We saw earlier in Hebrews 13 where our author encouraged his readers to “imitate the faith” of those who had taught them the Word of God, their “leaders” (Heb. 13:7). These leaders had been there to help them avoid following after “strange teachings” (Heb. 13:9) but now some of them were no longer with them. They still had leaders, however, and now in our passage today our author encourages them to “obey” and “submit” to them.
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
Notice first of all, in both Hebrews 13:7 and verse 17 that this congregation had multiple leaders. A plurality of elders was the biblical norm (Acts 11:30; 14:23; 16:4; 20:17-18; 21:18; 1 Timothy 5:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14; 1 Peter 5:1-5).
There are several advantages to having a plurality of leadership.
- Biblical accountability. Godly fellow elders are a great means for holding the pastor accountable to live, teach, and lead faithfully. In addition, sharing authority among a number of men can keep one man from wrongly lording it over the congregation
- Wisdom. There is more wisdom to be found in a multitude of counselors (Prov. 11:14; 24:6).
- Balance. No one man has all the gifts that are necessary to build up the church. Having a plurality of elders serves the church by bringing men with different gifts into the church’s leadership who can complement the pastor’s strengths.
- Burden sharing. Caring for the whole church is a burden God does not intend one man to bear alone. Even the most faithful, gifted pastor needs help from other godly men in order to pay careful attention to himself and to all the flock (Acts 20:28).
- Sets an example for the church. Having a plurality of elders demonstrates that the work of ministry is not reserved for a select few. Rather, it provides an example of maturity for every man, particularly when some of the elders are men who work ordinary jobs and are not paid by the church.
(Most of this material has been adapted from Benjamin Merkle, 40 Questions About Elders and Deacons [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2008], pp. 183-186).
Like 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 and Hebrews 13:7, Hebrews 13:17 directly communicates the responsibility of the congregation to its leaders. By using not one, but two imperative verbs, “obey” (πείθω [peitho]) and “submit” (ὑπείκω [hypeiko]), placed before and after the expression “your leaders,” indicates intensity. “The combination of these two terms,” writes one commentator, “stresses the need for faithful, thorough adherence to the oversight offered by their leaders” (Gareth Lee Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 708). Thus, this was an urgent issue for the inspired writer of Hebrews and indeed for every church.
The verb “obey” is not the most normal word for obedience (which is ὑπακοή [hupokoe]). This word, sometimes translated “belief” or “confidence,” emphasizes that we follow a leader because we have confidence in them. This doesn’t exclude the idea of obedience, for obedience is natural when we have confidence in someone. We believe that they have our best at heart and so we are not afraid to entrust ourselves to them and to follow their leadership.
The verb “submit” is the stronger and broader of the two terms and its use here is it only occurrence in the New Testament. Again, it is not the normal word for submission in the New Testament (which is ὑποτάσσω). It means to “yield to someone’s authority” or a “glad disposition to follow the leadership of another person.”
I love how John Piper puts it:
Hebrews 13:17 means that a church should have a bent toward trusting its leaders; you should have a disposition to be supportive in your attitudes and actions toward their goals and directions; you should want to imitate their faith; and you should have a happy inclination to comply with their instructions.
Now you can hear that these are all soft expressions: “a bent toward trusting,” “a disposition to support,” “a wanting to imitate,” “an inclination to comply.” What those phrases are meant to do is capture both sides of the Biblical truth, namely, 1) that elders are fallible and should not lord it over the flock, and 2) the flock should follow good leadership.
We live in an individualistic and anti-authority age which makes it unthinkable for some people to submit to the authority of anyone else. But even more serious, is the fact that some leaders in churches have spiritually abused the people under them. This verse does not justify spiritual abuse.
The authority of elders comes from the Word of God, not from themselves. Also, Jonathan Leeman, in his helpful book Authority: How Godly Rule Protects the Vulnerable, Strengthens Communities, and Promotes Human Flourishing, says that the authority that elders possess is not the authority of command, but the authority of counsel.
