When I was a young man, my mom would stress her concern to me regarding the person I was becoming. As a Central American mother, she would often say to me this Spanish proverb, “Dime con quién andas y te dire quién eres,” which means, “Tell me whom you are with, and I will tell you who you are.” She had good reason for concern. I was slipping into the world of street gangs, violence, and drugs. She was attempting to make me aware that the company I kept said a lot about who I was becoming.
In church-ese, we speak of those with him we share “fellowship.”
A Perspective
This word is typically reserved for formal relationships, it is not a word commonly used in everyday talk. Yet, what this word means is readily accessible. The English word “fellowship” tells us who or what we shape our life around. It describes certain boundaries that shape our lives, our relationships, and even our priorities. We could say it a fellowship is a circle we draw that includes certain relationships and excludes others. To make this more complicated, we may have many overlapping fellowships.
Our English New Testaments remind us that what we fellowship is important. For example, “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them” (Ephesians 5:11, English Standard Version). “Take no part,” this means Christians are called to be disassociated from what spiritual darkness creates. As light has no common ground with darkness (2 Corinthians 6:14), Christians have no partnership with evil except to expose it for the spiritual corruption it is (Ephesians 5:7–10). This is what light does, it shines to expose what is hiding in the dark.
Light does not allow darkness to hide its contents, and neither should Christians allow spiritual darkness of sinful corruption to hide what it is doing in the world we live in. We may live in a world surrounded by corruption, but we are called to be disassociated from it.
Additionally, the apostle John provides a “test” of sorts to help God’s people realize that our fellowship with God comes with personal responsibility: “If we say we have fellowship with him [i.e., God] while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth” (1 John 1:6). The claim to be in fellowship with God must be supported by a life living in the light, not darkness. Otherwise, our claim is a work of pure fiction. It is this truth that makes the Christian faith so consequential. It means our fellowship with God affects our lifestyle and our priorities, for it shapes the boundaries of what we will accept and what we must reject.
More positively, John follows up his caution with another maxim, “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). Our fellowship with God entails the redemptive and sanctifying gifts of God provided we “walk in the light” with God.
Being with Likeminded Kindred
Fellowship is a practical thing that God’s people do. Not only does it provide a boundary marker of godly living amid a corrupt world which sharpens our understanding of what a faithful life before God looks like. It also provides a clear way to share in the life of other like-minded kindred. The early church participated in “the fellowship” of those who devoted themselves to the apostle’s teaching, the breaking of bread, and praying together (Acts 2:42).
As David proclaimed in Psalm 119:63, “I am a companion of all who fear you, of those who keep your precepts.” Christianity is not a lonesome religion. In this way, it stands against the trend within Western society of individualism, which is a form of thinking of ourselves in isolation from our community, our family, and our ancestors. This problem has only worsened in our post-pandemic world in which “going to church” is as easy as hopping online and clicking on a few buttons while still in our pajamas.
The in-person “fellowship” of God’s people, once a marker of togetherness, unity, and godly accountability, as a spiritual biome where God’s redemption is lived out has become a privatized novelty. Yet, when Paul wrote to the Corinthian believers, he reminded them, “God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Corinthians 1:9). The “you” in “you were called” is part of a plural verb. Christians experience the fellowship of the Son together as brothers and sisters, not in isolation together.
Ultimately, fellowship is a vital part of being disciples of Christ and a worshiper of God. Our fellowship with God guides us to make clear distinctions between us and corrupting evil in the world. It also has a practical communal part to it, as we join with other fellow believers in worship. The more we appreciate this, the better the language of the communal worship will penetrate our hearts: “Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!” (Psalm 133:1).
This article originally appeared in Think magazine. To subscribe click here. There are slight edits in this version.
According to the Gospel of John, during the final hours before his betrayal and crucifixion, Jesus spent the final night with his disciples. This begins the “hour” in which Jesus would be glorified (John 12:27–28). The first “teaching act” Jesus provides his disciples is to wash their feet, illustrating that leadership must be service-oriented among them whether Master and Teacher or servant and disciple (John 13:1–20).
Both Jesus and the narrator of the Fourth Gospel introduce a significant feature here: Jesus served all of his disciples by washing their feet, especially Judas whom Jesus already knew would betray him (John 13:11). This general fact Jesus makes a topic of conversation (John 13:17–20, 21–30). Jesus said:
I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the Scripture will be fulfilled, ‘He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.’ (John 13:18 English Standard Version)[1]
In Christian interpretation, the “Scripture” reference is to Psalm 41:9 as a prophecy of Judas. As with many New Testament quotations of the Old Testament, the use of this passage in reference to Judas’s betrayal of Jesus generates considerable questions. For example, if this scripture applies to Judas, was Psalm 41:9 void of meaning for centuries until the first century AD emergence of Jesus? This seems unlikely. Additionally, in what sense does Judas fulfill (plēroō) this passage? Is it in a typological, duel-fulfillment (telescopic), or primary/secondary fulfillment sense? These types of questions are important, but they are not the primary concern in this paper.[2]
The present brief study was prompted by the connection between Psalm 41:9 and John 13:18. Nevertheless, the most important concern in this paper is to seek to understand Psalm 41 as a unit.
Thus, the primary focus presently is on understanding Psalm 41 from its historical and biblical context (i.e., Hebrew Bible), its structural features (literary genre, organizational form), and its linguistic features. With these items in place, it will help to consider its theology and application. Finally, a consideration on how to best see how Judas’s betrayal of Jesus “fulfills” Psalm 41:9.
Historical Context
C. Hassell Bullock mentions the great dilemma of studying the historical context of any given psalm and stresses that to obtain a solid footing for explaining the context one must examine the superscriptions and content of the psalm.[3]
Edward Tesh and Walter Zorn observe that perhaps no other psalm rivals Psalm 41 in terms of providing the original setting and significance.[4] They evaluate six possible explanations and conclude that the psalm was probably borne out of a dire situation and was consequently a lament, in which the psalmist appeals for healing. From this dire circumstance, the psalm eventually was incorporated into the liturgy of the temple worship.[5] Other scholars also recognize the “lament” nature of the psalm as informative to understanding the original historical context (Carroll Stuhlmeuller, Peter C. Craigie, Robert G. Bratcher and William D. Reyburn).[6] The internal evidence, then, points to a historical context that generated a lament.
