Some critics
often portray Latter-day Saints as cultists who are not allowed to question our
leadership ever, and that “when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done”
for members of the Church (notwithstanding such a notion was condemned as false
by then-president of the Church, George Albert Smith). I discussed this in my
response to Mike Thomas of Reachout Trust at:
Latter-day
Saints and the Bible (cf. On
the Scope and Formation of Latter-day Saint Doctrine and Having faith "in" Prophets and Objects, not just God)
To be sure,
Latter-day Saints are to give due honour and respect to our leaders, both local
and global. Interestingly, a “follow the brethren”-like attitude is commanded in the pages of the Bible, and
such a high view of Church leadership (even if one wishes to limit it to the
local church merely) is at odds with
a lot of the ecclesiologies of our critics.
2 Chron 20:20
They rose early in the morning and went out
to the wilderness of Tekoa; and when they went out, Jehoshaphat stood and said,
"listen to me, O Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, put your trust in the
Lord your God and you will be established. Put your trust in His prophets and
succeed." (2 Chron 20:20 NASB)
In her
scholarly commentary on Chronicles, Sara Japhet wrote:
Jehoshaphat acts out Jahaziel's prophecy to
the letter. His instructions were 'tomorrow go out', and here, indeed, we read
'they rose . . . and went out'. The king in fact goes beyond literal obedience:
'he rose in the morning'. This is not only an authentic way to act in desert
conditions (cf. Gen. 19.2; Josh. 6.15; Judg. 7.1; 1 Sam. 29.10, etc.), but also
a literary sign of his vigilance (cf. Ge. 22.3). Jehoshaphat's words of
encouragement, to the army are also beyond what the prophet counselled; they are
a firm declaration of trust, and attest to the profound transformation wrought
in Jehoshaphat as a result of the Lord's intervention. The fearful and
bewildered victim of circumstances has become a decisive leader.
It has been recognized that the king's exhortation
is based on the words of Isaiah to Ahaz in Isa. 7.9: 'If you will not believe,
surely you shall not be established.' And yet there are several differences
between the two utterances. Isaiah's demand for complete faith is phrased as a
warning with a negative condition: 'If you will not believe . . . '. Here,
there is a positive admonition: 'Believe . . . and you will be established.'
Isaiah's brief statement is elaborated into a two-colon parallel passage, in
which the play on the root 'mn is continued in 'believe in (NEB) his prophets',
and climaxes with 'you will succeed'. Most
important of all is this addition of faith in the prophets to trust in God;
while strictly related to the context, it nevertheless reflects a major tenet
of the Chronicler's attitude towards prophecy: the prophets themselves are
objects of faith. (Sara Japhet, I
& II Chronicles [The Old Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1993], locations 19769 to 19788 of 26645 in Kindle
version, emphasis added)
In a
footnote in his commentary to Jonah 3:5 and the people of Nineveh believing “in”
God, John Calvin wrote (emphasis in bold added):
Myhlab wnymayw, "And they
believed in God. The verb Nma in Hiphil is ever followed by b or l, except in
one instance by ta in Jdg 11:20. When followed by b it seems
to mean, to give credit to what is said, to believe one’s testimony, or the
truth of what is referred to. To believe
then in God is to believe the truth of what he declares, to believe his word.
Hence in 2Ch 20:20, Jehosophat said to the people,
"Believe in the Lord your God," Mkyhla hwhyb wnymah; and he adds,
"Believe in his Prophets," wyaybnb wnymah. It is the word of
God, and the word of the Prophets, which was the same, or the truth or veracity
of God and of his Prophets, that they For I have believed in thy
commandments," Kytwumb, that is, in the truth of thy commandments.
—When the verb in Hiphil is followed by l, the idea of reliance or dependance
is more especially conveyed, though in many instances there is hardly a
difference to be recognized, except the context be minutely observed.
Heb 13:7, 17
Remember your leaders, those who spoke the
word of God to you; consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate
their faith . . . Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping
watch over your souls and will give an account. Let them do this with oy and
not with sighing--for that would be harmful to you. (Heb 13:7, 17 NRSV)
Paul
Ellingworth (Protestant) wrote the following about Heb 13:17:
13:17.
