Author: Jovan Payes

Formerly a knuckle-head, now an earnest Christian, who is married to his best friend, the father of three, an evangelist of the Gospel, a Star Wars fan, and tries to be an all around nice guy.

Ascertaining the Date of Daniel: A First Look

On By Jovan PayesIn Biblical Criticism, College Work, Daniel, Essays, FHU, Freed-Hardeman University, Major Prophets, Old Testament, Technical Studies
college papers

Discussion concerning the date for the composition of Daniel is controversial. The traditional view is that it is of 6th century B.C. origin, while the critical view argues for a late 2nd century B.C. time frame of completion. On the surface, it seems that critical scholars have removed any thought of retaining a traditional view of the composition of the book of Daniel. Supporters of the traditional view, however, have responded in numerous scholarly ways.

Yet, it appears to be the case that the majority of biblical scholars, i.e. the critics, agree that the traditional view is saturated with egregious errors (interpretive and historical) and consequently is not a feasible alternative. Traditionalists have combated further by exploiting the weaknesses of critical approaches to date the composition of Daniel. The controversy, though, still wages and the effects of the implications of each model are felt in biblical academia.

Two Basic Approaches

The roots of each model run deep into certain presuppositions relative to supernaturalism. While each view will be given consideration below, here it seems necessary to make mention of this because it plays such a vital role in evaluating the available evidence. Generally speaking, the critical approach brings to the evaluation of the evidence of the supposition that the production of Biblical books is solely the product of human enterprise to the exclusion of Divine guidance and revelatory intervention. This view is in practical terms, deistic. Meanwhile, traditionalists usually believe that Divine guidance and revelatory intervention coupled with the utility of man are possible and the means by which God makes his will known to humanity.

Issues such as predictive prophecy and inspiration are therefore readily accepted by traditionalists, but this is denied by the critics, for they take a naturalistic (or rationalistic) approach because they view supernatural intervention as incapable of occurring. The two approaches are diametrically opposed. Ultimately, one is false and the other is the correct approach. The proposition under discussion here is that although the critical position of a late Maccabean period for the date of composition of the book of Daniel is predominately accepted by biblical scholars, the traditional position that the book of Daniel is of an early 6th century B.C. composition is adequately supported by the linguistic and historical evidence.

The approaches for dating the composition of the book of Daniel are composed of numerous methods of argumentation, with varying degrees of complexity. In general, though, the two basic approaches can be condensed with some generalizations.

The Traditional Approach

The traditional approach for ascertaining the date of composition for the book of Daniel argues that the book is a literary product of the 6th century B.C., composed by Daniel (the book’s hero) by the inspiration and guidance of the God of Israel. According to this approach, the story is both a historical and a prophetic document; consequently, it is not a mythological book of imagery. The historical setting of the book and its composition, then, is in Babylonian captivity and subsequently into the early years of Medo-Persian imperial rule (c. 603-536 BC).[1]

This view is the earliest extant view held between Hebrew and Christian writings to date. Harold Ginsberg, who is in favor of the critical approach, concedes in the Encyclopaedia Judaica that the traditional view is the earliest position concerning the date of composition for Daniel. He writes:

Both the rabbis of the Talmudic Age and the Christian Church Fathers accepted the book’s own statements that the four apocalypses of Daniel B [chapters 7-12] were written by a man named Daniel in the last years of the Babylonian Age and in the first ones of the Persian Age, […] and they did not question the historicity of any part of Daniel A [chapters 1-6].[2]

Harold Louis Ginsberg, “Daniel, Book of,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica

Even though no other position is known earlier than the Hebrew tradition, it has not remained unchallenged by critical scholars. Raymond Dillard and Tremper Longman, however, observe that it was not until the 1900s that things changed because up until the 20th century the book of Daniel was viewed as being composed by the historical Daniel (statesman and prophet of God) who ministered prominently in the 500s B.C. and who revealed the future political progression of four kingdoms and the implementation of God’s kingdom.[3]

The Critical Approach

In contradistinction to the traditional approach stands the critical approach for ascertaining the date for the composition of Daniel. As the antagonist to the traditional view, the critical position affirms that the book of Daniel is a rather late production by some unknown author or editor of the 2nd century B.C. Critical scholars view the book of Daniel as a pseudepigraph (“false” writing)[4] and consequently cannot have been written by Daniel nor capable to predict the future, because the critical approach does not believe that predictive prophecy can occur.

Instead of relating past and future events, Daniel was written to inflame the patriotic muscles of the Israelites in order to confront Antiochus IV Epiphanes (a Seleucid) and his people from Syria for Antiochus’ desecration of the temple in Jerusalem. The prophecies are said to be written: “after the event” (vaticinium ex eventu).

The earliest denial of the traditional view is found in the writings of a Neoplatonic philosopher named Porphyry. About 2 centuries after Jesus Christ had described Daniel as “the prophet” (Matt 23:15), Porphyry put his stylus to the maximum level of labor and produced a 15-volume work entitled, Against the Christians.[5] According to Jerome’s commentary on Daniel, which is the only source that reproduces Porphyry’s arguments, in his 12th volume Porphyry attacks “the prophecy of Daniel” and affirms that there are characteristics of the book which betray a late 2nd century B.C. period for composition.[6]

Prominent critical scholar J.J. Collins observes that while Porphyry’s argument was resisted for about a millennium, modern critics from the 18th century to today acknowledge their “validity” and his “insight.”[7] Yet those who still resist Porphyry’s work do so principally on the grounds that his reasoning is based upon the a priori supposition that predictive prophecy is impossible.[8]

The Present Approach

With these two approaches considered, a working knowledge of both the approach to the book and the evaluation of evidence is acquired. The burden to provide adequate evidence to substantiate the claims made above falls upon the shoulders of each approach. Majority consensus is not to be confused with absolute certainty, and the term “conservative approach” need not blind one’s eye to discernment in the evaluation of the data. The case must stand based on the evidence available and proper critique of what it means and substantiates. This shall presently be done.

There are numerous avenues of approaches to dating the materials in the book of Daniel. For example, the earliest extant tradition of the date of composition can greatly aid in approaching the problem, however, there are more issues to deal with than just tradition. As is typical with the critical approach, various issues are raised dealing with the history of both the text and its composition, linguistic analysis, theological development, and any possible discrepant exegetical material. Edwin Yamauchi has discussed some of these issues in 1980.[9] The scope of this discussion is large, so attention will be given to the issues relative to linguistics and history.

Linguistic Concerns

Linguistic analysis is a broad field of analysis that looks at the languages employed, the grammar used, and the literary genre implemented to carry out the production of the document. As in practically every book placed under the scalpel of criticism one of the areas of discussion and controversy is the literary characteristics of the given book. Daniel is no exception.

Hebrew, Aramaic, and Loan Words

Critics argue that the language and stylistic materials in Daniel betray a late date. In staunch disagreement stand scholars taking the traditional approach, asserting that the literary content of Daniel is best explained by an early date. The last century and a half (roughly) reflect this debate. It seems evident, however, that the growing data relative to the literary content of Daniel weighs in strongly for an early date. In 1976, Bruce K. Waltke observed:

From [S.R.] Driver’s classic statement of the linguistic evidence in 1897 to the commentary by [Norman W.] Porteous in 1965, there has been no reappraisal of the evidence by the literary critics of Daniel in spite of the increasing mass of evidence that the language of Daniel can no longer be regarded as belonging to the second century B.C.[10]

Waltke, “The Date of the Book of Daniel” BSac 133 (1976)

It is, therefore, important to analyze this line of reasoning to observe the nature of the evidence and make a conclusion as to what the details suggest in order to make an educated assertion. Two major areas of contention are the mixture of Hebrew (Dan 1:1-2:4a; 8:1-12) and Aramaic (2:4b-7:28) languages in the book of Daniel and the loan words from the Persian and Greek languages.

Hebrew and Aramaic Composition

The book of Daniel is the product of two languages; Hebrew and Aramaic. This book does not stand alone in having this admixture of languages, however, the book of Ezra is of similar composition (Aramaic sections Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26).[11]

4QDan

Critical scholars allege that the book was originally composed in Aramaic and later the present transitions (1:1-2:4a and 8:1-12) were translated into Hebrew.[12] Neil R. Lightfoot remarks that the Hebrew to Aramaic and Aramaic to Hebrew sections in Daniel has been confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS).[13] While Lightfoot does not identify the specific fragments, Gerhard Hasel identifies them in his work as 1QDana (Dan 2:2-6), 4QDana (7:25-8:5), 4QDanb (Dan 7:26-8:1-8).[14] Overall, “we have at our disposal from the Dead Sea scrolls parts of all chapters, except Daniel 9 and 12.”[15] This is striking information because when the scrolls were discovered one of the main questions was concerning what precise sections were preserved.

Moreover, the earliest extant text before the DSS was the Masoretic Text (MT c. A.D. 980), the accuracy of which was seriously challenged by critical scholars because of the great gap between the MT and the autographs. The transitions in Daniel received equal criticism; however, there is no reason to argue against them, except if one is biased toward the critical view, that the Hebrew and Aramaic sections are authentic. The authenticity of the composition of Daniel argues strongly that the book is one whole unit.[16]

Critics typically argue that Daniel is the result of a long process of composition. They argue that Daniel A, that is Daniel 1-6, is the first and oldest unit of the book, and Daniel B, that is Daniel 7-12, is principally of late authorship or redaction.[17] The critical scholar John G. Gammie has argued that there have been three stages in the growth of the book.[18] Hasel observes that the oldest scroll published before 1992 is 4QDanc dating to the late 2nd century B.C. The manuscript evidence for Daniel is 50 years closer to the supposed Maccabean date of composition than anything extant.[19] Moreover, “there is great harmony between the MT and the Cave 4 finds of the book of Daniel” and Hasel notes 4 powerful lines of supporting material.[20] The unity and early date for the DSS is far more problematic to the critic than the traditionalist because:

Is there enough time for the supposed tradition-historical and redaction-critical developments [as mentioned above] allegedly needed for the growth of the book? […] The verdict seems negative, and an earlier date for Daniel than the second century is unavoidable.[21]

The rather simple observation is that the language transitions are original and a mark of an authentic composition, and consequently of an earlier date than is supposed by critics. Yet the critic is not content with this conception; instead, it appears that the critic must contrive another hypothesis.

Loanwords: Persian, Greek, and Egyptian

The book of Daniel has Persian and Greek loanwords along with one Egyptian loanword. This has served as a source of contention between both approaches. The only agreement as of yet is that they exist; the evidence that they provide is interpreted distinctively. Critics argue that these words reflect a late period. In fact, it has been argued that their placement in Daniel is the result of a deliberate desire to give the impression of being really from the 6th century B.C. but not done consistently.[22]

According to Driver’s classical arguments, critics argue that Greek loanwords objectively support the case; moreover, as Peter W. Coxon argues, it is the “strongest evidence in favor of the second century B.C.” position.[23] Traditional scholars are not impressed with such assertions on the grounds that there is no need to limit the utility of each respective language to the 2nd century B.C.; therefore, the argument (based upon a precise but faulty linguistic chronology) falls by the wayside as compelling “proof.”

The Egyptian loanword hartummin (Dan 2:10, 27; 4:4), another formation is rab hartummayya (Dan 4:6, 5:11), is the Egyptian word for “magician.”[24] L. F. Hartman, in “The Great Tree and Nobuchodonosor’s Madness,” argues that this loanword should “strictly” only apply to “Egyptian magicians” who would are not to be found in the Babylonian court of Nebuchadnezzar.[25] In response, Yamauchi suggests two lines of evidence to demonstrate how frail the argument is. First, the Jehoiachin ration tablets illuminate the setting by noting that among other nations “Egyptians were given provision by the royal court.” Second, I. Eph’al demonstrates that there were Mesopotamian Egyptians professionally serving as lubare (“diviners”) and luhartibi (“dream interpreters”) in the 5th and 6th centuries B.C. Luhartibi is a cognate of the word in question. While Yamauchi argues that the word does not necessarily have to be a reference to Egyptian nationals, “the idea that there were Egyptian magicians and soothsayers in Mesopotamia is not so far fetched as Harman believes.”[26]

The Persian and Greek loanwords are said, respectively, to “presuppose a period after the Persian empire had been well established” and “demand […] a date after the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great (B.C. 332).”[27] Yet, Montgomery is said to point out that allowance must be made for the influence of cultures to be more widespread than earlier presumed.[28] In other words, the classical linguistic argument is not as strong as it used to be. In fact, Driver’s famous linguistic conclusion abbreviated above included Aramaic which is now known to be difficult to distinguish between early and late periods.[29]

Nevertheless, some would still use this argument in support of a late date, but to this, there is an answer. Yamauchi has completely crippled this notion by chronicling the channels of transmissions (i.e. musical notation, merchant exchange, and that of foreign captives).[30] Moreover, he has demonstrably chronicled there has been Grecian contact with Mesopotamia from even before 1000 B.C. to at least the 400s B.C.,[31] and any appearance of these Greek words “is not proof of Hellenistic date, in view of the abundant opportunities for contact between the Aegean and the Near East.”[32]

The Persians loanwords fare no better as evidence of a late date. Waltke gleans three observations from Kenneth Kitchen’s 1965 work “The Aramaic of Daniel” published in Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel.[33] First, by way of objectivity, it must be noted that the Persian words are “old Persian words” which typically are found in the 300s B.C. Second, it is egregious to assume that it would take an absorbent amount of time for Persian words to be borrowed into Aramaic, because if Daniel did exist he would have become acclimated to the Persian vocabulary sooner rather than later.