“Both authority of command and the authority of counsel should be counted as true authority because God has given its holder the moral right to issue directives that bind the conscience. The difference is, someone with an authority of command also has the right to enforce what’s commanded through the power of discipline. The authority is unilaterally efficacious. It can enforce or make something happen against the will of those being commanded. With an authority of counsel, on the other hand, the power of discipline is dramatically reduced, if not altogether eliminated. It’s not unilaterally efficacious in the same way” (Jonathan Leeman, Authority, p. 153).
Now, why don’t elders have the authority to enforce a command? It is because ultimately church discipline lies in the hands of the congregation, not the elders (Matthw 18:15-18). Elders can guide that discipline process, but the ability to enforce certain standards lies in the hands of the congregation. The authority that elders possess is not “just counsel,” but “the authority of counsel.” As they teach the congregation, they are presenting God’s will for us all, to which we should all submit and for which we all will one day be held accountable.
“The Bible is acutely aware of both good and bad authority, and it intends for us to study both. Consider the Israelite king. The king is over his kingdom. Yet he’s a good king only insofar as he puts himself under God’s law and with his fellow Israelites” (Jonathan Leeman, Authority, p. 10).
This is what Israel’s kings were supposed to do:
18 When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the Levitical priests.
19 It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the LORD his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees
20 and not consider himself better than his fellow Israelites and turn from the law to the right or to the left. Then he and his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:18-20)
Good human authority is never absolute. Good authority is always accountable. Good authority drives inside the lines that God has painted on the road! In fact, good authority is always submissive. Only God’s authority is absolute and comprehensive, being accountable only to the law of his own nature.
Alexander Strauch notes: “The effectiveness of any body of church leaders is impacted by the response of the people they lead. One angry person or a small hostile group of people can cause untold misery and ugly division within a local church. This was the case in Corinth, and it created painful division between Paul and the church (2 Cor. 2:1-11)” (Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership, Rev. ed., p. 275).
Abuse doesn’t just happen in one direction, from leaders to people. Just as often there is abuse from the congregation towards the pastor or elders. There are many hurting pastors as well. R. Kent Hughes, in his commentary on Hebrews, says “It is an indisputable fact–pastors as a group are one of the most abused and hurting segments of modern society.” Now that abuse could come because of something that pastor does or fails to do: laziness, ineptness, abuse of power to name a few.
Happy is the congregation when both halves of this verse are happily married—a congregation that willingly and joyfully follows and a leadership that leads in love. That loving leadership is expressed in the second half of the verse, “because they keep watch over your souls.” This reflects the shepherding imagery which was used by God to describe rulers in the Old Testament and lies beneath the understanding of the role of elders in the New Testament.
Good leaders have as their highest aspiration not power and authority, but the good of the people, especially the condition of their souls. They want to make sure that these men and women, boys and girls, are saved and sanctified, glorifying and enjoying God. They are working for the joy of their people (2 Cor. 1:24). In 2 Corinthians 1:24 Paul says, “Not that we lord it over your faith, but we work with you for your joy, for you stand firm in your faith.”
So we follow the leadership of our elders and pastors because they have a great responsibility to shepherd our souls. They “keep watch” with great vigilance and untiring effort because we have enemies that can attack us. This was the duty of watchmen on city walls (Ezek. 33:6) and shepherds tending flocks in open country (Ezek. 34:8). Watchmen who fail to sound the alarm when enemies approach and shepherds who do not protect the flock from predators will answer to God for their negligence. All will give account to God (Rom. 4:12; Heb. 4:13; 10:21; 12:29; 1 Pet. 4:5).
Church leaders are answerable not only for themselves (1 Tim. 4:16) but also for those they lead (Acts 20:26-31; James 3:1). Spiritual leaders should be obeyed precisely because of what they do sacrificially for their people. Good elders keep themselves alert and awake, sometimes with sleepless nights. Why? Because they are responsible for the souls of the people God has allotted to their care.