Peter Craigie represents those who argue that the Psalm must be understood in its liturgical use for the sick of Israel, instead of a personal historical context.[7] Likewise, Charles A. Briggs argued that the psalm is national in scope, not individual, because of an emphasis upon God blessing those in the land during post-exilic times (Psa 41:2).[8] The psalm proper begins:
"Blessed is the one who considers the poor! In the day of trouble the Lord delivers him; the LORD protects him and keeps him alive; he is called blessed in the land; you do not give him up to the will of his enemies." (Psalm 41:1–2).
Canonically, the psalm is a communal outcry, and this then speaks to its shaping context. This conclusion seems to be weakened by the fact that there is still an earlier setting that precedes its Hebrew liturgical use. This amounts to a debate between the later canonical use of Psalm 41 with its initial authorial intent.
The tradition contained in the subscription may provide help in understanding the original historical context. The subscription is ancient but it is not likely to be as old as the psalm. It minimally points to what the ancients believed about this psalm. It may help understand the initial authorial intent of Psalm 41 by providing an assumption about the personal emphases throughout the psalm and the psalmist’s dependence upon God. The subscription of Psalm 41 reads: “To the Choirmaster. A psalm of David.” The psalm is Davidic by tradition. Internally, there is nothing inherent in the psalm that would dismiss it as being Davidic.
Unfortunately, some have noted that the translation of the ascription “of David” (le dwd) could be regarded as a dedication “to David.”[9] In addition to versional evidence offered to support the translation for the phrase as “of David,” similar wording can be demonstrated from the Hebrew canon to express authorship.[10] To illustrate, consider one example from Habakkuk:
A prayer of Habakkuk the prophet, according to Shigionoth.
O Lord, I have heard the report of you, and your work, O Lord, do I fear. In the midst of the years revive it; in the midst of the years make it known; in wrath remember mercy. (Hab 3:1–2)
This is not a prayer dedicated to Habakkuk, but a prayer of the prophet, as in by the prophet. Despite later reconstructions of redaction and editorial work theories in the canonical shaping of Psalter, it seems reasonable that “to David” in the subscription is a claim of authorship. If there is no need to question Davidic authorship, then the traditional attributions may be considered accurate, and therefore be a line of argumentation against Briggs’ post-exilic interpretation of Psalm 41:2.[11]
The internal evidence, then, is supportive of a time in King David’s lifetime in which he experienced betrayal and treachery by someone close to him, and the presence and faithfulness of his God to vindicate him. This is assumed here to be during his reign in the 10th century BC. Psalm 41 may have been collated afresh in later editions of the Psalter for liturgical or national use, but these developments are secondary contexts.
Literary Form
Psalm 41 is generally regarded as a lament. Its historical context makes it more likely it was an individual lament. Laments are not simply mere prayers of pain. Laments often contours such as an outcry of pain or distress, a declaration of faith based upon some past action of God, lessons learned about God, and a statement of praise. In that sense, a lament can offer insight into a past tragedy in which the lamenter cries out to God and then contains a record of the Lord’s vindication.
For reasons like this, an alternative form for Psalm 41 is what Willem A. Van Germeren calls a “thanksgiving of the individual.”[12] If it is to be considered as a thanksgiving work, then there should be words of praise, some description of God’s gracious action, lessons learned about God, and some form of a conclusion extolling God. It is true the psalm begins with what may be read as thanksgiving for the one who considers the poor for the Lord will deliver him. But while there is certainly an undertow of gratitude throughout the psalm, there is the consistent plea for assistance, deliverance, and an appeal to God’s grace that saturates the psalm. The evidence for lament is stronger than the theme of thanksgiving.
It has also been suggested that Psalm 41 could overlap with the wisdom psalm literary form. Instead of the distressing opening lines of Psalm 22:1 (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”) or Psalm 51:1 (“Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love”s 51:1”), Psalm 41 begins with a proverbial statement.[13] observe:
“Blessed is the one who considers the poor, in the day of trouble the Lord delivers him.” (Psalm 41:1)
However, the phrase “blessed” is used throughout the Psalms and does not require proverbial emphases. While it could be argued that Psalm 41 does not begin with the type of traditional outcry associated with lament, the wisdom genre does not carry the burden of how the psalmist describes his enemies as conspiring against him:
My enemies say of me in malice, “When will he die, and his name perish?” And when one comes to see me, he utters empty words, while his heart gathers iniquity; when he goes out, he tells it abroad. All who hate me whisper together about me; they imagine the worst for me. They say, “A deadly thing is poured out on him; he will not rise again from where he lies.” Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted his heel against me. But you, O Lord, be gracious to me, and raise me up, that I may repay them! (Psalm 41:5-10)
Wisdom provides the “how to” knowledge or the “beware” knowledge, the psalmist is decrying his situation.
The psalm begins with a focus on the individual and the Lord’s care of “he who considers the poor.” In a Spanish translation, the Hebrew word dal is translated as “el debil” (Santa Biblia: Nueva Version Internacional), meaning those who are weak. It seems essential to the lament of the psalm that the weak is the psalmist and not necessarily someone about whom the psalmist is reflecting about.
Structure
While this paper will not address the complexities of the original Hebrew text,[14] it is clear that the psalm may be given a variety of outlines depending on how the parallelism is viewed. Not all scholars seem to agree on the arrangement even if they have the same number of structural divisions. For example, the late Hugo McCord (1911–2004) sets the psalm into four stichs in his translation of the Psalms: 41:1–3, 4–6, 7–9, 10–12, and 13.[15] Tesh and Zorn divide the psalm into four different stichs: 1–4, 5–9, 10–12, and 13.[16]
I offer a personal outline for the psalm suggested: 1–3, 4–8, 9–12, and 13.
Psalm 41:1–3: Blessed is the one who considers the poor! In the day of trouble the Lord delivers him; the LORD protects him and keeps him alive; he is called blessed in the land; you do not give him up to the will of his enemies. The LORD sustains him on his sickbed; in his illness you restore him to full health.
Psalm 41:4–8: As for me, I said, “O LORD, be gracious to me heal me, for I have sinned against you!” My enemies say of me in malice, “When will he die, and his name perish?” And when one comes to see me, he utters empty words, while his heart gathers iniquity; when he goes out, he tells it abroad. All who hate me whisper together about me; they imagine the worst for me. They say, “A deadly thing is poured out on him; he will not rise again from where he lies.”
Psalm 9–12: Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted his heel against me. But you, O Lord, be gracious to me, and raise me up, that I may repay them! By this I know that you delight in me: my enemy will not shout in triumph over me. But you have upheld me because of my integrity, and set me in your presence forever.
Psalm 13: Blessed be the LORD, the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting! Amen and Amen.