Third, four of nineteen Persian words the old Greek translations are mere guesswork which bears this implication: “if Daniel were wholly a product of 165 B.C., then just a century or so in a continuous tradition is surely embarrassingly inadequate as a sufficient interval for that loss (or change) of meaning to occur by Near Eastern standards.”[34] In 1976, Millard, citing this work, notes that these loanwords are “quite at home in a sixth century context” and that Kitchen’s observations “have been accepted by leading linguists.”[35]

Canonical Placement

Wisdom or Prophetic Literature?

Based upon the placement of Daniel among the Ketubim (Writings) of the Hebrew Bible and not among the Nevi’im (Prophets), critics dismiss Daniel because it is mere wisdom literature with no true prophetic import instead it is a pseudepigraphic work utilizing vaticinium ex eventu prophecy (i.e. utterances appearing prophetic but were composed post-event). Klaus Koch notes that by “presupposing” an early date for the completion of the canon around c.200 A.D., “scholars made the incorporation of Daniel among the writings a cornerstone of the so-called Maccabean Theory.”[36]

First, the placement of the book does not illegitimate it from being both wisdom and prophetic. David Malick argues that Daniel is historical literature along the lines of Ezra (an accepted book by the critics) and therefore “applies because the prophetic visions are also a record (in advance) of the sovereign work of God in history.”[37]

Second, after evaluating the positive and negative evidence of the placement of Daniel, Kloch argues that there is the negative evidence is inconclusive,[38] while the positive evidence suggests an earlier “Jewish diaspora canon”[39] and “at some point the rabbis transferred the book from the prophetic corpus to the last third of their collection of Holy Scripture. That probably happened long before the fifth century” A.D.[40]

In other words, there appears to be a strong case that Daniel was initially in the Nebhim and was later transferred to the Ketubim, which is in total disagreement with the critical attack.

Historical Concerns

The Archaeological Record is Incomplete but Reliable

Since the historical issues are directly related to the issue of the date of composition, it is important to evaluate the faulty view that archaeology has revealed everything relative to historical studies of biblical narratives. It must be understood that not all of the desired archaeological data is available to the Bible student. However, what is available impressively agrees with the biblical narrative.

In discussing the fragmentary nature of the archaeological evidence, Yamauchi briefly and candidly lays out the situation. In summary, he lists 4 factors.[41]

First, artifact remains (written or manufactured) are minute. Second, a small fraction of the possible sites were surveyed or excavated. Third, generally speaking, only a small fraction of these sites are even excavated. Fourth, a small percentage of what has been found has been written upon, and even when they are there is typically a great delay of time between excavation and publication. This is important to recognize because it is typically the case that the critics argue that “since we do not have certain corroborative evidence for something mentioned in the textual tradition, the reference must be anachronistic.”[42]

For example, Daniel 5:30 mentions Belshazzar, a person who for years was a personage relegated to myth by critics, therefore being a serious divergence in the biblical account from historical veracity. However, as Gonzalo Baez-Carmargo writes “the problem continued until new archaeological evidence showed that the two reports [from history and the Bible] could be reconciled.”[43] 

It is not foolish to suggest, therefore (when there is a lack of evidence on a given point of contention) that one must wait for new evidence to arrive. Sadly, that is not what typically occurs, and instead, as H. C. Leupold observes, whenever the Bible is the sole source for reporting history, the “prevailing tendency is to discredit the biblical statement” never mind that in other situations single statements from other sources are received without much alarm.[44]

Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1

Robert A. Anderson, taking the critical approach, comments upon Daniel 1:1 and writes that “reference is often made to a historical inaccuracy within these opening verses.”[45] Anderson refers to the alleged contradiction between Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1. Anderson also represents the naturalistic critical mindset when he writes that “historical inexactitudes are not infrequent in” Daniel.

First among the supposed historical blunders to be considered is the invasion into Judah by Nebuchadnezzar. Bruce K. Waltke asks the following question:

How can one square the statement in Daniel 1:1 that Nebuchadnezzar in his first year as king besieged Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim with the statement in Jeremiah 25:1, 9; 46:1[-2] that Nebuchadnezzar defeated Pharaoh Necho in the fourth year of Jehoiakim?[46]

Waltke, “The Date of the Book of Daniel,” BSac 133 (1976)

After all, if they cannot be harmonized then this is an occasion of a “historical inexactitude” which would underscore a purely human enterprise in the composition of either Daniel or Jeremiah which implicitly affirms that there was no supernatural guidance in their production as the dogma of inspiration necessitates.

Waltke suggests that the superficial discrepancy between Daniel and Jeremiah is the result of comparing the use of two distinct systems of dating, citing Edwin Thiele’s work The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. Waltke further writes:

In Babylonia the year in which the king ascended the throne was designated specifically as “the year of accession to the kingdom,” and this was followed by the first, second, and subsequent years of rule. In Palestine, on the other hand, there was no accession year as such, so that the length of rule was computed differently, with the year of accession being regarded as the first year of the king’s reign.[47]

Waltke, “The Date of the Book of Daniel,” BSac 133 (1976)

Likewise, based upon R. K Harrison’s 1973 work on Jeremiah and Lamentations (Tyndale Old Testament commentary) Wayne Jackson notes that critics “once alleged that this passage was in conflict with Daniel 1:1, but archaeological discoveries have demonstrated that Jeremiah used the Jewish method of computing reigns, while Daniel employed the Babylonian system.”[48]

If this harmonization is correct then it becomes a line of argumentation for the early 6th century B.C. date of composition because the dating is not in conflict.[49]

Darius the Mede

The next issue under consideration encircles the identity of the illusive personage of Darius the Mede. Critics basically assert that “no such figure as Darius the Mede is known to history,”[50] or as Frost words it, Darius the Mede “never existed.”[51] Collins argues that it is the confusion by the Maccabean author for Darius I of Persia (522-486 B.C.).[52] Frost notes two options that are: this illusive one does not exist or he “is known to history by some other name.”[53] Frost lucidly summarizes Rowley’s work on ascertaining the Mede’s identity and notes that it could not be Astyages (too early), Cambyses (not a Mede), Gobryas (either Babylonian or Persian), nor Cyaxares (a fictional person).[54]

Since no one fits that description, coupled with the discovery of two dated overlapping Babylonian tablets by two months depicting that after Nabonidus reigned, succeeded only by Belshazzar, Cyrus ruled; consequently, Frost’s either-or scenario seems to imply that the illusive Mede is fictitious.

However, Dillard and Longman present the work of Shea conducted from 1971-1982 which affirms that there was a unique situation in the 1st year of the reign of Cyrus noting that he did not take on the title “king of Babylon” only until as late as the end of his 1st year. This has led Shea to conclude that there is space to put in a possible vassal, biblically identified as Darius the Mede.[55] Moreover, there is room for debate, however, Shea’s second option is that consistent with the Babylonian dating system, the Cambyses-Cyrus co-regency is “dated to the latter’s second year,” which is consistent with “Cambyses’ participation in the Babylonian New Year’s festival” placed at the beginning of Cyrus’ second year of reign.

This is, as Shea writes, “tantamount to designating him as king.”[56] The point is, the issue can be given a soluble response enmeshed in historical facts. This answers Frost’s either-or position leaving another possible persona Rowley perhaps had not considered.

Jesus and Daniel the Prophet

The last historical evidence is the testimony of Jesus, the founder of the Christian religion. Jesus regards exilic Daniel as a prophet (Matt 24:15), and many have seized upon this as proof that Daniel is prophetic, thereby arguing for a sixth-century B.C. date of composition. Samuel A. Cartledge, observing this, affirms that this is not definite proof that Daniel is the author of the book which bears his name. “Jesus may have known that the book was written by someone else and still have spoken of it in a popular way.”[57] For Cartledge, it may conceivably be this or another occasion where the Lord has limited his knowledge as in the case of the time of his return.[58]

However, the grammar of the passage is rather vivid. It is observed that dia with the genitive (as is the case in verse 15) “is common for the intermediate agent in contrast with” hupo with the genitive (“the immediate agent”) as in hupo kurioo dia too profetoo “by the Lord through the prophet.”[59] This intermediate agency of Daniel in the predicting of the “abomination of desolation” (Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11) has made Gleason Archer observe the following:

Christ was not simply referring to some book in the Old Testament named “Daniel” but rather to the agency of Daniel personally, since dia with the genitive always implies personal human agency [emphasis added]. If these words of Christ are reliably reported […] we can only conclude that Christ personally believed that the historic personage Daniel was the author of the book that contained this eschatological phrase.[60]

Archer, New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (1982)

It must be conceded that the context must determine that human participation is in view; however, if Archer’s argument is sound in general (and it appears that it is) then this is a strong case for Daniel to be regarded as a prophet. Also, it underscores what the Apostle Matthew and the church under his leadership believed concerning Daniel’s prophetic office.

Daniel would consequently satisfy the prophetic criteria of Deuteronomy 18:22. It seems appropriate to suggest that Cartledge assumes far too much when he provides his fanciful options. He also explains away what would be obvious to the first-century reader of the Greek text.

Final Observations

In brief, the major linguistic issues are not demonstrably in favor of the late 2nd century B.C. view. The evaluation of such data is not easy and is meticulous; however, the linguistic transitions from Hebrew to Aramaic and Aramaic to Hebrew are only separated (if taking the critical approach) from the autographs by 50 years; thus, the earliest extant testimony to their authenticity and the early unity of Daniel. The Egyptian, Persian, and Greek loanwords do not demonstrably prove that the composition is of a late date. Instead, there are vast amounts of opportunities for these terms to be used throughout the captivity, exploding the small window of opportunity for usage provided by the critical position.

The evidence does not prove or substantially support the critical approach, meanwhile, the traditional view in light of the data from the foregoing research does, however, stand in a stronger position.

Likewise, the controverted historical data, while at times difficult to sort through, can be harmonized to the point that it does not contradict history. It must be recognized that everything available from archaeology is not uncovered and that even that which is recovered is a small fraction of a bygone world. Consequently, patience and watchfulness must be given in affirming a conclusion based on that evidence. Be that as it may, the historical data relative to Daniel better supports the traditional literal approach to Daniel.

The relegation of Daniel to mere wisdom literature with no true prophetic import is fallacious at best and a biased interpretation at worst. Attacks upon the biblical account of the invasion of Jerusalem can be harmonized satisfactorily. The great difficulty of identifying Darius the Mede is not insoluble, but critical scholars have no demonstrable right to affirm that this character must be relegated to mythology as a historical confusion. Finally, the testimony of Jesus affirms that Daniel is considered a prophet by the first-century Jews which, at least for the Lord, had an unfinished prophecy to be fulfilled.

At worst this is the testimony of a Rabbi living earlier than the Christian antagonist Porphyry and a little under two millennia earlier than the modern critics, and at best the testimony of the God in the flesh.

One might conclude with the “Danielic” words “MENE, MENE, TEKEL” (Dan 5:25), but instead, consider some observations by Robert D. Wilson and Harry Rimmer. Rimmer writes that a scientific approach to the Bible inquiry is to adopt a hypothesis and then test it and see if there are supportive data that establishes it. Rimmer writes:

If the hypothesis cannot be established and if the facts will not fit in with its framework, we reject that hypothesis and proceed along the line of another theory. If facts sustain the hypothesis, it then ceases to be theory and becomes an established truth.[61]

Harry Rimmer, Internal Evidence of Inspiration (1946)

Wilson makes a similar argument and ties an ethical demand to it. After ably refuting a critical argument against Daniel, Wilson remarks that when prominent critical scholars make egregious affirmations adequately shown to be so, “what dependence will you place on him when he steps beyond the bounds of knowledge into the dim regions of conjecture and fancy?”[62]

This is important to consider when the Bible is supported by abundant evidence of its authenticity (as is the case for Daniel), for “upon what ground of common sense or law of evidence are we to be induced to believe that these documents are false or forged when charges absolutely unsupported by evidence are made against them?”[63] There is no reason to. Yet many will be subdued by critical scholarship spouting that it holds the majority view of the date of composition. For those who look at the evidence, there really is no cause to accept the critical view of a late date of Daniel.