“Watchfulness requires tireless effort, self-discipline and selfless concern for the welfare of others. At times all leaders literally do lose sleep over problem issues within the church. As Richard Philipps comments, ‘They lie awake at night…pondering our spiritual well-being, how they might help and support us in the faith. What better reason could there be for us gladly to follow their teaching and rule?’” (Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership, Rev. ed., p. 280).
There will come a day when pastor/elders will have to give an account for how well they looked after…not the finances of the church, nor the reputation of the church, nor the longevity of the church…but after the souls of the people.
When the Scripture tells us that our spiritual leaders are responsible for the welfare of our souls, this does not mean that we do not take personal responsibility for our spiritual welfare. On the contrary, what good spiritual leaders do is to equip and instruct their congregation in how to take care of themselves spiritually.
The Bible tells us that “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil” (2 Cor. 5:10; cf. Rom. 14:12; 1 Cor. 3:13-15; Heb. 4:13). Although all believers will appear before “the judgment seat of Christ,” James informs us that teachers will be judged more strictly because of their greater influence and God-appointed responsibility (James 3:1). Even if we have responsibility for only one soul, we will be held accountable for taking care of that one soul. This concern should weigh heavily upon the leader and guard and guide the use of both their teaching and their authority.
Strauch mentions, “When God’s people realize that their leaders must give an account to God, they ought to be much more tolerant, understanding, and sensitive toward their leaders’ actions and decisions. All this helps explain why the members of the church owe obedience and submission to their leaders” (Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership, Rev. ed., p. 282)
When elders focus on taking care of people and helping them grow to maturity in Christ and the people are following that leadership gladly, then it leads to “joy and not…groaning.” Every leader knows the joy of leading someone to Christ, seeing them grow in their faith, hope and love, watching them serve Christ and seeing them lead others to Christ. John the Apostle expressed this joy to his friend Gaius: “I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth” (3 John 4). Paul calls the Philippians his “joy and crown” (Phil. 4:1). This joy, which every leader longs for (2 Cor. 2:3), is possible only when the congregation cooperates by submitting to the Scriptural instruction of God-appointed leaders.
But, when God’s people stubbornly disobey, endless complain and quarrel, or publicly attack their spiritual leaders, the joys of pastoral leadership quickly diminish and may disappear entirely. According to recent surveys, around 42% of pastors have seriously considered quitting ministry within the last year, which translates to a significant number of pastors contemplating leaving their positions, though the exact number of pastors who actually left in 2023 is not readily available due to the lack of comprehensive data on pastor turnover.
Conflict over COVID, over politics, over ethical issues, over interpretations of Scripture, you name it, it is rampant in churches today. Yet those are just the surface issues. Underneath it all are sins like pride, spiritual and emotional immaturity, change and inflexibility, abuses of power and unclear authority (https://www.bmbaonline.org/blog/2020/8/27/seven-causes-of-church-conflict).
When church members refuse to listen to their leader’s warnings of aberrant teaching, unacceptable behaviors, and disrespectful attitudes, the leaders groan in distress. The word groan expresses painful, frustrated emotion, even grief that words are unable to fully articulate (Mark 7:34; Rom. 8:23, 26).
Moses groaned many times because of the folly of the people’s complaints and blatant unbelief. At one point, the people’s complaining became so intolerable that Moses called on God to take his life: “I am not able to carry all this people alone; the burden is too heavy for me. If you will treat me like this, kill me at once, if I find favor in your sight, that I may not see my wretchedness” (Num. 11:14-15).
Paul also groaned and shed many tears because of the disobedience or waywardness of some of the people in his churches. Church work is not easy.
All leaders know this pain. Phillips Brooks, one-time Episcopal Bishop of Boston, said:
To be a true minister to men is always to accept new happiness and new distress. . . . The man who gives himself to other men can never be a wholly sad man; but no more can he be a man of unclouded gladness. To him shall come with every deeper consecration a before untasted joy, but in the same cup shall be mixed a sorrow that it was beyond his power to feel before. (Phillips Brooks, The Influence of Jesus (London: H. R. Allenson, 1895), p. 91)
A heart that can know and accept such pain is a glory to God.