The leaders and the led
The
reference to the ἡγούμενοι forms an inclusion with v. 7; but now the writer is concerned with the
living, not the dead, leaders of the community. Insistence on the readers’
submission to these leaders is probably related to the writer’s fear of false
teaching (v. 9), possibly on dietary matters, but it is difficult to be more
specific. The juxtaposition of references to the leaders (v. 17) and to the
writer himself (v. 18) strengthens the view that the writer considered himself
a leader of the community to which he writes; there is no indication that he claimed
a more general, for example, apostolic, authority. The opposite is suggested by
the fact that the writer does not balance his instructions to church members
with instructions to the leaders themselves (as in Jas. 3:1; 1 Pet. 5:2f.).
This verse does, however, refer implicitly to the leaders’ responsibility
before God. Laub 1980–81.187f. sees in 1
Clement (especially 1:3; 21:6), but not in Hebrews, assimilation of
Christian to secular ἡγούμενοι.
Πείθω, “obey” (Jas. 3:3 of horses; 4 Macc. 10:13; 15:10;
18:1; 2 Clem. 17:5; Ep. Diog. 5:10; Ign. Rom. 7:2 bis; Bauer 3b; R. Bultmann in TDNT
6.3f.; BD §187.6). Πείθεσθε suggests continuous action. Paul develops the
theme of submission within the Christian community, and to himself, by the use
of ὑπακούω and
cognates (Phil. 2:12; 1 Cor. 16:16; 1 Thes. 5:12f.; 2 Thes. 3:14; 1 Tim. 5:17),
used in Hebrews of the obedience of Christ and of Christians alike (→ 5:8f.;
cf. 11:8); also ὑποτάσσω, 12:9, of obedience to God. The theme of obedience to human leaders
within the believing community goes back to the OT (Gn. 41:40; Ex. 16:20; Jos.
1:18; cf. 1 Macc. 14:43; Jos. Ant.
13.201; AP.2.194) and Judaism (S-B
1.909f.); soon after Hebrews, it was strongly emphasized in the Christian
community (Ign. Rom. 7:2; 2 Clem. 17:5; cf. 1 Clem. 1:3; 57:1; Ign. Eph.
2:2; 20:2; Mag. 2; 13:2; Pol. 5:3). In Hebrews, the sole
priesthood of Christ does not obviate the need for pastoral leadership in the
community; but it is exercised by a group (cf. Phil. 1:1), not by a single
individual.
Πείθεσθε is reinforced by the rarer and perhaps stronger ὑπείκετε: 4
Macc. 6:35***, of reasoning, not yielding to pleasures; here of due deference
to the leaders by the led.
The
deference is due because of the benefits which the leaders provide for the led.
Αὐτοί may
be emphatic, to distinguish the true leaders from the false teachers (v. 9); or
αὐτοί may
mean “the [leaders] just mentioned” (BD §288).
Ἀγρυπνέω: first literally, then as here metaphorically
“keep watch” (Eph. 6:18; Ep. Diog.
5:2; Barn. 20:2; MM; Bauer 2). The
image of a shepherd is implied, thus indirectly in v. 20 their subordination to
Jesus, the great or chief shepherd. As very widely in the biblical tradition,
rule and caring are joined (Vanhoye 1980.256–259; Laub 1981–82).
Ψυχή: → 4:12; plural 12:3, in a context of stronger
warning than the present verse. No separation of soul and body is implied, but
the author’s concern is clearly the spiritual good of the community. There is
no overt reference to individuals in the community, any more than in v. 9.
Ὡς: not a comparison, but introducing something which
is entailed by the very fact of leadership; alternatively, ὡς may
express motive: “with the thought that they must” (MHT 3.158).
Λόγον ἀποδώσοντες: “give account,” here absolutely, by implication
to God, as explicitly in Mt. 12:36; 1 Pet. 4:5. The future participle may imply
“with the thought that” they will have to render their account to God (BD
§425[3]; cf. MHT 3.87; so TEV “they must give God an account of their service”;
similarly NIV, NJB, REB; NRSV more weakly “and will give an account.” Lane sees
here a survival of classical usage in which ὡς + future participle conveys strong
intention).