The groupings seem to fit a thematic development. In verses 1–3, David demonstrates a balancing of the blessed environment of the one who considers the poor with the strength and sustaining power of God. Then, in verses 4–8, David describes the plight he finds himself in. While David seems to be in poor health and under spiritual duress and therefore vulnerable, his enemies reveal themselves as ambitious traitors to the crown. In verses 9–12, the case intensifies as David laments the fact that he has become so isolated that “even” his close friend betrays him. Admit the tension the Lord is appealed to for help so that the psalmist’s suffering may be avenged by the Lord. This would be all the vindication he would need.
Interestingly, the doxology of verse 13 is typically set to stand by itself perhaps as an inclusio. George Knight observes that the psalm begins with “blessed be the man” it ends with “blessed be the Lord.”[17] There is certainly an understood purpose behind this inclusio. Some speculate this verse was added by a later editor or compiler.[18] On Hebrew parallelism, it has been argued that verse 13 does not seem to formally echo or balance with verse 12.[19] Additionally, the language in Psalm 41:13 is remarkably similar to Psalm 106:48 and functions similarly as a formal doxological break between the two books. Psalm 41 closes Book I and Psalm 106 closes Book IV with the same doxology, with an expanded doxology in Psalm 106. However one accounts for verse 13, it is structurally integral to the Psalter.
Imagery
Imagery is an important aspect of Hebrew poetry. Imagery conveys messages and nuances and sometimes brings our emotions. In the Hebrew poetry of the Psalms, the poet expresses truths with images being the channel. Consider a minor sample of some of the imagery concerning God, the psalmist, and the psalmist’s enemy.
Psalm 41:3 refers to the parallel concept of the Lord who strengthens the sick man “on his bed of illness” and “sustain him on his sickbed.” The picture is graphic and is one of physical restoration, which may refer both to spiritual or real renewal.
Psalm 41:6 discusses, from the vantage point of the psalmist, his enemy. His enemy’s “heart gathers iniquity to itself; when he goes out, he tells it.” The psalmist personifies the mind of an evil man and depicts it in the act of gathering iniquity as a person may gather fruits or clothing. Man’s heart is given to iniquity, so much that he self-references is own sinfulness. The enemy of the psalmist is consequently even more devious and methodical.
In Psalm 41:9 the description of the kind of enemy the Psalmist endures is one that is a close associate, one whom he trusted. Trust and eating bread are synonymous phrases in this context, demonstrating the use of parallelism. But the synonym moves on to climatic, where the enemy goes from trusted friend to outright betrayer.
Biblical Context
As previously mentioned in the introduction, from a Christian reading of the Bible, Psalm 41 is associated with Judas Iscariot since John narrates that Jesus declared Judas’ betrayal as a fulfillment of Psalm 41:9. Sometimes the Christ-Judas relationship overshadows David’s own reason for writing the Psalm, his Sitz en Leiben (life’s setting). On the assumption of Davidic authorship of Psalm 41, are there any points in the life of David that can corroborate with the details of the psalm?
According to Briggs, the traditional Sitz en Leiben of the betrayal and sheer disadvantage displayed in Psalm 41 is that of David’s encounters with Ahithophel of Gilo, his former counselor on the side of his usurping son Absalom (2 Sam 15:1–17:29).[20] It is important to recall that one of the difficulties aligning the setting of the Psalms with the life of David is that not everything was recorded for posterity. Additionally, the narrative language may not always align with the emotional nature of poetry. So, despite the traditional election of Ahithophel (Psa 41:9), it is merely a traditional reading. Consequently, the betrayal by Absalom and Ahithophel may not be what David had intended.
Nevertheless, it is worth considering the relationship between Ahithophel and David. Ahithophel was once a trusted counselor of David (2 Sam 15:31, 34). Ahithophel’s legacy is summed up in 2 Samuel 23:34 as one of David’s mighty men, and in two verses in 1 Chronicles 27:33–34, he “was the king’s counselor… [and] was succeeded by Jehoiada the son of Benaiah, and Abiathar.” He was a man in David’s inner inner circle.
Ahithophel was “David’s counselor” who was successfully courted by David’s embittered son Absalom to overthrow his father as king of Israel in a coup d’é·tat (2 Sam 15:1–12). The tragedy is that his counsel was esteemed “as if one consulted the word of God” (2 Sam 16:23), so his complicity in the conspiracy to overthrow David cut deep (2 Sam 15:31). David, now living on the run and vulnerable, prays to the Lord for the undoing of Ahithophel. Although there is no explicit claim that the Lord rose up Hushai the Archite, this “friend” of David serves as a counter-intelligence spy and undermines confidence in Ahithophel’s military plans against David (2 Sam 15:32–37; 16:15–17:22).
Without explanation, the end of Ahithophel is revealed:
When Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his donkey and went off home to his own city. He set his house in order and hanged himself, and he died and was buried in the tomb of his father. (2 Samuel 17:23)
Is this specifically what David meant when he lamented in faith?
Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted his heel against me. But you, O Lord, be gracious to me, and raise me up, that I may repay them! By this I know that you delight in me: my enemy will not shout in triumph over me. But you have upheld me because of my integrity, and set me in your presence forever. (Psalm 41:9-12)
It is hard to dismiss it even if there is not a clear explicit connection.
Nine hundred years later in the New Testament, the Lord Jesus affirms that this is a reference to Judas (John 13:18). It seems that while David through the Spirit referred to his own situation–whatever it was, the Spirit hid within it a prophecy of betrayal concerning the coming Davidic Messiah likewise from deep within the inner circle. For this reason, Jesus could legitimately claim the Apostle Judas–trusted with the office of an Apostle and keeper of the group’s finances (Luke 6:12–16; John 12:6)–as the fulfillment of this Messianic prophecy. Just as in the case of Ahithophel, no clear motive is ever given for the betrayal of Jesus by Judas.
Theology
The theology of Psalm 41 is connected together by three internal figures: David, David’s God, and David’s enemies. David wrote a lament prayer to his God, who sees both his sinfulness and the injustice as he suffers at the hands of his own enemies, and repeatedly asks God for his gracious deliverance and vindication.
First, David’s lament calls on God’s people to learn the nerve-wracking truth that faithfulness to God will not always protect from the treachery and betrayal of those considered to be allies and members of one’s inner circle. David’s focus on the Lord provides a pathway for making the most important thing the priority: David knows his fellowship with God is unimpeded by his trials. David knows:
the Lord protects him and keeps him alive; he is called blessed in the land; you do not give him up to the will of his enemies (Psalm 41:2)
Second, the powerful king seems to have gone through an illness or some demonstration of weakness which emboldened his enemies to come into the light in anticipation of his collapse or death. David sees his inner court filled with two-faced loyalists, who secretly have grown disloyal to him waiting for the right moment to reveal themselves and exploit his weakness. If the story of David teaches one crucial theological truth it is that God’s anointed will suffer unjustly.