Works Cited

  1. J. Carl Laney, Concise Bible Atlas: a Geographical Survey of Bible History (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1998), 153. 
  2. Harold Louis Ginsberg, “Daniel, Book of,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Judaica, 1973), 5:1281.
  3. Raymond B. Dillard and Tremper Longman, III, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 330.
  4. For a strong critique see Gleason L. Archer, “The Aramaic of the ‘Genesis Apocryphon’ Compared with the Aramaic of Daniel,” in New Perspectives on the Old Testament., ed. J. Barton Payne (Waco, TX: Word, 1970), 160-69.
  5. Bruce K. Waltke, “The Date of the Book of Daniel” BSac 133 (1976): 319.
  6. J. J. Collins, “Daniel, Book of,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1992. 29-37), 2:30.
  7. Collins, “Daniel, Book of,” ABD 2:30.
  8. Waltke, “The Date of the Book of Daniel,” 319.
  9. Edwin M. Yamauchi, “Hermeneutical Issues in the Book of Daniel,” JETS 23 (1980): 13-21.
  10. Waltke, “The Date of the Book of Daniel,” 322.
  11. Neil R. Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001), 30.
  12. Robert A. Anderson, Daniel: Signs and Wonders, eds. George A. F. Knight and Fredrick Carlson Holmgren (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984), 13.
  13. Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, 30.
  14. Gerhard Hasel, “New Light on the Book of Daniel from the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Archaeology and Biblical Research 5.2 (1992): 45-53.
  15. Hasel, “New Light on the Book of Daniel from the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 46.
  16. On this point, see Hasel, “New Light on the Book of Daniel from the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 50.
  17. Collins, “Daniel, Book of,” ABD 2:31, 33.
  18. John G. Gammie, “The Classification, Stages of Growth, and Changing Intentions in the Book of Daniel,” JBL 95.2 (1976): 196-202.
  19. Hasel, “New Light on the Book of Daniel from the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 47.
  20. Hasel, “New Light on the Book of Daniel from the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 50.
  21. Hasel, “New Light on the Book of Daniel from the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 48.
  22. Gammie, “The Classification, Stages of Growth, and Changing Intentions in the Book of Daniel,” 199.
  23. Edwin M. Yamauchi, “The Archaeological Background of Daniel,” BSac 137.545 (1980): 11.
  24. Gammie, “The Classification, Stages of Growth, and Changing Intentions in the Book of Daniel,” 199.
  25. Yamauchi, “The Archaeological Background of Daniel,” 10.
  26. Yamauchi, “The Archaeological Background of Daniel,” 10.
  27. Stanley B. Frost, “Daniel,” Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. George Arthur Buttrick (New York, NY: Abingdon, 1962), 1:768.
  28. Frost, “Daniel,” IDB 1:763.
  29. Frost, “Daniel,” IDB 1:763.
  30. Edwin M. Yamauchi, “The Greek Words in Daniel in the Light of Greek Influence in the Near East,” in New Perspectives on the Old Testament, ed. J. Barton Payne (Waco, TX: Word, 1970), 176.
  31. Yamauchi, “The Greek Words in Daniel in the Light of Greek Influence in the Near East,” 177-92.
  32. Yamauchi, “The Greek Words in Daniel in the Light of Greek Influence in the Near East,” 192.
  33. Waltke, “The Date of the Book of Daniel,” 323-24.
  34. Waltke, “The Date of the Book of Daniel,” 234.
  35. Allan R. Millard, “Daniel” in The International Bible Commentary, rev. ed., ed. Frederick F. Bruce (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 848.
  36. Klaus Kloch, “Is Daniel also Among the Prophets?” Int 39 (1985): 118.
  37. David Malick, “An Introduction to the Book of Daniel,” Bible.org. 2015.
  38. Kloch, “Is Daniel also Among the Prophets?,” 119-20.
  39. Kloch, “Is Daniel also Among the Prophets?,” 121.
  40. Kloch, “Is Daniel also Among the Prophets?,” 122.
  41. Yamauchi, “The Greek Words in Daniel in the Light of Greek Influence in the Near East,” 171-74.
  42. Yamauchi, “The Greek Words in Daniel in the Light of Greek Influence in the Near East,” 170.
  43. Gonzalo Baez-Carmargo, Archaeological Commentary on the Bible, trans. American Bible Society (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 180.
  44. H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis: 1-19 (repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975), 365-66.
  45. Anderson, Daniel, 1.
  46. Waltke, “The Date of the Book of Daniel,” 325-26.
  47. Waltke, “The Date of the Book of Daniel,” 326.
  48. Wayne Jackson, Jeremiah and Lamentations (Stockton, CA: Courier, 1997), 61.
  49. Waltke, “The Date of the Book of Daniel,” 326.
  50. Collins, “Daniel, Book of,” ABD 2:30.
  51. Frost, “Daniel,” IDB 1:765.
  52. Collins, “Daniel, Book of,” ABD 2:30.
  53. Frost, “Daniel,” IDB 1:765.
  54. Frost, “Daniel,” IDB 1:765.
  55. Dillard and Longman, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 336.
  56. Dillard and Longman, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 337.
  57. Samuel A. Cartledge, A Conservative Introduction to the Old Testament (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1944), 221.
  58. Cartledge, A Conservative Introduction to the Old Testament, 221.
  59. Archibald T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis, A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, 10th ed. (repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 254.
  60. Gleason L. Archer, New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982), 284.
  61. Harry Rimmer, Internal Evidence of Inspiration, 7th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1946), 36.
  62. Robert D. Wilson, A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament, rev. ed., ed. Edward J. Young (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1967), 98.
  63. Wilson, A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament, 99.

Bibliography

Alexander, David, and Pat Alexander. Eds. Eerdmans’ Handbook to the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973.

Anderson, Robert A. Daniel: Signs and Wonders. Gen. eds. George A.F. Knight and Fredrick Carlson Holmgren. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

Archer, Gleason. L. “The Aramaic of the ‘Genesis Apocryphon’ Compared with the Aramaic of Daniel.” New Perspectives on the Old Testament. Ed. J. Barton Payne. Waco, TX: Word, 1970. 160–69.

_____.“Modern Rationalism and the Book of Daniel.” Bibliotheca Sacra 136.542 (1979): 129–47.

_____. New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982.

Baez-Carmargo, Gonzalo. Archaeological Commentary on the Bible. Trans. American Bible Society. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984.

Brantley, Garry K. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Biblical Integrity.” Apologetics Press on the Web. 1995. 20 Sept. 2003 <http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1995/r&r9504a.htm>.

Cartledge, Samuel A. A Conservative Introduction to the Old Testament. Athens, GA: U Georgia P, 1944.

Collins, J.J. “Daniel, Book of.” Anchor Bible Dictionary. vol. 2. Gen. ed. David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. 29–37.

Dillard, Raymond B., and Tremper Longman III. An Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Frost, Stanley B. “Daniel.” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. vol. 1. Ed. George Arthur Buttrick. New York: Abingdon, 1962. 768.

Gammie, John G. “The Classification, Stages of Growth, and Changing Intentions in the Book of Daniel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 95.2 (1976): 191–204.

Geisler, Norman L. A Popular Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.

Ginsberg, Harold Louis. “Daniel, Book of.” Encyclopaedia Judaica. vol. 5. Jerusalem: Judaica, 1973.1277–89.

Harrison, R.K. “Daniel, Book of.” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Rev. ed. vol. 1. Gen. ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. 859–66.

Hasel, Gerhard. “New Light on the Book of Daniel from the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Archaeology and Biblical Research 5.2 (1992): 45–53. [Also published in Ministry (Jan. 1992): 10–13.]

Jackson, Wayne. Jeremiah and Lamentations. Stockton, CA: Courier, 1997.

Laney, J. Carl. Concise Bible Atlas: A Geographical Survey of Bible History. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1998.

Leupold, H.C. Exposition of Genesis: 1–19. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975.

Lightfoot, Neil R. How We Got the Bible. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.

Malick, David. “An Introduction to the Book of Daniel.” Biblical Studies Foundation on Web. 1996. 19 Sept. 2003 <http://www.bible.org/docs/ot/books/dan/dan-intr.htm&gt;.

Millard, A.R. “Daniel.” The International Bible Commentary. Gen ed. F.F. Bruce. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986. 847–70.

Rimmer, Harry. Internal Evidence of Inspiration. 7th ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1946

Roberston, A.T., and W. Hersey Davis. A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament. 10th ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979.

Waltke, Bruce. K. “The Date of the Book of Daniel.” Bibliotheca Sacra 133 (1976): 319–33.

Wilson, Robert D. A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament. Rev. ed. Edward J. Young. Chicago: Moody, 1967.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. “The Archaeological Background of Daniel.” Bibliotheca Sacra 137.545 (1980): 3–16.

_____. “The Greek Words in Daniel in the Light of Greek Influence in the Near East.” New Perspectives on the Old Testament. Ed. J. Barton Payne. Waco, TX: Word, 1970.

_____. “Hermeneutical Issues in the Book of Daniel.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 23 (1980): 13–21.

The Divisions of the Bible: A Starting Place

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Bible Chronology, Bible Study, Book of Acts, General Letters, Gospel, Hebrew Poetry, Historical Books, Law, Major Prophets, Minor Prophets, New Testament, Old Testament, Paul's Letters, Revelation, Wisdom Literature1 Comment

The Bible is a library of 66 books, composed over a period of fifteen hundred years. The authors involved in this inspired anthology come from a variety of backgrounds, locations, historical situations, professions, and ethnicities.

While each book has its individual purpose, each work develops the overarching theme that humanity is the creation of an eternal Creator, and due to personal sin has fallen spiritually. This fallen state is addressed both historically and theologically in the development of the scheme of redemption, finally materializing in the ministry of Jesus.

In order to appreciate this history of redemption and the books of the Bible, it is vital to have a working knowledge of the divisions of the Bible. Moreover, a better understanding of the Bible improves one’s comprehension of sermons and Bible classes. The following is an extremely brief sketch of the Bible and its arrangement of content as we have it in our modern Bibles.

Chronological Divisions

The Patriarchal Period

The name of this period derives from the method God communicated his will, by speaking the “fathers” of the family (Adam, Noah, Abraham, etc.); hence, the term “patriarch” which means “the male head of a family” (Heb 1:1). The biblical content covering this period is Genesis 1-50 and Exodus 1-19, that of the creation and the fall, the flood, and the call of Abraham to be in covenant with God and to be the father of “many nations”.

Through the nation of Israel, God would bring about the redemptive “seed” (Jesus, Gal 3:15-16) to bless all the nations of the world (Gen 12:3). Moreover, this covenant promise was reiterated to Isaac (Gen 26:1-5), Jacob/Israel (Gen 35:9-15), and the children of Israel after the exodus from Egypt on Mt. Sinai.

The Hebrew Period

While technically the story of the Hebrews in the biblical record goes back to Abraham the Hebrew (Gen 14:13), as a major division of the biblical story the Hebrew period reflects the story of God and His covenant people Israel (cf. Acts 7:2-53). This period covers Exodus 20-Malachi, and the time period of the ministry of Jesus (Matt–John). The historical story of the Exodus transitions into the giving of the Law at Sinai.

During this period, Israel received “the law”, wandered in the wilderness for forty years, conquered and settled into the Promised Land, and transitioned from a theocracy (where God ruled through prophets) to a monarchy (where God ruled through kings). This period also covers the history of the divided kingdoms of Israel (North) and Judah (South) and their eventual demise. The kingdom and the covenant were both to be superseded by a new kingdom (Dan 2:44-45), and a new covenant (Jer 31:31-34); the design of which was to prepare the world for the coming of Jesus (Gal 3:19-29; Heb 9:11-28).

The Christian Period

The Christian Period technically begins upon the death of Jesus of Nazareth, when the “testament” came into effect (Heb 9:16-17); however, the teaching of Jesus as it anticipated the Christian era is found in the Gospel Narratives and occurred while under the Law of Moses was still in effect (Matt–John; Gal 4:4-6). Moreover, the confirmation of this “new” testament was accomplished in Christ by God in the resurrection from the dead (Rom 1:4-5; Acts 2:14-36; 1 Cor 15:1-11).

This period begins then with the establishment of Christianity in Jerusalem (Acts 2), and continues on through the expansion of the Christian faith not only geographically (Acts 1:8) but also ethnically (Acts 2:39, 10:28, 11:18). The Christian era will continue, time-wise, until the return of Jesus, at the Second Coming (Matt 28.20; 1 Cor 15:22-28); and at this time the present world will dissolve away and we will be with our God (2 Pet 3:8-13; 1 Thess 4:13-18).

