By Kevin Avram

Benefactors are known to do good works and are often considered a blessing to church ministries and programs. So why did Jesus teach his disciples to avoid being a benefactor and how does it apply today?

Spiritual Authority

Spiritual authority is different from civil authority and corporate authority. It is the only type of authority that is completely detached from the use and application of power [over other people]. And, it is relational in nature, rather than functional. When speaking about spiritual authority Jesus said:

The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’ But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest. (Luke 22:25,26)

Many people assume that in the above passage, Jesus is telling the disciples that although church leaders have authority and power, just like any other group of civil or corporate leaders, they should refrain from reminding people of that fact. The assumption is that Jesus is talking to the disciples about leadership style and the way power and authority should be “applied” or “utilized.”

But Jesus isn’t talking to the disciples about application and etiquette. When He says, “It is not this way with you,” He means it. Jesus is saying that spiritual authority never carries with it the idea that one person has power “over” another person. In matters of the ekklesia, there is no lording of anything over people because there is nothing to lord. In Luke 22, Jesus is separating spiritual authority (the relational responsibility to enlarge others) from the application of power.

This can be a difficult concept for some people to grasp because the minute we hear the word authority, we immediately associate it with power and the concept of “boss.” It’s automatic, but it is also wrong. In the context of ekklesia,

God has given spiritual authority to believers, and to those with the gifts the Bible speaks of in Ephesians 4:11 and elsewhere, yet He never provides anyone with a way to assert control over the actions of others. In this sense, spiritual authority stands alone. It is completely unlike civil authority or corporate authority, which are inextricably connected to power and its application.

Wearing Two Hats at Once

The perplexing dilemma many pastors and church leaders face, and that misdirects many Christians, is that the leaders of contemporary church corporations are clothed with two types of authority at the same time—corporate and spiritual—and most are unaware of the tension this creates.

Corporate authority is given by government, is functional, and establishes an obligation to be in control and stay in control. Spiritual authority is given by God, is relational, and is disconnected from the control of people, programs, or systems.¹*

One church board member I know of understands this situation so well that he went out and bought two hats, a white one and a blue one. He takes both of them to every church board meeting he attends. When he and his fellow board members are discussing matters that pertain to relationship and the ekklesia, he wears his white hat. The minute the discussion turns to corporate matters he pauses, takes his white hat off, sets it on the table, and puts the blue hat on his head. He tells his fellow board members that he needs to do it in order to keep things straight.

While the actions of this man present a vivid image, that’s all it is—an image. The color of a corporate director’s hat while seated at a board meeting with his fellow corporate directors may remind him of some profound considerations, but it can never alter the nature of his obligations or change what he is doing. He is exercising corporate authority and corporate power over the affairs of a corporation, and, in the process, trying to keep clear in his mind that the corporation and the ekklesia have nothing whatsoever to do with each other, even though the “corporation” over which he presides is commonly referred to as a “church.”

Benefactors

“And those who have authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’ But it is not this way with you… the greatest among you must become like the youngest.” (Luke 22:25,26)

The word benefactor is derived from a Latin idea that means to do good. Its synonyms include words like contributor, donor, and sponsor; but there are several others—underwriter, philanthropist, and patron to name a few.

When exercising earthly wisdom (James 3:15) we naturally assume benefactors are good to have around. After all, if we happen to have a need, or see a need, who better to turn to at such a time than a benefactor?

What we overlook when we think this way is that the minute anyone strikes up a relationship with a benefactor, an unseen hierarchical structure emerges. Benefactors have power over people—over their needs and, by implication, over the circumstances of their lives. In any relationship with a benefactor, quietly but surely, the eyes and the expectations of the one in need will become focused on the one who can make provision for that need—the benefactor.

Avoiding even the inkling of a relationship with a benefactor is exactly what Jesus was talking about when He said no one on earth should be called leader, rabbi, or father (Matt. 23:8-12). Jesus wasn’t suggesting we shouldn’t acknowledge the people who are our fathers and teachers. He was talking about the source we look to for our needs to be met!

Not walking as a benefactor and not thinking of leaders as benefactors, requires humility of heart, and an understanding that in matters of the spirit, leaders are as poor and dependent as any (Matt. 5:3). Those who fail to recognize this poverty create environments with varying degrees of control, and end up establishing “church corporations” that are more like small- and medium-sized business enterprises than they are the ekklesia. Rather than being Christ-oriented and Holy Spirit dependent, such “churches” are leadership-oriented and leadership-dependent.

New Testament believers were very aware of the dangers associated with benefactors and of leaders who view themselves as such. Paul wrote: “Not that we lord it over your faith, but are workers with you for your joy.” (2 Cor. 1:24)

Peter spoke in exactly the same vein when he told the elders not to “lord” anything over “those allotted to your charge, but prove to be examples.” (1 Peter 5:3)

Likewise, in his third epistle, John the Beloved warned of Diotrephes, who “loves to be first among them…” No doubt, when he warned others of Diotrephes, John easily recalled the dispute he and his fellow disciples had in the presence of Jesus, when they argued over which of them was “the greatest” (Luke 22).

At the time, Jesus responded by explaining that leadership in the realm of the Spirit is unlike anything they had known. He told them that rather than being benefactors and wielding power over people, the greatest among them would be “as the youngest.”

What does it means to be the youngest? In my family I have a sister who is five years older, a brother three years older, and my brother Phil is five years younger than me. When we were kids, all living at home, Phil didn’t have power over anyone or over anything. When the trash had to be taken outside, he was often the go-to guy. And in an era before televisions came equipped with remote controls, we were always calling on Phil to get up and change the channel during commercials. It isn’t that Phil was bullied, he wasn’t. It was simply the natural flow of things in our home. It was assumed by everyone, including Phil.

This is not to suggest that the role of those with spiritual authority is to carry out the whims of other people. It is to suggest that in the same way my brother Phil didn’t have any power in our home, or any capacity to exercise control, so it is with those who have been endowed with spiritual authority.

Peitho and the Epistle to the Hebrews

Keeping the spirit and intent of Luke 22 in mind—that leaders are not benefactors, and that they are to be as the youngest—let’s turn to the passage many CEO-style church leaders put forward to assert that they have an obligation to control the affairs of the church corporation, and that by extension, congregants therefore have an obligation to acquiesce to them. The passage is found in the 13th chapter of Hebrews:

Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you. (Heb. 13:17)

The dominant word in this passage is undoubtedly the verb obey. It is the English rendering of the Greek verb peitho, which literally means, “to suffer oneself to be persuaded.” (Peitho was the ancient Greek goddess of persuasion.)

Peitho appears many dozens of times in the New Testament, and in only three instances does the NASB translate it obey. Elsewhere it appears as have confidence, win over, won over, convinced, persuade, seeking the favor, took advice, and assure. Like the NASB, the King James Version most commonly renders it as persuade. Examples of how peitho is translated include:

“For I am confident (peitho) of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Jesus Christ.” (Phil. 1:6)

“We will know by this that we are of the truth, and will assure (peitho) our heart before Him.” (1 John 3:19)

“For this reason I also suffer these things, but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced (peitho) that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day.” (2 Tim. 1:12)

They took his advice (peitho); and after calling the apostles in, they flogged them and ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and then released them. (Acts 5:40)

The original language in the Hebrews 13 passage does indeed call for us to obey, but the kind of obedience it calls for is more profound and far-reaching than some might see at first glance. The passage is telling us to listen and to hear, so that we might be persuaded within our own hearts.²

The obedience the writer calls for when he says, “obey your leaders,” doesn’t occur because one person is telling another person what to do. It is not “Simon-says” obedience. Instead, he is talking about a change in behavior that occurs because a person has been persuaded within his or her own heart, and is therefore internally motivated to realign how he or she thinks and behaves.

The passage goes on to say, “submit to them,” meaning, to those with authority. When we read the English rendering of the Greek in this passage, at an initial glance it appears we are being told to do what our leaders tell us—to submit. But if we slow the verse down a little bit, and look at it more closely and carefully, we see there is something quite profound about this passage. The word submit appears elsewhere in the New Testament, but this is the only place in the Bible where we see the Greek word hupeiko.

Hupeiko is a word that does indeed mean submit, but not in the sense that most people would expect, and certainly not in the same sense that an employee would submit to a boss, or a child to a parent. Instead, it is a word that refers to two combatants, one of whom yields to the other after being in a contest, match, or sparring competition.

The image it presents is of one person willingly giving way to another, subsequent to an interchange, and after having been persuaded that the other person has a superior position. The word implies that we should recognize our own limitations and weaknesses when we are presented with something that is more tenable.

Steve Atkerson of the New Testament Restoration Foundation and the author of Ekklesia: To the Roots of Biblical Church Life, points out that the idea behind hupeiko in this passage is eloquently conveyed in the letter Southern General Robert E. Lee sent to his troops concerning their surrender at Appomattox. Lee wrote:

“After four years of arduous service… the Army of Northern Virginia has been compelled to yield to overwhelming numbers and resources.”

Nowhere in the context of what is being said in the Hebrews passage are believers being told to surrender to the type of corporation-style power and corporation-style authority that many Christians inadvertently, and often unknowing, associate with church and church leadership.

1. Even outside the ekklesia there are many instances where authority stands alone, apart from the use and application of power. For example, someone might say, “Professor Peterson is the world’s foremost authority on birds.” Anyone saying such a thing wouldn’t for a moment be suggesting that the professor has the ability to impose his will upon people who watch or study birds. They would simply be recognizing that due to his depth and maturity in the field of ornithology—the study of birds—he has the capacity to enlarge others, which is what the etymology of the word authority implies. ↩︎
2. The Expanded Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words states: peitho (verb) “to persuade, to win over,” in the Passive and Middle Voices, ‘to be persuaded, to listen to, to obey,” is so used with this meaning, in the Middle Voice, e.g., in Ac. 5:36-37 (in Ac. 5:40, Passive Voice, “they agreed’); Ro. 2:8; Ga. 5:7; Heb. 13:17; Jas. 3:3. The “obedience” suggested is not by submission to authority, but resulting from persuasion. ↩︎

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Excerpts from Limitations: The Prism Through Which We See and Understand Church by Kevin Avram http://www.arrowpublications.us/  For twenty years, Kevin Avram worked as a professional management consultant helping non-profit member organizations, advocacy groups, and policy institutes structure themselves for success. His work took him across Canada, throughout the United States, and into Europe. Limitations is Kevin’s second book. He and his wife, Becky, split their time between Canada and the United States. They have three grown children.