Third, God will vindicate the innocent and the compassionate. David’s ethical and moral life was turbulent. His moral lows are ethically grotesque while his spiritual highs show a deep conviction in aligning himself on the side of the Lord. David was fully aware of his sin but knew the God he served hated injustice and would help those who were poor, or of weak stature. There is comfort in knowing that even though a person may be so weak morally, spiritually, financially, or in health, God desires their protection and care. God will vindicate the taken advantage of.
Application
The message of Psalm 41 is a message for the ages. Many have had friends turn on them, and deliver a heart-piercing stab which only few can do. Intimate relationships can sometimes be vehicles for some to achieve what they want at the expense of those whom they hurt and abuse. We must have the confidence of the psalmist and take refuge in the Lord. The lament provides the language to speak to the Lord in prayer. The psalm calls on the saints to lean into the tragedies surrounding them in faith in the confidence that the Lord is not far from them.
Endnotes
Unless otherwise noted all Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001).
While this sidesteps these important questions, prophecy and fulfillment are not the focus of this paper. In short, however, my conclusion is that while it is hard to determine the sense in which Jesus used plēroō, it seems likely he used it in a typological sense of fulfillment: as David the anointed king of Israel experienced betrayal in his kingdom, so too, the anticipated Davidic Messiah would be betrayed.
C. Hassell Bullock, An Introduction to the Old Testament Poetical Books, revised ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1988), 125.
S. Edward Tesh and Walter D. Zorn, Psalms (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1999), 1:306.
Tesh and Zorn, Psalms, 1:309.
Carroll Stuhlmeuller, Psalms (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1983), 1:221; Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1-50 (Waco, TX: Word, 1985), 321; Robert G. Bratcher and William D. Reyburn, A Handbook on the Psalms (New York: United Bible Society, 1991), 391.
Craigie, Psalms 1-50, 319.
Charles Augustus Briggs and Emilie Grace Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, ), 1:361.
Raymond B. Dillard and Tremper Longman, III, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 215–17.
George A. F. Knight, Psalms (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982), 1:8; Dillard and Longman, III, An Introduction, 216.
Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 274–75; Briggs and Briggs, Book of Psalms, 1:361.
Willem A. Van Germeren, “Psalms” in Expository Bible Commentary, edited by Frank E. Gaebelien (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991): 5:325.
Craigie, Psalms 1-50, 320.
As this paper is primarily an examination of the English text, linguistic concerns as the following will not be explored: W. O. E. Oesterley discusses the abruptness that is characteristic of this psalm and the natural flow of poetic realism which “shows how very human the psalmists were,” he explains however, that the “text has undergone some corruption, and in one or two cases emendation is difficult and uncertain.” See, W. E. O. Oesterley, The Psalms: Translated with Text-Critical and Exegetical Notes, 4th ed. (London: SPCK, 1953), 1:238.
Hugo McCord, The Everlasting Gospel: Plus Genesis, the Psalms, and the Proverbs, 4th ed. (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman UP, 2000). Granted, McCord did not provide a stylized rendering of the Hebrew poetry, but he did set them in connected paragraphs.
Tesh and Zorn, Psalms, 1:308–13; Stuhlmeuller, Psalms, 1:220–21.
Knight, Psalms, 199.
Craigie, Psalms, 320; Tesh and Zorn, Psalms, 1:312.
Stuhlmeuller, Psalms, 1:223; W. Oesterley, The Psalms, 1:240.
Briggs and Briggs, Book of Psalms,1:361.
Works Cited
Bratcher, Robert G., and William D. Reyburn. A Handbook on the Psalms. New York: United Bible Society, 1991.
Briggs, Charles Augustus, and Emilie Grace Briggs. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms. Vol. 1. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: Clark,
Bullock, C. Hassell. An Introduction to the Old Testament Poetical Books. Rev. ed. Chicago: Moody, 1988.
Craigie, Peter C. Psalms 1-50. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 19. Gen. eds. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker. Waco, TX: Word, .
Dillard, Raymond B, and Tremper Longman, III. An Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.
Hill, Andrew E., and John H. Walton. A Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991.
Knight, George A.F. Psalms. Vol. 1. Daily Study Bible: Old Testament. Gen. ed. John C.L. Gibson. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982.
McCord, Hugo. The Everlasting Gospel: Plus Genesis, the Psalms, and the Proverbs. 4th ed. Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman UP, 2000.
Oesterley, W. E. O. The Psalms: Translated with Text-Critical and Exegetical Notes. 4th ed. London: SPCK, 1953.
Stuhlmeuller, Carroll. Psalms. Vol. 1. Old Testament Message. Vol. 21. Eds. Carroll Stuhlmeuller and Martine McNamara. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1983.
Tesh, S. Edward, and Walter D. Zorn. Psalms. Vol. 1. College Press NIV Commentary. Eds. Terry Briley and Paul J. Kissling. Joplin, MO: College, 1999.
VanGermeren, Willem A. “Psalms.” Expository Bible Commentary. Vol. 5. Gen. ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991.
Reprinted with permission from the June 2018 issue of Gospel AdvocateMagazine. Slightly revised edition.
I am not a fan of church politics, but I know they exist. Sometimes it reminds me of walking through the streets when I was a kid. You always had to have enough “friends” with you; you had to make sure you were stronger than the “other guy” and never get caught walking alone, especially in an alleyway. It saddens me to admit that “brotherhood alleyways” do exist. It appears in the form of the public shaming of preachers or schools; it appears in certain back channels where preachers or churches are undermined every step of the way due to a difference of opinions. In a word, brethren, we get consumed with the actions of others, and we seek to control them. We can’t seem to mind our own business and be about our Father’s business to love our community with the gospel.
It seems appropriate to begin this discussion with a brief look at the conjoined issue of ego. Jesus always found a way to check the egos of His disciples when they interfered with the priorities of the kingdom of God. Three examples from Mark 9–10 are helpful to point this out. In Mark 9:33–37, the Lord had to refocus the whispers and debate among the Twelve regarding who was “great” in the kingdom of God. Greatness is measured by service, not by wielding power (cf. Luke 22:24–28). In Mark 9:38–41, Jesus corrected the disciples’ sense of managerial entitlement when they failed to stop a “nameless” disciple’s ministry. What matters is Jesus’ authority, not that of the disciples.