Division of Books by Category

The following is a listing of the books of the Bible according to categories, along with a useful numeric memory tool to learn the divisions of each section.

The 39 Old Testament Books (5, 12, 5, 5, 12)

Books of Moses (5). Written by Moses to provide the origins of the human family, the Hebrew nation, and incorporates the Law of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy).

Hebrew History (12). Follows the story of Joshua and the conquest and settlement of Canaan to the rise and demise of the Hebrew Kingdom, and the exile into Babylon and their return (Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, 1-2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther).

Hebrew Poetry (5). A series of volumes set in Hebrew poetic prose, written by a number of authors, designed to impart divine wisdom and perspective (Job, Ecclesiastes, Psalms, Song of Solomon, Proverbs).

Major Prophets (5). Popularly so-called due to the size of each work, and not for their spiritual value. (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel).

Book of the Twelve (12). Grouped together from ancient times, the “Minor” prophets are brief volumes that pack spiritual “punch” (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi). Both the Major and the Minor Prophets are from various time periods, these works contain words of woes, judgments, and hope; moreover, they provide a great wealth of messianic prophecies.

The 27 New Testament Books (4, 1, 21, 1)

Gospel Narratives (4). Written to chronicle the teaching and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, his rejection, crucifixion, and resurrection. Two of the four authors are apostles (Matthew, John), one is known to be an associate of Paul (Luke), and the other is believed to be of Peter (Mark).

Acts of Apostles (1). As the sequel to the Gospel of Luke, Acts covers the beginning of the church, and its expansion from Jerusalem to Rome, roughly a period of some 30-plus years.

Apostolic Letters (21). Written to churches and individuals teaching and exhorting Christians to live faithful; furthermore, the letters address false teachings and local issues (Roman, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1-2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude).

Revelation (1). Addressed to seven churches in Asia, this final “revelation” is a message of victory of God and His people over their enemies. It is rich in apocalyptic language, much like Daniel, Ezekiel, and other prophetic books.

Concluding Thoughts

When Vince Lombardi took the helm of the coaching staff of the Green Bay Packers, it is said that he gave a speech that established clearly the importance of the basics. It runs as follows:

Everybody stop and gather around,” he said. Then he knelt down, picked up the pigskin, and said, “Let’s start at the beginning. This is a football. These are the yard markers. I’m the coach. You are the players.” He went on, in the most elementary of ways, to explain the basics of football.

The team became very successful, and this anecdote reminds us of the importance of getting back to basics. Understanding the fundamental components of the Bible is essential to obtaining the wisdom needed to know what to do to be saved (2 Tim 3:13-14). May we all be so blessed.

Lessons from a “Sinful” Woman (Luke 7)

On By Jovan PayesIn Bible Study, Christian Leadership, Christology, Discipleship, Essays, Gospel, Kingdom Ethics, Leadership Ethics, Luke, New Testament, Women Studies1 Comment

On one occasion in the ministry of our Lord, Jesus accepted a dinner invitation from a Pharisee named Simon (Luke 7:40); interestingly, a woman with a reputation for being a “sinner” had heard of Jesus’ arrival and interrupted the dinner by cleaning his feet with her tears and hair and anointing them with oil (Luke 7:36-38).

Simon recoils at the woman’s act, and has an internal monologue that essentially questions the validity of the Lord’s ministry: 

If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner. (Luke 7:39)[1]

As in other occasions, Jesus answers this unspoken criticism (Luke 7:40; cf. Matt 9:4, Mark 2:8). The Lord responds with a “parable of two debtors” (Luke 7:41-43), which has as its main thrust the point that “our sense of forgiveness will evidence itself in love and service.”[2]

There are points in the narrative that suggest that the woman and the Lord had known each other previously. The woman’s act of service and love (Luke 7:44-46) is a demonstration of her gratitude. This gratitude is based upon the fact that her sins “are forgiven” (Luke 7:47-48).

In the first instance, Jesus speaking to Simon the Pharisee states that this woman’s sins “stand forgiven” (v. 47). The phrase is one word in the original and is in the perfect passive indicative form. The verb reflects that her sins were forgiven at some point previous to their encounter at Simon’s house, and remain to be so. This would explain her great demonstration, of which Simon was critical.

In the second instance, Jesus turns to the woman and speaks the exact same phrase (v. 48). This time, the Lord encourages her – your sins remain to be forgiven. The woman “stands saved” (Grk. sesoken) because of her faith in the Lord; consequently, the Savior could send her into a life of “peace” (v. 50). The Lord emphasizes the abiding results of her forgiveness received prior to this dinner.

Moreover, Jesus concedes the point that the woman’s life had been ravaged by sin: “her sins, which are many” (v. 47). This strikes at one of Simon’s criticisms raised by the woman’s action, and Jesus demonstrates his full knowledge of the situation. He knew “what sort of woman” she was. Now, she is different; now, she is saved and forgiven, commissioned to live a new life embraced by the peace of God (Rom 5:1).

If Service is the Symptom… Stay Sick

It ought to go without saying that this encounter with our Lord is one that should pull at our hearts, for we share, as Christians, the same plight as this woman. Knowing the debt of forgiveness we owe to our God, knowing that the Lord went behind enemy lines to rescue us from a calamity worse than death, we too should be of similar passions to show our love through service.

The idea of service is not an abstract notion that we subscribe to, service is an expression of love. It is a symptom of our love for God. Consequently, if service is a “symptom,” then love and gratitude generated by salvation is the “infection.” And in this analogy, we would rather be sick than cured.

Christians, therefore, should never be complacent in their service to God. Packed pews look nice, but if that is all we offer to God, we have failed. Service, as demonstrated by this woman, sacrifices time, resources, and energy, and offers it to her Lord. Can we do any less?

When there are cards to mail, people to visit, broken hearts to help mend, and souls to invite to our Father’s promises in the Gospel, it should be done by our hands – not by the hands of another. The most natural explanation for this behavior is our gratitude and love for our Lord.

Lessons to be Learned

Besides the principle emphasis from this passage that forgiveness leads to a sense of gratitude which showcases itself in acts of love and service, there are a few other lessons that may be observed.

(1) This passage highlights the divinity of Jesus, bearing witness that He has the right to forgive sin.

Jesus’ claims to divine authority are well documented in the New Testament, and even as a basis for the plots against his life (John 5:17-18; 7:1).

In Luke, Jesus declared that the woman’s sins stand forgiven (7:47-48), and this offended the group of Pharisees at the dinner party. They reasoned, “Who is this, who even forgives sins?” (v. 49). They understood Jesus’ claims were not idealistic (mere wishful thinking), but were literal claims to divine authority (cf. Luke 5:17-26).

(2) A person’s new life may be overshadowed, for a time, by their past moral failures.

We know virtually nothing about this woman only that she is labeled as “a woman of the city” (v. 37) and “a sinner” (vv. 37, 39). This is not just a note from Luke, the narrator, but this was Simon’s understanding of who this mysterious woman was.

Nevertheless, critics will come and go, but the peace of God lasts forever (v. 50). The unrelenting critics who so often affirm, “you’ll do it again”, will be silenced and shamed by service to God (1 Pet 3:13-17; 2:11-12).  We do not serve to prove others wrong, we serve to love God. The motivation behind our service must be fueled by our gratitude; as it is written:

Now which of them will love him more? Simon [the Pharisee] answered, "The one, I suppose, for whom he cancelled the larger debt." And he said to him, "You have judged rightly." (Luke 7:42b-43)

 (3) A life troubled by the ravages of a sinful life can become a life of peace devoted to godly service to God.

The change of life brought about by a new way of thinking in light of God’s forgiveness has the overwhelming power to transform a person (Acts 2:38; Rom 12:1-2). Experiencing the grace of God, understanding that we who were once dead are now made alive in Christ brings tremendous peace, for our Lord never leaves us (Heb 13:5-6; 1 John 1:7).

Indeed, Paul writes,

...if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.
(2 Corinthians 5:17)

This new birth (John 3:4-5) brings with it “the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension” (Phil 4:7); moreover, this peace guards our hearts and minds. In this new life, in true appreciation of the grace of God, we are qualified not only to experience a heavenly reward (Col 1:12) but are also sanctified for service (Eph 2:10; 1 Cor 6:19-20).

There is no person that God cannot use in holy service, especially his children whom he has “delivered… from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved son” (Col 1:13).

Concluding Thoughts

I remember seeing an article entitled, “Sluggish Slumbering Saints,” and the essence of the piece was to wake up Christians and call them to their responsibilities as servants of God to serve their Lord (Rom 6:16-18). Indeed, perhaps one of the more critical questions we must ask is this: if the lack of service is the symptom, then what is the infection? The sad answer is a lack of love and gratitude for all of God’s demonstrations of love.

This spiritual malignancy will only go into remission once we see afresh the great debt we owe our Lord. Should it be that a renewal of this kind is needed in the Christian’s life, then we are to seek Him in repentance and faith knowing that He will receive us and reward us (Heb 11:6; Acts 8:22).

You can be a servant like this wonderful woman, who despite her sin-filled past has been immortalized in the pages of God’s book for posterity so that all may see their own story of salvation and love, and be moved to faithfully serve Him from whom all blessings flow.

Sources

  1. Unless otherwise noted all Bible quotations are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV) (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016).
  2. Wayne Jackson, The Parables in Profile: Exegetical Outlines of the Parables of Christ, rev. ed. (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publications, 1998), 70.

The Flock of God that is Among You (1 Pet 5:1-5)

On By Jovan PayesIn 1 Peter, 1 Peter 5, 1 Peter 5:1-5, Church Membership, Elders, J.W. McGarvey, Phil 1:1-2, Shepherds

John W. McGarvey (1829-1911) is a well-known gospel preacher of the American attempt to restore the practice of New Testament Christianity, free from the embellishments and teachings of men.

McGarvey was a tremendous scholar of the apostolic word; his talents were consumed with the teaching and defense of the ancient faith. He was, for example, a deliberate and strong advocate for the New Testament teaching of worship free of any musical instrument (a cappella singing).

His strong conviction on this matter played into his decision to leave the Broadway church in Lexington (his “home” congregation) where he had served both as a preacher for many years, and an elder for thirty-two years.

Brandon Renfroe recounts this decision.[1] In September of 1902, McGarvey resigned from his service as an elder “citing his increasing deafness.” On November 2, the remaining elders announced that they would “put the use of the instrument to a vote” a week later.

In reaction to this vote to include the instruments of music in worship, McGarvey submitted a “letter of withdrawal from the Broadway Church” dated “the very day the elders decided to put the unscriptural practice to a ‘vote.’” He subsequently placed his membership with the Chestnut Street congregation and remained with them until his death.

Why does McGarvey’s withdrawal from one congregation and placement within another matter? At minimum, the decision reflects his desire to be affiliated with a faithful congregation. Church membership, however, is much more.

Is Church Membership Biblical?

This is the first question that needs to be answered: “is church membership biblical?” The practice of “placing membership” is often regarded as a “good tradition” but not a biblical responsibility for every Christian.

Apologist Paul Little is known for saying, “Believing something doesn’t make it true; refusing to believe it doesn’t make it false.”[2] I believe this is a fitting point to ponder here. Let us consider this important question: Is “church membership” biblical, or is it merely a “good tradition”? What does the evidence affirm?

A passage to consider in answering this question is 1 Peter 5.1-5:

So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. Likewise, you who are younger be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. (ESV)

In this passage the apostle Peter teaches, on the one hand, that elders are required to “shepherd to the flock of God that is among you” (1 Pet 5:2).

On the other hand, the apostle instructs that the flock likewise has a responsibility to be submissive to their shepherds (1 Pet 5:5). These responsibilities are both dependent upon a mutual submission to God.

Let us briefly consider these three aspects as we answer this question.

The Responsibility of the Elders

The Apostle Peter exhorts the “elders” with the imagery of shepherd and sheep: “tend to the flock that is among you like a shepherd” (5:2). The exhortation has teeth, for it is in the mood of a command (aorist imperative).

Peter makes “a direct demand upon the will” of these godly elders.[3] He summarizes their standing responsibility to the congregation as shepherds and overseers.[4]

Moreover, their leadership will be seen by their godly example, not through ungodly behavior (5:3). They too must be submissive to their Chief Shepherd (i.e. Jesus/God cf. Psa 23), that they may be blessed (5:4).

The Responsibility of Christians

Peter quickly turns around and reminds the “younger” (i.e. the body of Christ in general) to be submissive to their congregational leadership (“the elders”).

