded to behave like Christ is an active choice that  free individuals make. Following commandments of men is an abdication of one's personal responsibility to God and results in bondage to men. Christians are not to "forsake assembling," and while meeting once on Sunday to partake of the Lord's Supper in the context of a family meal is not being faithful to men, it is being faithful to God (Acts 20:7;cf. Jude 1:12; 1 Cor. 11:33). Christians are free to give to anyone at anytime and the temporary, regional, and voluntary collection (at home) for poor saints in Jerusalem was just that (Acts 11:27-30; cf. Rom. 15:25-26; 1 Cor. 16:1-4). It is not an "act of worship" conducted ritualistically in a public building to be considered faithful to God anymore than attendance on Sunday and Wednesday nights are requirements to be faithful to God.

The purpose of this blog is the same as that of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount: to remove the power religious rulers have over the minds of God's people and return it to all Christians through the avenue of personal responsibility (Matt. 5:3—7:27). We are free to choose when and where to meet and when and how much to give, but we are not free to make laws and bind them on other Christians. Elders, preachers, and teachers who claim to preach the truth and the whole counsel of God are found to be "good ministers of Jesus Christ" only when they selflessly proclaim the truth about assembling and the collection (1 Tim. 4:6). When we continue to teach these truths we show Christians the liberty that God gives us in Christ (Luke 4:18). We manifest integrity, honesty, and avoid any appearance of impropriety. The Spirit of the Master is within all those who selflessly proclaim God's truth in these matters (John 8:31-32).

REFERENCES

[1] Frank Viola, "Reimagining Oversight," in Reimagining Church (Colorado Springs, CO:  David Cook, 2008) p. 177. While I disagree with Viola on the role of women and instrumental music, Part II of this book details the proper concept of Christian leadership and answers numerous questions about specific New Testament verses and the western hierarchical mindset. The Appendix on "Objections and Responses About Leadership" answers the questions one typically has about words like "office," "rule," "submit," and "oversight," et al. His book The Untold Story of the New Testament Church is well documented and puts the books of the New Testament in order making it much easier to understand the original context of the collection for the saints and how it originated. Also, Viola shows that Timothy and Titus, et al. were not the modern "pulpit minister," but were apostolic workers who could appoint elders in multiple congregations in numerous cities. I recommend purchasing Pagan Christianity, Reimagining Church and The Untold Story of the New Testament Church.

[2] Ibid, p. 230.

[3] Everett Ferguson, "Eucharist," in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd Edition (New York: Garland Publishing, 1999) pp. 393-398.

[4] These quotes are from "The Preacher's Files" forum. The first quote may be accessed at: First Quote. The second quote may be found at: Second Quote. I am indebted to Tod Buttermore for this information.

[5] Jack Lewis, "Those Who Rule," in Exegesis of Difficult Biblical Passages (Searcy, AR:  Resource Publications, 1988) pp. 147-149.

[6] Walter Bauer, "peitho," in A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd Edition, Revised and Augmented by F. W. Gingrinch and Frederick Danker (Chicago:  University of Chicago Press) p. 639.

[7] W. E. Vine, "Peitho," in Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN:  Thomas Nelson, 1996) p. 438.

[8] Viola, Frank,  Reimagining Church, p. 210.