A little later, in Mark 10:13–16, the disciples impose their opinion on when Jesus was ready to provide ministry. Jesus undoes their harm by demonstrating that the kingdom of God is to be at the disposal of the vulnerable. I would argue that the actions of the disciples probably emerged from a good place, but these moments should remind us that personal ego often gets in our way of manifesting the kingdom of God. I truly believe the church is the place where our egos are supposed to die (Rom 6:1-10), but sadly they often resurrect.
We need to hear afresh the challenge from three letters: Jude, 1 Peter, and 3 John. At the heart of our church politics problems is that we have, at times, misapplied what it means to “contend for the faith” (Jude 3), become meddlers (1 Pet 4:15), and have failed to curb our egos (3 John 9).
Contending for the Faith
Many an article, sermon, blog, and petition have been published under the premise to “contend for the faith” (Jude 3). This is a very honorable goal. But at times the methods we use “to contend” lack Christian substance. The verb “to contend” (epagōnízomai) may be taken to mean, “to contend about a thing, as a combatant”[1] and give some legitimacy to a “war-time” church culture; but the metaphor should be taken in its natural direction. It may refer to “the intense effort” of an athlete to overcome the challenges of a sporting contest.[2] In this case, “to contend” is about self-discipline in the face of exertion, continuing the struggle for the sake of the faith.
Jude is the voice of reason the church needs to hear today. A careful reading of Jude does not support a “Cry ‘Havoc!,’ and let slip the [spiritual] dogs of war” agenda to demoralize and humiliate our brothers when we disagree theologically. In fact, Jesus warned that such tactics would endanger us with the fire of Gehenna (Matt 5:22). Instead, Jude writes that a proper response to the perversion of the gospel and subversion of Christ’s authority (v. 4) is to stay faithful to the content of the faith (v. 3), to trust in God’s Word, to trust the Lord will judge false teachers (vv. 5–9, 14–16), to trust that such people will self-destruct (vv. 10–13) and to maintain a Spirit-centered culture of grace, mercy, love, and redemption within the church (vv. 17–23)—all while affirming a distinction exists between the faithful and the ungodly false teachers and their corruption of the gospel itself (v. 12).
Jude does not shy away from revealing the errors of false teachers and the dangerous consequences that flow from their influence. The effort Jude speaks of is not to be spent on attacking the defectors, but instead, the exertion must be spent within our own souls, within our own congregations. We must resist the temptation to enable an ungodly inhospitable war-time church culture. With precision, Jude makes this little letter a rich description of the inhospitable environment the false teachers created in the church by their influence (vv. 12-13): they hinder love and community, they consume what others need, they withhold what is needed for life, and create a disappointing chaotic and unreliable spiritual incubator for the people of God. That is not what Jesus has called us to be.
Jude does not authorize intrusive efforts to “defend the faith.” Some among us have thought for quite some time that if they publicize an error long enough; generate enough brotherhood support; vilify the names of brethren or institutions; act like church “newscasters,” showing us the cold fronts of error among us; guide us through “connect the dots fellowship”; or act like church “J. Edgar Hoovers,” then we have contended for the faith. We have been so wrong. In truth, Jude’s brief message is bent on moving Christians to “exert effort” in embracing God’s wisdom, God’s sovereignty, and the Christian call to continue to be a fellowship of grace and mercy, love and forgiveness while affirming a distinction between ungodly false teachers and their corruption of the gospel itself (Jude 12). Those are quite different responses.
Jude concludes his letter by saying,
“But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. And have mercy on those who doubt; save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh” (vv. 20–23).
This is the work of contending. Today, we need to learn that many times the best way to deal with false teaching is to focus on the work of our local congregation, be patient with our brethren, and be gracious to those struggling rather than entering into a shouting match, in other words, staying busy with our own work and minding our own business.
Meddlers and Bullies
Meddlers. In 1 Peter, the apostle Peter addresses a number of Christian churches undergoing a forceful front of localized persecution of “shaming” in the northern provinces of Asia Minor (1:1; 2:12; 3:13; 4:4). Peter reminds them to respond to such shame-based threats by providing a kind and respectful verbal response, explaining their hope in Jesus as Lord (3:14–15). He further exhorts them to refrain from “clashes” with the community due to punishable crimes (murder, thievery, evil-doing, meddling; 4:15). Indeed, the only clash that will glorify God is when Christians are unjustly persecution for the name of Christ (4:16).
We need to give thought to Peter’s word, “meddler” (ESV, NIV). It is listed among the four offenses Christians must avoid. English translations show the difficulty of rendering this compound word (allotri + episkopos), the New Revised Standard Version has “mischief-maker”; the New King James Version, “busy-body”; and New American Standard Bible, “troublesome-meddler.” Quite possibly, Peter coined this word because it is found nowhere in Greek literature before him. At the core, the “meddler” is someone who apparently takes or seizes control of the affairs of others. Peter condemns Christians controlling others “tactlessly and without social graces.”[3] Too many times Christians think their duty is to control the choices of our neighbors. I suspect it is because we seek the right outcome of godliness. This, however, becomes a “no win” scenario. The local church is a fertile field for this temptation. Many cultish tactics have been used in the name of “discipling” our brethren. Pulpits are used not only to “persuade men” but to “meddle” in the affairs of our members. Elders cross the line separating overseeing and control. But those with more daring egos can emerge to be “the overseer” of brotherhood affairs with ungodly force and shame to establish control. Peter reminds us to “mind our own business.”
Bullies. In 3 John, the aged apostle John writes to Gaius an embattled faithful Christian leader, who is part of the collateral damage of a church bully named Diotrephes. The church setting was desperate, requiring his own personal touch (vv. 10, 13–14). The issue? False teaching? Nope. The tension was about control over mission work (vv. 5–8). Traveling preachers were part of early church culture. Over a period of time, John had commended several to this church for support, anticipating their needs would be supplied to reach the next leg of their journey. Instead, he found a polarizing church culture had matured, manifesting in Diotrephes and Gaius.
Maybe Diotrephes began this journey with a proper concern for church autonomy in matters of missions or with a desire to serve the church. The only motive explicitly given in this letter is that he “likes to put himself first” and his rejection of apostolic authority (3 John 9). The outcome, however, was wickedness, suppression, and subterfuge. He created an inhospitable and volatile church culture where suspicion reigns and alternative opinions are silenced and ousted (v. 10). It was all a bit like an Orwellian 1984 dystopia. Diotrephes was the “thought police.” He thrust his voice into areas beyond his authority, and in order to do so, he imposed his opinion by force and manipulation.
There is no question that ego became a problem, and behind that lay sin. Diotrephes became a mission-killing church bully because he chose self over the kingdom of God. He chose “preeminence” (KJV, ASV), “to be first” (NET), “to be in charge” (ISV), “to be number one” (Plain English NT), “to have first place” (FHV), “to be first in everything” (Phillips). Third John shows us the damage rendered by elders and preachers who dominate others like an “intolerant general” when something is not done their way. A church bully by any other name would still reek of wickedness. Brethren, we need to humble our pride and “mind our own business.”
Conclusion
I’ll be honest. Sometimes I feel like an outsider, even after being a part of the church for now over twenty years. But I have seen church bulletins as subtle tools for shaming congregational members and even preachers from outside of the congregation. I’ve known preacher friends receiving a copy of a brotherhood “journal” with a post-it note attached as a “friendly” reminder of how “misguided” they are for their views. Brotherhood magazines have been leveraged to do excessive numbers of exposés about this school or that preacher rather than teaching what the Bible says. For what purpose? To establish unity? None of this brings unity; instead, such actions seem designed to permanently polarize. Church, we can, and must, do better (John 13:35). Part of the solution is to be about our “local work” and to “mind our own business” (Romans 14:4).
Endnotes
W. E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, and William White, Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and Testament Words (Nashville: Nelson, 1985), 2:125.
E. Stauffer, s. v. “agōn,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 1:134-40. [In addition: BDAG 356, “The primary semantic component in the use of this verb in Jd 3 is the effort expended by the subject in a noble cause.” It gives “expression” to the Greco-Roman “ideal of dedication.”]
Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude (Nashville: B&H, 2003), 224-25.
The seventeenth-century “non-conformist” English pastor, Ralph Venning, is famous for immortalizing the following line regarding Scripture:
it is deep enough for an elephant to swim in, and yet shallow enough for a lamb to wade through.
No truer does this speak to both the complex richness and visual clarity of the Gospel of John. John is traditionally regarded as one of the last written books of the New Testament canon at the tail-end of the first-century CE. When compared to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, John is written in a style all its own — comparable only to the letters of John.
Of the significant unique features of John is the tightly bound chapters, known by many as Jesus’ Farewell Discourse (John 14-16). It is prudent to consider a few preliminary matters to appreciate the way John 16:12-15 delivers on the themes of John and the coming of the Holy Spirit with a view to some application for the modern church.
Genre and Interpretation
John, as the so-called Fourth Gospel, has presented itself with challenges of every kind. As Gary M. Burge observes, the study of what is a gospel genre and its interpretation has been an intense one, especially as it relates to the Gospel of John.[1] The nature of the genre of the gospel as a narrative is still in somewhat of a debate, and in particular how John’s structural stability or instability is appreciated and explained.[2]
The question about gospel genre speaks to what is its purpose and goal(s). This has troubled the academic community for some time. For example, a gospel is a biography but it is not what a modern person thinks of as a biography since so many anticipated features are missing. An examination of the early chapters of each Gospel reveals a thumbsketch history of Jesus’ “early years.” As Craig Blomberg demonstrates, modern perceptions of biography are misleading and resulted in earlier scholars questioning the historical value of the Gospels on false assumptions.[3] However, Blomberg continues, “when they are set side by side with various ancient sources, the Gospels compare quite favorably”:
Ancient historical standards of precision in narration and in selection and arrangement of material were much less rigid than modern ones. Few, if any, ancient works were written merely for the sake of preserving the facts; almost all were trying to put forward and defend certain ideologies or morals. But propaganda need not distort the facts, though it sometimes does. Of course, any genre may be modified, and there are uniquely Christian features in the Gospels.[4]
Craig Blomberg, “The Diversity of Literary Genres in the New Testament,” Interpreting the New Testament
Consequently, while scholars acknowledge the formal critical parallels between the Gospel accounts and other ancient historical and biographical documents, there are unique features in matters of content and emphasis.[5] Some students have even cautioned that there are significant variations even between the four Gospels based on their own internal agendas, sufficient enough to make Larry Hurtado caution, “it wise to treat them individually.”[6]
John on His Own
The Gospel of John bears features that stand uniquely against the Synoptics. This, however, does not suggest a contradiction. This proclivity of John to emphasize unique material does not disassociate itself with the themes of the Synoptics. For example, instead of a nativity narrative, there is an emphasis on the pre-incarnate narrative (John 1:1-14ff) serving as a prequel to their nativity storyline (Matt 2:1-23; Luke 1:26-52). Moreover, an emphasis upon miracle narratives and extensive dialogs and discourses, take precedence over parabolic instructions and pronouncements.[7]
Despite the material that is unique to John, C. K. Barrett calls attention to the fact that events in John and Mark “occur in the same order.”[8] And while Barrett stresses that John most likely borrowed from Mark, Leon Morris responds that such features found to be common with John and the Synoptics “is precisely the kind that one would anticipate finding in oral tradition.”[9] In short, John is certainly unique in many significant ways, but it follows the same structure of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
A Broad Layout for John
John may be divided broadly into two thematically arranged halves (1:19-12:50; 13:1-21:25), despite some disagreement regarding the structural integrity of the fourth Gospel, due to certain aporia (i.e. any perplexing difficulty).[10] Jeffrey Staley suggests these tendencies are set forth in the prologue (John 1:1-18) and bolsters the viability of the approach taken here.[11] John 1:19-12:50 (“book of signs”) and John 13:1-21:25 (“book of glory”) are consequently the main divisions taken in this study.
The last nine chapters focus great attention upon the last few days of Jesus’ life,[12] where the focus is on the “Upper Room” and his “Farewell Discourse” (13-17), the crucifixion and resurrection narratives (18-21). Even more specifically, the text under consideration (John 16:12-15) finds its niche as the last of five discourses that speak of the Spirit as the Paraclete (John 14:15-17, 25-26; 15:26-27; 16:7-11, 12-15):[13]
Book of Glory 13:1-21:25
Upper Room/Farewell (13-16)
Prayer (17)
Crucifixion and Resurrection (18-21)
A Brief Exegetical Walkthrough
This paper sets out to examine John 16:12-15 as the last of five segments that place emphasis upon the Paraclete’s role in the ministry of the apostles; furthermore, to examine the nature of the Paraclete’s role in the early church, as set forth by Jesus, as an apostolic “Aid,” guiding them in the ways that pertain to truth.
Verse 12: I have many things left to say to all of you, but you are not able to endure it at the present time. (Author's Translation)[14]
Following George Beasley-Murray’s lead, the final Paraclete passage brings the discourse to a “climax” emphasizing the role the Spirit’s ministry.[15] The adverbial eti here takes the sense of “what is left or remaining”[16] and in concert with all’, which contextually appears to function as a transition marker placing emphasis on “the other side of a matter or issue,”[17] suggests that verse 12 begins to further demonstrate the importance of the Spirit’s coming presence. Etiand all’ are pivotal phrases for they describe the tension of the situation in which the disciples are to be found. Consequently, this climactic Paraclete discussion may be viewed in terms of two perspectives: the disciples’ and the Lord’s.
First, from the disciple’s perspective, one wonders how much more Jesus withheld from them during his personal ministry. However, earlier in this context Jesus clearly told them, “I did not speak about these matters to you, because I was among you” (John 16:4b). As a result of disclosing the impending future events, Jesus observes their plight and says, “pain has filled your hearts” (16:6b). The thought of loss and loneliness, without access to the presence of Jesus, made the disciples at that moment (arti) incapable (ou dúnasthe) to carry the burden (bastádzein) of what appears to be doctrinal and prophetic significance (14:26; 16:14). The anarthrous adverbial infinitival construction ou dúnasthe bastádzeinstresses purpose; namely, the disciples do not have adequate capacity in order to “sustain the burden” of what Jesus has left to teach them.[18] Thus, in essence, because the disciples are currently unable to carry more weight (upon the sorrow?) in their hearts, there remains future spiritual growth.
Second, from the Lord’s perspective, he looks forward to a future event. This observation is made on the basis of the present lack of capacity of the disciples to carry the burden of what Jesus has to further instruct them in. If ou dúnasthe bastádzeinarti is to be taken as a present reality, then Jesus looks forward to a future reality-event when they will have the capacity to bear his teaching. This is one of the blessings already referred to previously that flow from the arrival of the Paraclete (14:25-27; 15:26-16:11).
The Paraclete[19] is viewed as an “Aid” in John 14:25-27 as one who will “teach” the disciples and “remind” them of the teaching of Jesus eventuating in “peace”; in contrast to the “sorrow” that they are now experiencing (16:6). And with the arrival of the Paraclete, the disciples will have an “Advocate” for their defense from the world (15:26-27), and a “Counselor” to give guidance in accusing the world (16:8-11).[20] In each circumstance, Jesus says, “the Father will give you another Paraclete” (14:16), “the Father will send” (14:26), “but when the Paraclete comes” (15:26), “when he comes” (16:8), “when the Spirit of truth comes” (16:12). Hence, Jesus already anticipates a time when the disciples overcome both their sorrow and the corresponding incapacity to bear more of his teaching.
Verse 13: However, when that one has come – the Spirit of Truth – he will guide you in all the truth; for he will not speak from himself, on the contrary, to the extent of what he will hear, he will speak. And he will announce to you the things that are to come.
Preliminary to discussing the continued flow of thought from verse 12, there is a text-critical matter that needs some attention. Verse 13 bears two significant variants. The first is the dative construction en te aletheía páse (dative of sphere) following hodegései humas, which according to other textual traditions has an accusative construction eis pasan tèn alétheian(spatial accusative). The committee of the UBS4 textual apparatus has given en te aletheía páse a B rating; meaning, that they view the dative construction as is almost certain,[21] being witnessed by notable uncialsAleph1 (4th century), W (4/5 centuries). Meanwhile, the accusative construction is witnessed by notable uncials A (5) and B (4th century) with variation, and 068 (5th century). Along with early translations and early patristic witnesses, the evidence appears somewhat fairly divided. Bruce Metzger suggests, however, “the construction of eis and the accusative seems to have been introduced by copyists who regarded it as more idiomatic after hodegései”[22] than en with the dative.[23]
Despite the pain that filled each disciple’s heart, the disciples were directed to a future event – the work of the Spirit of Truth (16:13ff.). “However” (dè) marks that Jesus is developing a new topic (dè of “switch subject”).[24] Moreover, this contrast is temporal as demonstrated by hótan élthe (“when that one has arrived”). Furthermore, following Buth’s discussion on δὲ as a mark of switching subjects, it is proposed that the new subject is ekeínos, which refers to ho parákletos. Daniel Wallace proposes that this is a more solid linguistic connection between this pronoun and its antecedent (ekeínos = ho parákletos).[25] Consequently, tò Pneùma tès aletheías serves as an appositional phrase expanding and further defining ekeínos; hence the translation, “when that one has come – the Spirit of Truth […]” (John 16:13a). Instead of the present reality of pain that the disciples feel, Jesus focuses on the guidance that ho parákletos[26] will bring to the disciples.
Ancient sources point to a Jewish background the Spirit of Truth motif. This vocabulary was typical when admonishing obedient and moral lives by using concepts that are dualistic. For example, we find a proverbial discussion of “the spirit of truth and the spirit of error” with “the spirit of discernment” standing between them urging there to be a selection of truth (T. Jud 20). Observe the full quote:
Learn therefore, my children, that two spirits wait upon man—the spirit of truth and the spirit of error; and in the midst is the spirit of the understanding of the mind, to which it belongeth to turn whithersoever it will. And the works of truth and the works of error are written upon the breast of men, and each one of them the Lord knoweth. And there is no time at which the works of men can be hid from Him; for on the bones of his breast hath he been written down before the Lord. And the spirit of truth testifieth all things, and accuseth all; and he who sinneth is burnt up by his own heart, and cannot raise his face unto the Judge. (italics added)[27]
Moreover, in the Qumran cache there is a discussion of God allotting two spirits to humanity, “the spirits of truth and perversity” in between which humanity must walk, again choosing between the two. As a result, walking with the truth is to “walk in the ways of light,” and the converse is true of walking with perversity – to walk in darkness (1QS 3:18-21). Again, observe:
[God] allotted unto humanity two spirits that he should walk in them until the time of His visitation; they are the spirits of truth and perversity. The origin of truth is in a fountain of light, and the origin of perversity is from a fountain of darkness. Dominion over all the sons of righteousness is in the hand of the Prince of light; they walk in the ways of light. All dominion over the sons of perversity is in the hand of the Angel of darkness; they walk in the ways of darkness. (italics added)[28]
These resonate strongly with the positive guidance the disciples will receive from the Paraclete.