Peter addresses the “younger” with the command as well to accept their standing responsibility of submission and humility toward their congregational leadership (aorist imperative). This is an obligation with a spiritual blessing – God gives “grace to the humble” 5:5).

Membership among Local Churches

The passage demonstrates that congregations are forged on the basis of a submission to God. The elders are responsible for its flock, and the flock is responsible to its leadership. There is another factor to consider.

Peter uses the phrase: “the flock of God among you” or “the flock of God that is in your charge” (RSV). Congregational elders have their own sheep to pasture and do not pasture the sheep from another fold. They do not work with sheep that are not among them; those sheep belong to other shepherds.

The members of congregation A, are not members of congregation B, C, or D. Biblically speaking, there is no such thing as the “roving Christian”, wandering from congregation to congregation. The permanent visitor is equally unscriptural. They must be members in one congregation at a time.

In “church” terms, then, there is such a thing as church membership. Christians are responsible to place themselves under the leadership  of their congregation (ideally the elders, cf. Phil. 1.1-2). “Placing membership” is biblical and required to maintain the imagery; but more importantly, to show submission to God’s plan for our lives.

Concluding Thoughts

So many times Christians trivialize church membership. They hop from congregation to congregation, never submitting themselves to the Lord’s plan. Sometimes it is out of ignorance that they violate God’s plan; other times, it is a willful act of defiance.Sometimes even traveling preachers fall prey to this problem as they rarely plant roots in the life of their congregation. Those who believe a Christian may wander about are simply wrong. The remedy is simple however: repent and submit to the Chief Shepherd by submitting your membership to a faithful congregation and its leadership.

Sources

  1. Brandon Renfroe, “J.W. McGarvey and the Instrument,” Christian Courier 41.11 (March 2006): 43.
  2. Marie Little, “Introduction” in Paul Little, Know Why You Believe, 3rd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988), 10.
  3. David A. Black, Learn to Read New Testament Greek, Expand. ed (Nashville, TN: B&H, 1994), 171.
  4. J. Gresham Machen, New Testament Greek for Beginners (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1923), 180; Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (London: Sheffield Academic, 1994), 52-54.

An Elder’s Character: A Matter of Public Record (1 Tim 3:7)

On By Jovan PayesIn 1 Timothy, Christian Leadership, Church Leadership, Early Christianity, Ecclesiology, Elders, Essays, Leadership, Leadership Ethics, New Testament, Pastoral Leadership, Paul's Letters, ShepherdsLeave a comment 
Moreover, he [the guardian/overseer (3:1)] must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. (1 Timothy 3:7 ESV)

One of the qualifications for the “guardians” (overseers) in Ephesus listed above concerns the Christian man’s reputation among non-Christians. In 1 Tim 3:7, the church is called to evaluate this testimony as a preventive measure in the selection process of a “guardian.”

It has been asked, “what will happen to a leader who is not so regarded by those outside the church”?[1] The answer is clear: it becomes a trap set by the Devil to bring about disgrace in the church. The man’s public record must weigh in as to whether or not he should have the responsibility of a guardian. Let us explore this verse in some greater detail by looking at three aspects of the text.

(1) A Final Necessity

After exploring thirteen qualifications designed to add details to the broad concept of being “above reproach” (1 Tim 3:2), the final detail is the measure of his character as reflected by “outsiders.”

The nature of his public record must be “morally excellent.” The ESV has “well thought of,” but the text literally reads, “have a good testimony.” It covers the positive moral ideas of good, noble, and praiseworthy, a quality that is “favorably valued.”[2] His character and standing in the community (3:7) must be equal to the “good work” as a guardian (3:2).

The “source” of information which is supposed to help the church examine a “guardian’s” candidacy comes from non-Christians (literally, “from those on the outside”). At first glance, this may appear to be strange. Why would public opinion matter when addressing the leadership role of a church “guardian”? The short answer is his public reputation either brings glory to God or disgrace to His Kingdom. This qualification of the quality of an overseer’s reputation must not be ignored.

(2) The Reason for the Requirement

The middle of the verse reads, “so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.” The emphasis is placed upon protecting the church from those who have a bad reputation in the community; such a scenario would play “into the devil’s trap.”

Are there any longstanding frictions with the community which not only are detrimental to the guardian’s service but also to the mission of the church? Is he “known” for having improper relationships, or do rumors circulate about him which would be reproachable to him?

These questions must be asked and answered. However, despite the importance of public record, the community is not the final say. It is an important part of the appraisal process designed to prevent disgraceful men from entering the eldership. It is much easier to get a man in than it is to remove an unqualified elder.

(3) The Ever-Present Danger of the Devil

There are no sinless guardians; however, pretense and hypocrisy are subject to slander and accusations. Such is the main objectives of “the Slanderer” (i.e., the Devil). The man’s public record should not be a prized trophy captured by the Devil (i.e., the implied hunter’s snare). Consequently, “Christian men who bring widespread scandal upon the church of God have a heavy burden to bear.”[3]

If one’s character is something that has been built brick by brick, then so is one’s reputation. Good character does not have to be perfect, but according to this verse, one’s reputation does need to be well thought of. This, then, is not a role where one develops a good reputation; quite to the contrary, the role is for the person who already possesses an excellent reputation. Contextually, further, they must already possess such a reputation from the community.

A Final Word

One’s public record is a general guide to anticipating the trajectory of a person’s character: where does it point? We must allow for imperfect people to have imperfect records; furthermore, not all concerns are of the same weight and worth. Nevertheless, if there is no longstanding trajectory towards godliness in non-Christian circles then it is adequately apparent such a prospect cannot serve in such an iconic and spiritual role as shepherd, elder, and overseer in the church of God, which is God’s house (1 Tim 3:15).

I was recently told of a congregation that was in the process of selecting new elders. In keeping with the tenor of this character requirement, the congregation placed a notice in a local newspaper seeking public input as to the character and public record of the proposed elders. I am unaware of the outcome, but their action is powerful as it upholds the importance placed upon an elder’s public record.

Endnotes

  1. George W. Knight, III, The Pastoral Epistles (1992; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 165.
  2. Bauer, Walter, Frederick W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, eds. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000), BDAG 504; Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 2d ed. (New York, NY: United Bible Society, 1989), L&N 88.4.
  3. Wayne Jackson, Before I Die: Paul’s Letters to Timothy and Titus (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publications, 2007), 94.

Third John: Fellowship and Truth

On By Jovan PayesIn 3 John, Bible Study, Christian Leadership, Commentary, evangelism, Gorilla Guides, Johannine Literature, New Testament1 Comment

Preface

To be clear, this is not really a commentary on 3 John. It is a study which at times ranges from the devotional to an exploration of a few technical details. In fact, the present material originally appeared in a serialized format and has been sewn together here in the hopes that it be helpful to anyone studying through “3 John.” This little letter, along with 2 John, is a perfect specimen of what many recovered 1st Century letters look like in form. But it is always astonishing to me how God employed 1st Century communications technology (i.e., the letter) to be the vehicle of His prophets. Today in our ethereal world, I hope we have learned how to employ our communication technology as a vehicle to share the words of His holy prophets.

I hope the following exploration into 3 John will be of use and of illumination to all those who wish to ruminate over Johannine literature. I wish to thank the Livingston church of Christ for their indulgence as I shared these studies with them first. They are a fellowship of God’s children whom I “love in truth” because they  “walk in the truth.”

Introduction

The New Testament letter of 3 John is arguably the smallest document in the canon associated with the apostle’s letters (1 John, 2 John), his Gospel account (John), and the final document of the New Testament, the Revelation.

We offer a study of this brief note to Gaius, a church leader under fire for his commitment to evangelism. The major theme has been admirably summarized as follows:

The basic message of the epistle is that a congregation of the Lord’s people is to support faithful missionaries in their proclamation of the gospel, and that anyone who prevents such support and who otherwise disrupts the orderly and faithful conduct of the congregation’s work by attempting to exercise tyrannical control is a troublemaker who should be rebuked and set down.[1]

John H. Parker in The Biblical Messages of the Books of the New Testament

Aside from this explicit controversy, not much else is known about the key personalities involved (e.g. Gaius, Demetrius, and Diotrephes) outside of 3 John.[2]

Yet the letter showcases the power of faithful saints supporting full-time evangelism:

The same sort of Christians are needed in the church today. Such disciples are not necessarily those who are going out to teach and preach the Word or to establish churches in difficult areas of the world. Instead, they include the people who are supporting such workers—supporting them financially, supporting them emotionally, and supporting them personally.[3]

Luke T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation

The Greeting (v.1)

The elder to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth. 

(Unless otherwise noted the translation text is the English Standard Version of The Holy Bible [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001])

First, it is important to observe, that “letters in the ancient world had their appropriate form, just as they do today.”[4] Though there were considerable alterations in the format, the following is a basic form of an ancient letter:

A [Sender] to B [Receiver]

Greetings

Thanksgiving and wishes for good health

Body of Letter

Farewell

Second, notice that a letter was sent by “the elder”; hence, 3 John is explicitly anonymous. Yet, Gaius knew who “the elder” was, and ancient testimony attributes this letter to the Apostle John. In fact, it has been suggested that John’s use of the term “the elder” is a reference to his unique situation as being both an elder and the last surviving apostle; hence, he is “‘the elder’ par excellence.”[5]

Third, what may be surmised from the context of the letter about Gaius is that he is definitely a leader in the church, and perhaps is a house-church leader. That he is loved “in truth” and “walks in truth” may either hint at doctrinal discord in his church setting or may refer to the spiritual division on receiving the emissaries of “the elder.”[6]

But what we do know is that Gaius is regarded in high esteem for his appropriate conduct during this controversial time. Furthermore, the use of an emphatic form for “I” in Greek (ego), suggests an inference that someone, or some “ones”, did not appreciate Gaius in the same way.[7]

The Prayer and Blessing (vv.2-4)

Beloved, I pray that all may go well with you and that you may be in good health, as it goes well with your soul. For I rejoiced greatly when the brothers came and testified to your truth, as indeed you are walking in the truth. I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth.

First, part of the greeting naturally flows into a blessing to fall upon the reader; much like, in modern times we find a parallel in: “How are you? I hope well.” But here we find a wonderful Christian thought, “I pray […] that you may be in good health, as it goes well with your soul.” This was a well-known conventional prayer for wellbeing, but John adapts it to stress his desire for Gaius’ health to match his well-developed spiritual fortitude.[8]

Second, John rejoices “greatly” as a result of the testimony made on behalf of Gaius’ “truth.” The term “for” makes a clear connection between verses 2 and 3,[9] transitioning from a hint to a clear example of Gaius’ spiritual fortitude. In other words, it is a fact that he is “walking in truth.”

This is clearly a heartfelt expression of the “stand for truth” that Gaius is currently making. It implies of course that some in the church context of Gaius are not “walking in truth.” This is a practice that began in the past and is extended to the time of the writing of this letter.[10]

This is quite a commentary on the quality of character evidenced in Gaius – a church leader of strength and fidelity to truth. Quite clearly, then, we see why John rejoiced so greatly.

Third, we must observe that the apostle describes Gaius as his child (Grk. to ema tekna). John calls Gaius “my child” (literally, pl. children) employing an emphatic form of the possessive case of ego, which means “I,”[11] which supposes that Gaius is not the spiritual child of another. This is a statement of a spiritual union bound in truth.

Edmond Hiebert observes that “my children” may be understood in two senses: (a) his specific converts; or, (b) those under his spiritual care. We agree with his remarks however that “in either view… [John] regarded and treasured them as his own.”[12]

In Praise of Hospitality (vv.5-6)

Beloved, it is a faithful thing you do in all your efforts for these brothers, strangers as they are, who testified to your love before the church. You will do well to send them on their journey in a manner worthy of God.

First, Gaius evidently works with Christian strangers, and some who had been blessed by their association with Gaius had reported back to John (cf. vs. 3). As will be shown below, these are missionaries that have been blessed by Gaius’ faithful efforts (cf. vv. 7-8).

As a result, recipients of his generosity have given reports of his love before John’s congregation – and perhaps beyond. The term “church” could suggest the variety of congregations, including John’s, where testimony on behalf of Gaius has been made.

Second, Gaius had established a reputation for being hospitable to missionaries (v. 6). As Everett Ferguson writes:

The traveling teachers had reported to the church what he had done. The Elder [John] assures him he has been doing the right thing (v. 5) and wants him to continue on a regular basis.[13]

As will be seen later in the letter, activity like this was the focus of censorship by Diotrephes – the “missions” killer (vs. 10). F. F. Bruce observes, “the ministry of traveling teachers […], was a well-known feature of church life in Western Asia at the end of the first and beginning of the second century.”[14]

Third, when John encourages Gaius to “send them [the missionaries] on their journey,” he employs a term of unique significance in the New Testament. The Greek term for “send them on their way” is propempsas, meaning:

[T]o assist someone [here, the itinerant preachers] in making a journey, send on one’s way with food, money, by arranging for companions, by means of travel, etc.[15]

Bauer, et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (2000)

There is no shortage of evidence to suggest that it is a technical term in the New Testament, meaning to provide missionaries with the appropriate means of support for their work and travels (cf. Acts 15:3; Rom 15:24; 1 Cor 16:6, 11; 2 Cor 1:16; Tit 3:13).