The
result of the readers’ submission is described in two contrasting expressions:
the leaders will exercise their caring function μετὰ χαρᾶς (→ 10:34, where joy is
also related to effort), and μὴ
στενάζοντες. The first is related to “keeping watch,”
not to “rendering account.”
Στενάζω*, “sigh, groan,” is used of a wide variety of
painful emotions and situations, including Job’s physical suffering (9:27; 23:2
A; cf. 30:25; 4 Macc. 9:21); frustration (Sir. 30:20); longing (2 Cor. 5:2, 4);
lamentation (Ezk. 26:16; 28:19); dying (Is. 59:11); mourning (1 Macc. 1:26);
the oppression of enemies (Is. 21:2; La. 1:21; Ezk. 21:11f.); and shame (Je.
38:19; La. 1:8). The contrast with joy in the present verse may suggest general
sadness (as in Tob. 3:1 א); but the context also allows to be
understood of the leaders’ shame if they have to render a negative account.
Ἀλυσιτελές***, “of no advantage,” is an understatement,
perhaps enhanced by the use of an uncommon expression, for “unprofitable,
harmful,” the second referring to the leaders’ doing their work in a negative
spirit. The metaphor is commercial (J. A. T. Robinson 1976.212). Cf. λυσιτελεῖ** Lk.
17:2, where the meaning is defined by the parallels καλόν, Mk. 9:42, and συμφέρει, Mt. 18:6. Hebrews’
mild form of expression may cover a deeper fear for the readers’ well-being. (Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on
the Greek Text [New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993], 722-24)
Calvin in his
commentary to Heb 13:17 wrote (emphasis in bold in original):
17. Obey them, etc. I doubt not but that he speaks of
pastors and other rulers of the Church, for there were then no Christian
magistrates; and what follows, for they watch for your souls, properly
belongs to spiritual government. He commands first obedience and then honor to
be rendered to them. These two things
are necessarily required, so that the people might have confidence in
their pastors, and also reverence for them. But it ought at the same time to be
noticed that the Apostle speaks only of those who faithfully performed their
office; for they who have nothing but the title, nay, who use the title of
pastors for the purpose of destroying the Church, deserve but little reverence
and still less confidence. And this also is what the Apostle plainly sets forth
when he says, that they watched for their souls, —a duty which is not
performed but by those who are faithful rulers, and are really what they are
called.
In his The
Small Catechism, Luther wrote:
What the Hearers Owe to Their Pastors.
Even so hath the Lord ordained that they
which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel. 1 Cor. 9:14. Let him that is
taught in the Word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. Gal.
6:6. Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor,
especially they who labor in the Word and doctrine. For the Scripture saith,
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn; and the laborer is
worthy of his reward. 1 Tim. 5:17-18. Obey them that have the rule over you,
and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls as they that must give
account, that they may do it with joy and not with grief; for that is
unprofitable for you. Heb. 13:17.]
In the
Westminster Larger Catechism, we read the following:
127. What is the honour that inferiors owe to
their superiors?
Answer: The honour which inferiors owe to
their superiors is, all due reverence in heart, word, and behaviour; prayer and
thanksgiving for them; imitation of
their virtues and graces; willing obedience to their lawful commands and
counsels, due submission to their corrections; fidelity to, defence, and
maintenance of their persons and authority according to their several ranks, and
the nature of their places; bearing with their infirmities, and covering them in
love, that so they may be an honour to them and to their government.
So we see
that both historical and modern Protestant authors will agree that a “follow the
church leadership”-like attitude is part-and-parcel of biblical theology. This
will leave the Evangelical anti-Mormon critic in a bind: either reject the
explicit teaching of the Bible on this score by contradicting it in their
modern ecclesiology (and thus, reject the formal sufficiency of the Bible [see Not
by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura]) or, heaven forbid, be consistent and
intellectual honest about the truth
of both Latter-day Saint and biblical teachings on this point.
Furthermore,
we see that the Bible is not a “Protestant” book—the only faith that is consistent
with “biblical Christianity” is that of The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints.