"Obey" or "Be persuaded" at Hebrews 13.17

by Wonderment 25 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Wonderment

    slimboyfat: If I recall correctly, the reference was not a direct link to heb 13.17, but various posters at different times have brought up this issue.

    Atlantis: "Good job [WireRider]! You know you have won the debate when excuses are made...No matter what you tell them or even prove to them they will always come back with those excuses."

    Sorry Atlantis, this is not a debate. It was simply a question to further explore the viability of a rendering at Heb 13.17. How could you or WireRider win a "debate" if both of you choose to ignore the question, and instead go off on random attacks to the WT organization (though they are guilty of many things) unrelated to the present subject? Let the reader decide for him/herself who really is addressing specific issues here, rather than channelling energies on personal issues.

  • Splash

    Good topic Wonderment.

    If the English word doesn't exist to accurately translate this type of 'obey' then a phrase should be used to maintain the meaning, such as 'become convinced to believe and follow' (which is pretty clumsy).

    There is a difference between these two 'obeys', but how best to represent that?


  • prologos
    For the studious, there can always be the cross reference of the saying of Jesus " Whoever wants to be first (leader) among you, let him be your slave" Obedience to one's slave blunts any dictators demand.
  • nicolaou
    WireRider: The WT are not Christians.

    Oh yes they are. So are the Westboro Baptist Church and the Exclusive Brethren.

  • EdenOne

    The espistole known as "Hebrews" wasn't written by Paul - there's a wide consensus amongst scholars about that. But it was written from a Pauline prespective. It was likely written by a well educated greek speaking collaborator of Paul as some sort of phostumous work of Paul, or meant to be regarded as such. The ruthless attack to the Law and and jewish rituals as having been superseeded and made obsolete by Jesus' priesthood in heaven is entirely a Pauline vision. But this vision was in itself build in opposition to the original core of apostles who walked with Christ, who were based in Jerusalem.

    Since the letter makes no reference to the destruction of the Temple; it's written in a more refined way than the other genuine letters of Paul; Timothy is referenced as still being alive (13:23); and Clement of Alexandria makes reference to it in 95 CE; it is believed to have been written shortly after Paul's death and around the time of the breakout of the first judean war; therefore 65/66 CE.

    The reference to "obedience" to those taking the lead among them without making also a reference to the apostles in Jerusalem (James the Just brother of Jesus and John son of Zebedee, or Judas brother of Jesus, the leadership of the mother congregation in Jerusalem) all the while defending anti-Torah ideas that were completely at odds with the general orientation of the church in Jerusalem - therefore, apostate - is a clear attack to the orthodox christianity as represented by the jamesian tradition. It was Paul that established episkopos and diakonos in the congregations, not James. It was Paul who appointed travelling overseers to make these appointments in the congregations that he himself had established, not James.

    You have to understand this appeal to obedience to the local "authority" in the broader context of the struggle between two different and antagonic apostolic authorities: the twelve, and Paul. If someone is still in the mind frame that the church in the first century was a unity, that someone still has a long way ahead to educate himself/herself.


  • Mephis

    That interpretation would be more viable without the definition of leaders given in 13:7 Eden. One has to ignore 13:7, and therefore 2:3 as well, to reach that reading of 13:17. It doesn't stack up as the local bishop, let alone deacon, unless they too are claiming apostolic authority.

Share this