The Obligation to Missions (vv. 7-8)

For they have gone out for the sake of the name, accepting nothing from the Gentiles. Therefore we ought to support people like these, that we may be fellow workers for the truth. 

First, it is important to stress that these individuals are already on the road “for the sake of the name.” There is a deliberate decision that is in view for they have “gone out” for the sake of the only name that can be exalted (Phil 2:9) –that of Jesus.[16] This is their motivation for missions; especially, since “the name” would summarize “the saving message which the missionaries proclaimed.”[17]

One of their policies, says the Elder, is that “these itinerant evangelists would not (as a matter of policy) seek their support from unbelievers and did not (as a matter of fact) receive their support from them.”[18]

John Stott demonstrates the distinction this truly was for the early church:

Christian missionaries were not like many wandering non-Christian teachers of those days […], who made a living out of their vagrancy … a Christian congregation supporting its minister is one thing; missionaries begging money from unbelievers is another.[19]

John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John (2002)

There is an example of how the early church had become so abused by would-be missionaries, that an early catechetical document, known as the Didache, made excessive rules for hosting traveling teachers:

Let every apostle who comes to you be welcomed as if he were the Lord. But he is not to stay for more than one day, unless there is need, in which case he may stay another. But if he says three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle leaves, he is to take nothing except bread until he finds his next night’s lodging. But if he asks for money, he is a false prophet. (Did 11:4-6)[20]

As will be seen below, John has already sent a document to “the church” but it has been rejected, as have his apostolic authority, the traveling missionaries, and those who would – like Gaius – assist these honorable individuals (9-10).

Second, the church was under an obligation to support these individuals in order to be a part of their work. The longevity and amount are not the issues, what is at stake is the responsibility of a congregation to provide care for the missionaries and assist them on their way.

As Everett Ferguson observes:

For a household to receive missionaries, provide for them, and then to send them forward with provisions for the next stage of their journey was the regular method in early Christianity for supporting missionary work.[21]

Everett Ferguson, The Letters of John (1984)

And as mentioned above, this hospitality had received considerable abuse.

One of the safeguards against abuse was a letter of recommendation (cf. 2 Cor. 3.1-3). “In order to assist travelers in securing aid while exercising some control,” explains Abraham Malherbe:

[A] special type of letter, in which the writer recommended the bearer to friends or associates, had been developed. Some Christians also wrote such letters (e.g., Acts 18:27; Rom. 16:1-2), and some churches evidently demanded them of travelers.[22]

Abraham J. Malherbe in The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck (1995)

The letter was to authenticate that these were honorable missionaries (including Demetrius cf. v.12), needing assistance as they traveled the world preaching the gospel.

Third, the obligation, as Hiebert observes, “involves more than giving them a personal welcome by lodging them; it also involves supplying their needs so they can continue their ministry.”[23]

Because of their lack of resources (cf. “taking nothing”), “believers therefore have the moral obligation to ‘undertake’ for them.”[24] The term opheilomen (cf. opheilo) carries the meaning of an obligation – whether financial, social, or moral;[25] particularly here, there are strong spiritual and moral responsibilities in view (evangelistic efforts of destitute missionaries).

We would also reflect upon the way this divides the labor of worldwide evangelism. As David Smith observes, “If we cannot preach the Gospel ourselves, we may help others to do it.”[26]

Fourth, the end result of assisting those who have dedicated themselves to being traveling teachers is that we may become “fellow workers for the truth.” There may be a generic flavor to this phrase, addressing the overall effects of involvement in supporting worldwide evangelism. Much like Adam Clarke observes, the assistance was designed to “encourage the persecuted, and contribute to the spread and maintenance of the Gospel.”[27]

Several students believe it is difficult to understand definitively the meaning of how we are “fellow-workers” in relation to the truth;[28] however, we believe the overall judgment on how to understand this partnership is expressed in the following words:

The Christian missionaries co-operate with the truth by proclaiming it; we co-operate with it by entertaining them. The Christian missionary enterprise is, therefore, not undertaken by evangelists only, but also by those who entertain and support them.[29]

Stott, The Letters of John

The activity of hosting and providing needed supplies for future travels “was a concrete expression of fellowship”.[30]

As those who welcome and support those who preach false doctrines become partakers with them (2 John 9), so those who receive and maintain those who preach the truth become fellow-workers for the truth.[31]

Guy N. Woods, A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles of Peter, John, and Jude (1973)

This concrete expression of Christian solidarity demonstrated by Gaius prepares the reader for the adverse behavior demonstrated by Diotrephes in the next few verses (vv. 9-10).

Interference of Sin (vv. 9-10)

I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church. 

First, though some students find that John regards his previous letter (not 2 John) of little importance, we find the reasoning upon which this perception is based to be quite weak. It is argued that since John wrote, “I have written something” (egrapsa ti), he did not view his letter as relatively important.[32]

However, there are serious problems with this interpretation, specifically because Diotrephes rejected John’s authority inherent in the letter he wrote. Such an audacious rejection of apostolic communication would hardly be something to rebuke Diotrephes about if the letter was of little importance.

We believe, along with other students, that egrapsa ti describes as “a brief letter of commendation” such that would have accompanied the traveling preachers mentioned earlier (v. 3):[33]

It apparently was a brief letter, now lost, requesting assistance for the missionaries being sent out by John. If so, it is not improbable that Diotrephes suppressed the letter.[34]

D. Edmond Hiebert, “Studies in 3 John Part 2 (of 3 Parts): An Exposition of 3 John 5-10,” Bibliotheca Sacra 144 (1987)

Stott does not stop at suppression. He suggests that Diotrephes destroyed the letter and poses this as the reason why John’s brief letter is now lost (cf. Jer 36).[35]

Finally, the letter can hardly be regarded as unimportant since what John desired to occur is set at odds against the strong contrasting “but” (Grk. alla), which emphasizes the rejection by Diotrephes.[36]

Diotrephes did not just suppress a mere letter; it was an apostolic request for the support of traveling missionaries who had no other means of gaining resources (“accepting nothing from the Gentiles” v.7) for the work they set out to do “for the sake of the name.” Consequently, Diotrephes “did not acknowledge” John’s authority.

Second, there has been tremendous ink spilled to discuss the troublesome New Testament nuisance known as Diotrephes. We will consider a few lines of thought regarding this gentleman we view as an excommunicating missions-killer.

(a) It is rather obvious that he, as a gentile, had a religiously pagan upbringing. This is understood from the meaning of his name (dio + trephes), “nourished by Zeus.”[37] Perhaps this hints at the pagan background where much of his character was probably formed.

Zeus was the god-of-gods, and he was regarded as the provider who nourished both family and community life (rain, dew, good gifts, etc.), being himself the patron of the home.

As one classical scholar describes, Zeus was:

[T]he avenger of perjury, the keeper of boundaries and of property, the defender of the laws of hospitality and the rights of the suppliant.[38]

Oskar Seyffert in Dictionary of Classical Antiquities (1966)

Besides the obvious possessor of the lightning bolts and the gatherer of the clouds, it was thought that all meteorological phenomenons were the work of Zeus.

I find a hint of irony in this correspondence, due to the fact that during the early ministry of Jesus, the sons of Zebedee (James and John) were given the “nickname” of the “sons of thunder” (Mark 3:17; Matt 4:21). During an episode in the Lord’s ministry, they wished to avenge mistreatment by raining fire from heaven (Luke 9:51-56).

Now, the aged John –known more for love than vengeance (cf. 1 John) – must address a man who acts more like the thunder god, than the son of God.

(b) Diotrephes “likes to put himself first” (RSV, NRSV, ESV). Other translations render this one word in Greek (philoproteuon) more to the point: “who loveth to have the preeminence” (KJV, ASV); “who loves to be first” (NASBU, NET); “who loves to be in charge” (ISV); “He always wants to be number one” (Plain English NT); “who loves to have first place” (FHV); “who wants to be first in everything” (Phillips).

What these translations suggest about Diotrephes, along with his spiritually criminal behavior also recorded in verse 10, is that “it was not just an ambition on his part but liking of the power he had.”[39]

And with his power, he made a unilateral decision to reject the apostle John’s authoritative request for support to be given to the traveling missionaries (vs. 5).[40]

One could investigate deeply and speculate why Diotrephes was so antiauthoritarian when it came to the apostle’s letter; however, we must not assume another position for which John – the inspired author – sets forth for us:

To John the motives governing the conduct of Diotrephes were neither theological, nor social, nor ecclesiastical, but moral. The root of the problem was sin.[41]

Stott, The Letters of John

This sin was his craving for prominence and dominance (philoproteuon) – a word carrying both desires: “to be first” and “to order others.”[42] The range of this disposition is seen in four ways:[43]

  1. Ambition to hold prominence.
  2. Refusal to submit to those of greater authority (e.g. apostle John).
  3. Slanders and oppresses those undermining his “perceived” right to prominence.
  4. Removes those of dissenting opinions from positions of influence.

(c) Everett Ferguson calls attention to three clauses that describe Diotrephes actions toward the missionaries: he refuses, hinders, and expels.[44] He kills evangelistic fervor at every level.

Third, “the elder” forewarns Gaius regarding his own arrival to the area and promises to bring Diotrephes to justice. As Wayne Jackson observes, “The apostle is unwilling simply to ‘let bygones be bygones.’”[45]

In an era where rebukes for sinful behavior are looked down upon, the church would do well to soak up the apostolic backbone demonstrated here. Indeed, “the past actions of Diotrephes could not be explained away.”[46]

In Diotrephes, we see a person in leadership with such degenerative respect for apostolic leadership and authority. He is characterized by such a vile personality that can be only viewed as a person who “was nourished by a very poisonous, aggressive passion to be in charge.”[47]

Imitate Good Behavior (v.11)

Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God.

This is the last of four times that the apostle calls Gaius “beloved” (agapete, cf. v. 1, 2, and 5). It is no small matter that John appeals to Gaius in this fashion; the term refers to one of compelling worth and one who is dearly loved.[48]

While there is no hint that John and Gaius know each other personally (and we not excluding the possibility), at the very least Gaius has gained such high esteem with the apostle due to his longstanding history of helping traveling missionaries (v. 3, 4, 5-6).

Although the letter is brief Gaius is described in at least eight other ways emphasizing his faithfulness and support of the truth, by the financial and material support of those who preach and teach the gospel.

(1) John loves Gaius “in truth” (v. 1). Combining a few ideas and passages in this letter, “in truth” is an idiom for a framework of thinking centered on the Gospel truth and its proclamation.

This is the Christian worldview in mind; in other words, the “fundamental way of looking at things” as a Christian (cf. Col. 3.1-3).[49] Christianity for Gaius – as it ought to be for us – is not for mere “social fraternity” but for “redemptive” outreach.[50]

(2) John prays that Gaius’s health resembles his robust spiritual health (v. 2). One is immediately compelled to wonder what would our physical health appear like should it be replaced by our true spiritual status.

Indeed, God knows our failures; yet, it is also true that God knows our hearts despite our failures.

For Gaius, such a benediction was a mark of faithfulness to God in the face of certain church politics applying negative pressure upon those who desire to support evangelists.

(3) A report had been given to John regarding Gaius having the truth, and living a life consistent with that truth (v. 3). This is emphasized again in verse 4.

Consistently, Gaius is the living embodiment of faithfulness to the gospel in that he was involved with sending evangelists, seeking those who would hear the gospel, and saving lost souls with this message of redemption.

The fact that “walks” in truth is a statement that this is a lifestyle, not a “past time.” Christianity did not exist solely within the confines of worship and times of fellowship; instead, evangelism was the air that he breathed, and his conduct reflected it.[51]

(4) Because Gaius lives within the framework of Gospel truth evidenced by his support of evangelists, John calls him his “child” (v. 4). This is certainly a mark of solidarity.

Despite their distance, this statement reflects their united fellowship seen in the comforting knowledge of faithful Christians “continuing steadfastly in faith and good works.”[52]

(5) Gaius is one who does faithful deeds which is supporting traveling evangelists by providing hospitality out of his home and through his material blessings which he sacrifices in order to send these heralds with the appropriate things needed to get to the next stage of their evangelistic labors (vv. 5-6).

(6) The “beloved” (agapete) is also one who expresses “love” (agape, v. 6) through these evangelistic and hospitable deeds (v 5). Because of his love shown to others (here, the evangelists), John has made a special place for Gaius in his heart.

(7) For the above reasons, Gaius implicitly is qualified as “a fellow worker for the truth” (v. 8). Gaius understands the moral imperative to support the gospel (= the truth) by “sending” the traveling evangelists.

This should elevate the relationship of “giving” with its connection to supporting evangelism in the church. We must understand that without “supporters” and “givers,” evangelism would die. “Without missions there would be no church, for the church is the result of missions.”[53]

It is not enough for us to know that supporting evangelism is important and essential, there must be follow-through to actually “put aside something” proportionate to our prosperity (1 Cor 16:2).

(8) Finally, Gaius is even dearer to John because he has not done these deeds in isolation; instead, Gaius has done this in the face of a local dominating church leader named Diotrephes.

Understanding that John knows all of these things as he wrote this letter, one can only imagine the kind of trust, love, admiration, and appreciation for Gaius which had budded within John’s heart.

Mimic Good Behavior, Not Evil

It is an important transition to which we find the words, “do not imitate evil, but imitate good.” The reality is that Gaius is already doing good, for he is living in “truth.”

Perhaps John is cautioning Gaius to be mindful of responding to Diotrephes’s tactics with the same measure of carnality.

The force of the verb is that of an earnest plea, or that of a command (imperative). In either case, John is imposing his apostolic presence to compel Gaius to stop mimicking (“do not imitate”) evil (kakos),[54] which suggests that perhaps he had given in to the carnality of the combat instigated by Diotrephes.

Consequently, John had to impose on Gaius to repent (though the word is not there) and to continue his honorable work of supporting evangelists. Here we learn the lesson that when “church problems” affect evangelism we must repent so that peace may return to the congregation. Wise leadership will shield its congregation from needless battles of words with ungodly individuals, for peace is better than a war of words.

We must imitate good, and that means we must submit our passions to God (cf. Jas 1:19-20; Rom 12:9-21; 1 Cor 11:1). In this light, the apostle desires to pull Gaius away from the distractions which come from in-fighting to refocus himself so that he may support Demetrius, who was probably the letter courier (v. 12). And like Demetrius, Gaius must reflect the truth through commendable behavior.

In order to hammer this point down, an important contrast is struck. It is in many ways, “a moral test.”[55] The test is a simple one: is your lifestyle described as continuing and practicing good or evil?[56]

If your life is consistently soured by evil, worthless, base, even criminal behavior – like Diotrephes – then you have not seen God; essentially saying, you are not in fellowship with God for you do not know him (1 John 3:4-6).

A Christian cannot be consistently immoral and think they are well-pleasing to the Lord. Consequently, Gaius is called upon to be found behaving as he ought to, as a faithful benefactor in the kingdom of God. Only then can it be said that he is “from God”.

It has been well observed:

Gaius was a man of influence and he had shown a Christian spirit in all things; yet John knew that Satan is no respector of persons and it would be a great blow to the church if Satan could cause this loyal church member to behave in a n unchristian manner.[57]

Oliver B. Greene, The Epistles of John (1966)

Could this be the apostle’s loving way to bring Gaius back from the cliff of carnality, a moment where the heat of battle was changing Gaius into the very thing he had sworn to defend the church from? Possibly. Nevertheless, the lesson is ours.

A Recommendation (v. 12)

It has been said that without influence one cannot lead. John wrote his letter 3 John – the briefest document in the New Testament – to encourage Gaius in his own time of need. To influence him to do the right thing.

There is evidence within the letter suggesting that there was a concern that Gaius needed the advice of verse 11, calling upon him to imitate (Grk. mimeomai) good, civil, non-detrimental behavior.

Such strong appeals reflect that Gaius may have come to the edge in his own crisis. Missions killer, Diotrephes, and his own evil, criminal, and detrimental methods may levy their toll upon Gaius, and now he may feel compelled to enter the fray of church politics with a war of words.

John implores Gaius to maintain; despite the conflict, be a child of God – be a “doer of good” (= supporter of evangelism). In this connection, the apostle introduces Demetrius, who most likely bore the letter to Gaius, and places a stamp of approval upon him.

Demetrius has received a good testimony from everyone, and from the truth itself. We also add our testimony, and you know that our testimony is true. 

It is not altogether clear who Demetrius is, and what exactly is his relationship with John, Gaius, and Diotrephes. In the light of any concrete evidence, there are a number of reasonable connections to consider.

In the New Testament, the proper name Demetrius is found in this letter (12) and in Acts with reference to an Ephesian silversmith (19:24, 38). The two are most likely different individuals.[58]

Some have observed that Demas is a shortened form of Demetrius, and may very well be a repentant detractor from among Paul’s co-laborers (2 Tim 4:10). The latter case is not probable (see below). The name, however, is quite common in the inscriptions.[59]

Demetrius in this sense is a mystery to us; however, he is a Christian known to John and Gaius, but we are blessed by his notice in this letter due to his example of faithfulness.

John sets forth Demetrius’ faithfulness by appealing to three witnesses. (1) The church bears witness of his faithfulness, (2) the “truth” as understood in this letter as that of good Christian conduct expressed in the support of evangelistic pursuits, and (3) John and his group go on record on behalf of Demetrius.

“The threefold witness to Demetrius should stir our desire to emulate his character”: the universal testimony, a good testimony from the truth itself, and a good testimony from John and his circle.[60]

(1) Universal testimony

The text begins, “Regarding Demetrius, it has been witnessed by all …”[61]; or, “Demetrius has witness borne to him by all.”[62] Unlike Diotrephes, and much like Gaius, Demetrius’ good reputation precedes him.

Demetrius has a well-known, geographically dispersed reputation within the church of faithfulness. Furthermore, this is not a new development for John uses the Greek perfect indicative which denotes a present state of affairs resulting from a past action.[63] In other words, Demetrius’ character was of good report in the past and continues to be in the present (hence, not Demas).

Consistent character is a wonderful blessing to the church! Too many times there are those who are more like shooting stars, bright shining spectacles which fade away as quickly as they emerged. The church needs steady hands, devoted hearts, and ready feet.

Demetrius was of great influence in the work of the church, and it can be seen why he would pose such a great contrast to Diotrephes (11).

(2) Good testimony from the truth itself

The second testimony which John appeals to is that which comes from truth. In fact, he compounds it with the testimony that “everyone” else makes regarding Demetrius.

Gaius lived in truth, walked in truth, and testimony of his support of evangelists had reached John (vv. 3, 6). In the same vein, then, it seems that Demetrius is so commended. Here we may learn something about Demetrius’ role in the church.

Some suggest that Demetrius is a traveling evangelist bearing this letter from John, which sets forth the principle that support for such noblemen ought to be provided (7-8). Demetrius is one such nobleman who have left for the sake of the name, needing support; in this way the truth of Christian thinking commends him.

Others observe that Demetrius may in fact be a member and leader of the local congregation (house church?), who is known to John, Gaius, and Diotrephes. He may very well have reported to John what had been going on at “home.”

Now on return, John sends a brief note designed to commend Demetrius for his faithfulness to the church there, acknowledging Gaius’ faithfulness as well, and to denounce Diotrephes from afar with the hope to address him in person.

In either case, Gaius and Demetrius have everything in common spiritually. They share the same “Christian way” of thinking which places the Gospel and missionary imperative as the backdrop for all of their actions. Would that we could capture the spirit of evangelism demonstrated by these first-century Christians.

(3) Good testimony from John and his circle

This third commendation comes more specifically from the apostolic circle. The apostle makes it abundantly clear that Demetrius is known and commended by an authoritative source.

John anticipates that Gaius knows the value of his apostolic testimony. Here we find why John appeals to Gaius to imitate good (11), instead of imitating evil behavior as expressed by mission killers.

Verse 12 suggests three criteria of commendable church leadership. Leaders in the church must reflect Christian character and behavior, perspective governed by a Christian worldview that is evangelistic at its core, and behave consistently with apostolic authority.

Missions and Prudence

As a footnote to the last point above, we must add that those who have left for the sake of the name are commendable for the reasons listed above. These traits are the result of training and development.

Can we imagine that John would send just “anyone”? Hardly. The most important work in the world to go into all the world should not be carried out by novices (Matt. 28.19-20). They were prepared before they left and well-supplied to do the work.

A Face to Face Visit (vv. 13-14)

I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink. I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face. 

In John’s closing remarks, he makes it abundantly clear that this brief letter is only the beginning. The letter is to encourage Gaius to continue his support of evangelism, to denounce Diotrephes’ hostile church leadership, and commend to the local church the conduct of Demetrius.

As John sums up his letter, he reemphasizes to Gaius that there is much which cannot be solved with “pen and ink” (cf. 2 John 12).

In fact, John points to a wealth of matters to which he had a desire to write about when he began to write,[64] but under the present circumstances wisdom pressed him to refrain from a “war of words”.

This is a personal point to which John makes abundantly clear of his “present unwillingness to go on writing the other things ‘with pen and ink.’”[65] The apostle shows that church problems are not solved with ongoing writing, particularly when it can be solved with a personal visit (v. 10).

The phrase “ink and pen” (melanos and kalamos), similar to another phrase the apostle uses in 2 John 12 “paper and ink” (kartos and melanos), reflect the common tools for written communications. John literally says, with “black” and “reed-pen.”[66] Calling attention to these tools of communications – writing technologies – acknowledges the limitations of such to do the work to which leaders must avail themselves.

Church leadership is not for cowards who can hide behind the defenses of ink and pen leveling charges at a distance. The need to confront sin, or deal with matters of more delicate and personal nature is better resolved “face to face” (v. 14).

Consequently, the many things which “the elder” had the initial impulse to write to Gaius will not be developed in text form. Perhaps this is one of the greatest lessons gleaned from this letter – when to silence the pen.

One can only ponder over the kind of treatise the document would have been; it doubtless would have called into question Diotrephes’ conduct and the crisis he instigated. Nevertheless, John wanted quality time with Gaius so we should not assume all the matters at hand were negative in nature.

After all, John held “hope” in his heart to be with his “fellow worker” (v. 8) very soon. There was a planned visit in John’s itinerary to arrive on the scene with Gaius, Diotrephes, the church, and perhaps even Demetrius. His words are not threats but promises to rectify the situation.

He looks forward to a time when they can speak intimately “face to face” (lit. “mouth to mouth”). Unimpeded by the limitations of ink, pen, and paper, the “vividness” of thought and timbre would set the tone for the work to be done at the local level for which John traveled to help resolve.[67]

The Farewell (v. 15)

Peace be to you. The friends greet you. Greet the friends, each by name. 

Thus ends the briefest letter in the entire New Testament and the entire Bible. A common benediction is offered towards Gaius to the intent that “all felicity attend you. Those that are good and happy themselves wish others so too.”[68]

Even in the face of church dysfunction, John shows how much we must keep our perspective cool and collective; instead of being taken by the heat which pervades those so entangled in bitter words of disagreement. Instead, he wishes for peace.

And why not, they are mutual “friends” after all. The idea of “friendship” appears to be the equivalent phrase of “brethren,”[69] which is the more commonplace term for fellow Christians.

Still, it is quite possible and likely that since this is a personal letter in every aspect – from John to Gaius – the idea of “friendship” here is that which reflects the bonds of their fellowship.[70] They may have brethren in faith, but they were fraternal at heart.

Faith was the environment their relationships developed into friendships. It is true that not all Christians form tight bonds with every other Christian; however, those relationships which materialize into tender overtures of mutual affection as friends find a unique bond this side of heaven.

Zane C. Hodges writes:

The use of the term ‘friends’ twice in these closing statements is perhaps one final reminder to Gaius that Christians in every place are or should be a network of friends who are ready to help one another whenever a need arises.[71]

Zane C. Hodges in The Bible Knowledge Commentary New Testament (1983)

The readiness with which Christians must arm themselves to be a ready help to their fellow brethren is a tremendous theme within this letter.

While trouble is the main cause of the need for brotherhood reliance in 3 John, trouble should not be the only reason we rely upon each other. We must realize that we are an extension of each other.

One of the critical problems in this letter is the abuse of leadership, Diotrephes assumed a place of prominence and imposed his will on others, and gave no respect to the true authority in the form of the apostle.

We must absorb what Jesus says, “whoever would be great among you must be your servant” (Matt 20:26).