O give us hearts to love like Thee,
Like Thee, O Lord, to grieve
Far more for others’ sins than all
The wrongs that we receive.
When the members refuse to obey and fail to respect their leaders, the work in the church becomes burdensome. The members ought to realize that neither they nor the leaders own the church. The church belongs to Jesus Christ, to whom the readers are responsible. Should they make the work and life of the leaders difficult, they would be the losers. (William Hendriksen & Simon J. Kistemaker, NT Commentary: Hebrews, 426-7)
That is what this last statement is about: “for that would be of no advantage to you.” When church members cause leaders to groan under the burdens of a resistant or rebellious congregation, then everyone loses. In other words, it’s a spiritual disaster. While disobedience distresses the leader, it has an even more serious impact on the resistant believer. This is the final reason why church members should “obey” and “submit to” their leaders.
This is a classic understatement: it would “be of no advantage to you” really means that it would be an extreme disadvantage to you. It is a figure of speech called a litotes, which uses a milder negative statement in place of a stronger, positive one. It is the opposite of a hyperbole. The expression is designed to cause the reader to stop dead in their tracks and think real hard about the negative impact not only to the leaders, but even to themselves and to the whole church. Stated positively, it would read, “that would be disastrous to you.”
An individual who understands submission to spiritual authority is humble, full of love, unselfish, accountable and personally responsible. Conversely, a person who rejects submission to spiritual authority is prideful, full of criticism, selfish, self-ruled, and spiritually irresponsible.
To put oneself outside the teaching and watch care of God’s chosen shepherds is dangerous business. God may severely chastise the disobedient believer (1 Cor. 11:29-34), the devil may delude their minds (2 Cor. 11:3) or a bitter spirit may set in, halting all spiritual growth and Christlike maturity. So the concluding remark is, as William Lane remarks, “a sober reminder that the welfare of the community is tied to the quality of their response to their current leaders” (William Lane, Hebrews, 2:556).
This explains why some churches remain stuck as a small church, because pastors come and go based upon the poor response they receive from the congregation. Matriarchs and patriarchs actually rule the church and oppose anything the new pastor might do to change the church.
Human nature tends to view leaders with suspicion. Don’t fall into that trap. Cultivate a bent to trusting your leaders, because that will not only make their serious job easier, but it will be better for you too. You can be involved in a virtuous cycle or a vicious cycle. The virtuous cycle goes like this: happy sheep make happy shepherds, and happy shepherds make for happy sheep. Everyone wins. The vicious cycle goes like this: unhappy sheep make for unhappy shepherds, and unhappy shepherds make for unhappy sheep. Everyone loses.
As Jared Wilson puts it:
It is my goal now, for as long as God would have me simply as a sheep and not a shepherd, to be as low-maintenance as I can manage for my church. When my pastor sees me coming … I want him not to inwardly sigh or tense up or have to marshal some extra patience or energy but to relax a little, smile, and feel safe…
Good church folks love, respect, and submit to their pastors.
This does not mean idolizing them, treating them like celebrities, or becoming yes-men. It doesn’t mean becoming our pastor’s rubber stamp committee. But it does mean giving grace not just to your fellow sheep but also to your shepherds. In fact, they may need more, as the responsibilities they carry are more burdensome and they will have to give a greater account before God. Submitting to your leaders means repenting of the impulse to “yes, but” everything they say, especially if what they say isn’t sinful. In matters of differences of opinion, it means being circumspect in how we voice our own.
…How can we work toward our leaders’ joy and not their anxiety? It’s no advantage to us to be a nagging pain to our pastors. They will have to give an account for how they pastored us. And we’ll have to give an account for how well we presented ourselves to be pastored.
Grace Still Amazes 