Endnotes

  1. John H. Parker, “The Living Message of Third John,” in The Living Messages of the Books of the New Testament, eds. Garland Elkins and Thomas B. Warren (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press, 1976), 315.
  2. Coy Roper, 2010, “3 John – Encore #2: Are You a Help or a Hindrance?”, BibleCourses.com (Searcy, AR: Truth for Today), 3.
  3. Luke T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation, rev. ed., rev. Todd C. Penner (Minneapolis, MI: Fortress Press, 1999), 562.
  4. Roy B. Ward, “How to Study the New Testament” in The World of the New Testament, ed. Abraham J. Malherbe (1967; repr. Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 1984), 170.
  5. John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John (1988; repr. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 44.
  6. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament, 362-63.
  7. J. Gresham Machen, New Testament Greek for Beginners (1923; repr. Unicoi, TN: Trinity Foundation, 2000), 48-49.
  8. Frederick F. Bruce, The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), 147.
  9. D. Edmond Hiebert, “Studies in 3 John Part 1: An Exposition of 3 John 1-4,” BSac 144 (1987): 62.
  10. Daniel B. Wallace, The Basics of New Testament Syntax: An Intermediate Greek Grammar (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 222-23.
  11. Machen, New Testament Greek, 46.
  12. Hiebert, “Studies in 3 John Part 1,” 65; emphasis added.
  13. Everett Ferguson, The Letters of John (Abilene, TX: Biblical Research, 1984), 99.
  14. Bruce, The Letters of John, 149.
  15. Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000), BDAG 873.
  16. Stott, The Letters of John, 226.
  17. D. Edmond Hiebert, “Studies in 3 John Part 2 (of 3 Parts): An Exposition of 3 John 5-10,” BSac 144 (1987): 199.
  18. Stott, The Letters of John, 226.
  19. Stott, The Letters of John, 226-27.
  20. Michael W. Holmes, ed., The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999).
  21. Ferguson, The Letters of John, 99.
  22. Abraham J. Malherbe, “The Cultural Context of the New Testament: The Greco-Roman World,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1995), NIB 8:13.
  23. Hiebert, “An Exposition of 3 John 5-10,″ 200.
  24. Hiebert, “An Exposition of 3 John 5-10,″ 200.
  25. BDAG 743.
  26. David Smith, “The Epistles of John,” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (New York, NY: Doran, 1901), 5:207.
  27. Adam Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, n.d.), 6:942.
  28. Hiebert,“An Exposition of 3 John 5-10,″ 201-02; Stott, The Letters of John, 227-28; Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (repr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, n.d.), 2:402-03.
  29. Stott, The Letters of John, 228.
  30. Ferguson, The Letters of John, 99.
  31. Guy N. Woods, A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles of Peter, John, and Jude (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1973), 362.
  32. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, 2:403; Charles C. Ryrie, “I, II, III John,” in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, eds. Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1962), 1484.
  33. Smith, “The Epistles of John,” 5:207; R. W. Orr, “The Letters of John” in The International Bible Commentary, rev. ed., ed. Frederick F. Bruce (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986), 1588; Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, 2:403; Albert Barnes, 1949, James, Peter, John, and Jude, Notes on the New Testament, rev. ed., ed. Robert Frew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1949), 374.
  34. Hiebert, “Studies in 3 John Part 2,” 203.
  35. Stott, The Letters of John, 228-29.
  36. Hiebert, “Studies in 3 John Part 2,” 203.
  37. “Diotrephes,” in Zondervan’s Pictorial Bible Dictionary, ed. Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1964), ZPBD 217; Hiebert,“Studies in 3 John Part 2,” 203.
  38. Oskar Seyffert, 1966, Dictionary of Classical Antiquities, rev. ed., rev. and eds. Henry Nettleship and J.E. Sandys (N.p.: World Publishing, 1966), 704.
  39. Ferguson, The Letters of John, 100.
  40. cf. Jason Jackson, “Fellow Workers for the Truth,” ChristianCourier.com, where Jackson asks the following series of questions: “Why would Diotrephes reject a legitimate request by known brothers for the spreading of the gospel? Maybe the more appropriate question is this: Why was Diotrephes making unilateral decisions?” (par. 7). Could it be that Diotrephes did not have a heart of evangelism, local or abroad? It may very well be, but the issue is most likely that of heart and self-interest of Diotrephes manifesting in the rejection of apostolic authority.
  41. Stott, The Letters of John, 230.
  42. Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 2d ed. (New York, NY: United Bible Society, 1989), L&N 25.110.
  43. William E. Vine, The Collected Writings of W.E. Vine (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1996), 3:412.
  44. Ferguson, The Letters of John, 100.
  45. Wayne Jackson, Notes From the Margin of My Bible (Stockton, CA.: Courier Publications, 1993), 2:172
  46. J. Jackson, “Fellow Workers for the Truth,” par. 15.
  47. Lloyd J. Ogilvie qtd. in Hiebert, “Studies in 3 John Part 2,” 204.
  48. BDAG 7.
  49. Paul G. Hiebert, 1985, Anthropological Insights for Missionaries (1985; repr. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 21.
  50. Gailyn Van Rheenen and Bob Waldron, The Status of Missions: A Nationwide Survey of Churches of Christ (Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 2002), 1-2.
  51. BDAG 803.
  52. Woods, A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles of Peter, John, and Jude, 360.
  53. Van Rheenen and Waldron, The Status of Missions, 13. In fact, they go on to say, “Wherever churches exist, missionaries have overcome immense obstacles to teach unbelievers the Gospel, edify new Christians to live Christ-like lives, work together as a body of Christ, and train preachers and elders for Christian ministry” (13).
  54. J. Gresham Machen, New Testament Greek for Beginners , 180. Machen writes, “the present imperative refers to it [i.e the action] as continuing or as being repeated.” The text literally reads, “stop mimicking the evil, instead [mimic] the good” (my translation), which would be a reference to the two opposites of Diotrephes and Demetrius – hence, the warning would suggest, “Do not imitate Diotrephes, but imitate Demetrius” (Smith, “The Epistles of John,” 208). If the rebuke and command are to make sense, it appears then we must see the good Gaius as one who has allowed the carnality of Diotrephe to get the better of him, and John is trying to bring peace back into the church setting.
  55. Stott, The Letters of John, 232.
  56. The words “do good” (agathopoieo) and “do evil” (kakopoieo) are common antitheses regarding causing harm (being criminal/evil doer) v. not causing harm (being good citizen/benign) in the New Testament, that they appear together four times across four different authors: 1 Peter 3:17, Mark 3:4 = Luke 6:9, and here 3 John 11 (BDAG 3, 501).
  57. Oliver B. Greene, The Epistles of John (Greenville, SC: The Gospel Hour, 1966), 256-57.
  58. Ronald F. Youngblood, ed., Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1989), 346.
  59. James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1914-1929), MM 144.
  60. F. B. Meyer, Through the Bible by Day: A Devotional Commentary (1914; repr. Franklin, TN: e-Sword, 2000-2012), comments on 3 John 1:1-14.
  61. My translation.
  62. John Nelson Darby, New Testament Translation (1884; repr. Franklin, Tenn.; e-Sword, 2000-2012).
  63. Machen, New Testament Greek for Beginners, 187.
  64. D. Edmond Hiebert, “Studies in 3 John Part 3 (of 3 Parts): An Exposition of 3 John 11-14,” Bibliotheca Sacra 144 (July-Sept. 1987): 300.
  65. Hiebert, 1987, “Studies in 3 John Part 3,” 301.
  66. Barclay M. Newman, Jr., A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1993), 112, 91.
  67. Hiebert, “Studies in 3 John Part 3,” 302.
  68. Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (n.d.; repr. Franklin, TN: e-Sword, 2000-2012), comments on 3 John 12-14.
  69. Craig S. Keener, “Friendship” in Dictionary of New Testament Background, eds. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), DNTB 387.
  70. Hiebert, “Studies in 3 John Part 3,” 303.
  71. Zane C. Hodges, “3 John,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary New Testament, eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1983), 914-15.

Book Review: Emerging Elders

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Book Reviews, Christian Leadership, Church Leadership, Development, Discipleship, Elders, Leadership Ethics, Shepherds, Spiritual Formation, Spiritual Growth1 Comment
Emerging Elders

Ron Clark, Emerging Elders: Developing Shepherds in God’s Image (Abilene, TX: Leafwood Publishers, 2008), 203 pages. Paperback.

Ron Clark is the lead church planter with the Agape church of Christ in Portland, Oregon. He holds M.Div. and D.Min. degrees from Harding School of Theology (Memphis, TN) and serves as an adjunct instructor for George Fox Evangelical Seminary. He is also a member of the Oregon Attorney General’s Sexual Assault Task Force.

Clark has contributed to various publications such as New Wineskins, The Christian Chronicle, Stone-Campbell Journal, and Restoration Quarterly; moreover, he has recently published The God of Second Chances (2012) and Setting the Captives Free (2005) along with the current volume which is the subject of this book review.

Emerging Elders: Developing Shepherds in God’s Image provides a theological platform for training current elders and potential elders. Clark explores the text and terminology of the descriptive terms for “pastor” (elder, overseer) and explores such leadership in light of an incarnation model. Clark believes that only when God’s word is actually lived out and exemplified by its the church’s leaders shepherding cannot truly be what God intended it to be.

The Book

Clark has provided the body of Christ a unique text which addresses the needs of the organizational structure of churches of Christ. This is perhaps its greatest overall strength. As Clark observes, “few books are written specifically for ministers about our style of ministry” where the pastor and the preacher are distinct ministries in the body of Christ.[1] Clark observes that most church leadership material is based upon church models which are dissimilar to churches of Christ, or based upon business models which have been given a Christian spin. Consequently, to address the lack of literature on the subject Emerging Elders is an attempt at providing a resource and a solution to the vacuum of pastoral development in light of this distinction.

In Emerging Elders, Clark provides a solid response to this lack of material to address In section one, Clark develops the need for elders who are equipped to lead the body of Christ (chapters 1-2). In section two, Clark provides a dynamic model of God as shepherd and what that means for the leaders of God’s people, he offers a situational and contextual applications of the pastoral qualifications, and then emphasizes that both God’s example and Paul’s instructions are to be applied incarnationally (chapters 3-8).

In section three, Clark provides a series of chapters which specifically address the tensions and problems within church life in particular and churches of Christ in general that emerging elders must address in an incarnational model. “These leaders are appointed to imitate God’s care and concern for people.”[2] The chapters on predators and care of the preacher were particularly exceptional and passionate, and are often not treated in the manner in which Clark has done (chapters 9-15).

Suggestions

What perhaps would have made Emerging Elders more helpful would have been in the area of conflict resolution (chapter 10) and the elder development program (chapter 15). In chapter 10, Clark explores the role elders have in the promotion and maintenance of unity. This lays heavily upon John 17 and Eph 4:1-6, and according to Clark speaks to the needs of the elders to “encourage reconciliation.” To be sure, Clark is complete in his development of the reconciliation process: “Reconciliation requires, conflict resolution, validation, and reinstatement of a relationship.”[3] However, I walked away from that section wishing that Clark had spent more time on developing these ideas, diagrams notwithstanding.

Secondly, I felt that the last chapter (ch. 15) was almost a letdown. With the idea of elder development as the core of the book, I anticipated the last chapter, “Suggested Elder Development Program,” to have more details. Maybe I am being over judgmental. The cycles are a great suggestion and using a quarter year system for elders and potential elders is very helpful. The book reading suggestions are also very appropriate. But what about the first steps it takes, the conversations needful to create the atmosphere to offer and provide these classes? I anticipated more help in creating the development program; however, even in saying this the program offered and the notes to use certain sections of the book along with corresponding cycles is very helpful.

Recommendation: High

In balance, Emerging Elders is a perfect balance of scholarship and the heart of a servant attempting to live incarnationally. Incarnational leadership is at the heart of Emerging Elders and it should be at the heart of how Christian leaders serve, and how Christians serve their church, family, and community. It does not provide easy answers to the flesh and blood problems in the church, nor does it provide answers that are so impossible to achieve. Emerging Elders calls Christians to lead God’s church biblically (incarnationally), and to address the real-life problems the people of God face with the most fundamental gift God has given his people agape love.

Emerging Elders calls every would-be elder to be living examples of faith, integrity, and loving concern for all. I highly recommend Ron Clark’s Emerging Elders to every husband and wife who serve in their church, every preaching couple, every elder and his wife, every deacon, and his wife. They are truly the focus of this book. As Clark observes,

We must help families inside and outside the church heal, but this must come from incarnational leaders who model God’s style of marriage and parenting. God has a pattern; leaders follow and call others to do the same. They follow by modeling his nature through the fruits of the Holy Spirit, becoming a father like God, and being approachable. These individuals reflect God’s character to both the church and the world.[4]

Endnotes

  1. Ron Clark, Emerging Elders: Developing Shepherds in God’s Image (Abilene, TX: Leafwood Publishers, 2008), 9.
  2. Clark, Emerging Elders, 46.
  3. Clark, Emerging Elders, 139.
  4. Clark, Emerging Elders, 101.