The source of the Paraclete’s teaching is external to him, “for he will not speak from himself, “on the contrary” (all’), to the extent of what he will hear, he will speak.” Since earlier the Paraclete is said to be like Jesus (14:16-17), and Jesus also said that his teaching was not his own (3:32-35; 7:16-18; 8:26-29, etc.), it would make sense that the teaching of the Paraclete would originate from the Father. As F. Moloney observes, “neither Jesus nor the Paraclete is the ultimate source of the revelation they communicate.”[29] And his work is, in part, to remind the disciples of the teaching of Jesus (14:26).
In addition to this call to remembrance, “he will announce” (lalései) to them “things that are to come” (tà erchómena anangeleì), which presumably are the things that he will also “hear” (hósa akoúsei). Some view this last phrase (tà erchómena anangeleì) as eschatologically prophetic.[30] Others view it as instructional content yet to be expanded upon.[31] D. A. Carson proposes that this phrase has to do with “all that transpires in consequence of the pivotal revelation bound up with Jesus’ person, ministry, death, resurrection and exaltation.”[32] These matters, Carson views, are the subject of what we now call the New Testament Canon; consequently, this anticipates further canonical development by the new prophetic office – the apostleship.[33]
Verse 14: That one will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and he will report it to you.
Still looking to the arrival of the Paraclete (e.g. ekeínos), Jesus expands further upon his ministry – he will glorify Jesus. The word doxásei was often used in LXX to glorify God (2 Sam 6:20; 1 Chron 17:18), so also is used to describe one of the roles the Paraclete will have.[34] The term hóti has been ignored somewhat here among commentaries, where it could potentially be employed epexegetically; saying, “the Paraclete will glorify (honor) Jesus; namely, by taking the teaching that goes back to the Lord’s ministry and announcing it afresh to the disciples.” Such is not an unlikely view of the grammar; however, viewing hóti as causal (i.e. “because”) the sense changes slightly. Overall, the idea that the Paraclete’s glorifying of Jesus directly relates to him taking the teaching that was Jesus’ remains the same.[35]
This is borne out by Carson in three related ways. First, the Paraclete’s work is Christ-centric. Second, based upon the implication drawing from ek tou emou lépsetai“from what is mine,” Carson draws the conclusion that “the Spirit takes from this infinite sum and gives that truth to the disciples.” Third, Christ is the center of his teaching ministry, and it is through the Spirit’s work that Jesus is glorified.[36]
There is a rather important emphasis that should be laid upon the phrase ananggelei humìn. The term has to do with providing information; hence, may be translated “disclose,” “announce,” “proclaim,” or even “teach.”[37] What is contextually significant is that ananggéllōα carries an implicit understanding that it is a report of what one has heard.[38] Incidentally, the Paraclete will speak whatever he has heard (hósaakoúsei lalései 16:13), and here Jesus says that the Paraclete will take from what is his (Jesus), from where he will provide information to the disciples. Again, this highlights two matters: first, that the Paraclete will not speak independently; and second, the content of his teaching is all truth and Jesus. As Barrett observes, in John, ananggéllō (4:25, 5:15, 16:13-15) “is applied to the revelation of divine truth, and it is apparent that it is so used here.”[39]
Furthermore, Lawrence Lutkemeyer observes, thatananggéllō is “never” used in a predictive sense; instead, it is employed to report the way things were, are, or as they come into realization.[40] Therefore, what is under consideration is a reporting of the teaching and implications that flow from Christ and the Gospel message. This reporting is deposited within the pages of what is now the New Testament canon and serves as demonstrative proof that they have understood the Lord’s teaching.[41]
Verse 15: All things whatsoever the Father has are mine; for this reason I said, [hóti] “he takes from what is mine and will report it to you.”
When Jesus says, “All things whatsoever the Father has are mine,” it is in a sense logical to deduce that the content of what the Spirit is to announce or report to the disciples is under consideration. Carson again observes:
Therefore if the Spirit takes what is mine and makes it known to the disciples, the content of what is mine is nothing less than the revelation of the Father himself, for Jesus declares, All that belongs to the Father is mine (v. 15). That is why Jesus has cast the Spirit’s ministry in terms of the unfolding of what belongs to the Son: this is not a lighting of God, or undue elevation of the Son, since what belongs to the Father belongs to the Son. It is therefore entirely appropriate that the Spirit’s ministry be designed to bring glory to the Son (v. 14).[42]
D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, Piller New Testament Commentaries
It is precisely because they share this content and revelation (dià toùto) that the Paraclete will draw out from what belongs to Jesus (16:14), and that he will only speak what he has heard (16:13). There is a very similar statement in Luke, but here it speaks in reference to Jesus as he was sent from the Father (Luke 10:16).[43] The parallel is striking to this context regarding the Paraclete, of which Jesus by implication is the first and the Spirit is the second (14:16).
Precisely because of this shared content and revelation (dià toùto), Jesus retrospectively points out that he had spoken certain words to them (eìpon).[44] And here, John employs the recitativumhóti, meaning that the use of this conjunction is designed to introduce a direct quotation and is usually left untranslated.[45] Often hóti functions as an indicator of direct discourse.”[46] It serves only “to call attention to the quotation,” thus it functions in the same fashion as do quotation marks;[47] hence, in the translation above, hóti is emboldened and bracketed to demonstrate the origin of the quotation marks. What Jesus points to then, is the role of the Paraclete, “he takes from what is mine and will report it to you.”
It is interesting to note that the first quotation, “he takes from what is mine” (ek toù emoù lambánei) is a present indicative as opposed to the future indicative in 16:14 (lémpsetai). The shift in the tense of activity to the present as Christ views the Spirit’s work retrospectively may point back to 14:17, where Christ apparently speaks in both present and future tenses. Jesus says, “You know (present) him, for he dwells (present) with you and will be (future) in you” (14:17b). However, to be fair, the UBS4 committee had difficulty deciphering between a variant here (giving it a C rating) that relates specifically to the tense of both verbs ménei and éstai. If the wording of 14:17 stands as the majority of the UBS4 committee suggests,[48] then the Spirit was already in some sense active in the apostolic circle, and will in the future be in them.
This reflects what is happening here. Jesus notes that the Spirit is, in some sense, already taking (lambánei) from the reservoir of revelation and that he will when the time is ready, report this information to them (ananggeleì humìn). There is little by way of academic support for this approach to provide a resolution for the tense change from lémpsetai to lambánei (except Moloney).[49] Barrett’s terse statement, “the change of tense (cf. lémpsetai, v. 14) does not seem to be significant,”[50] needs revision on the grounds that 14:17, assuming its textual basis is the weightiest available, transitions from present to future with reference to the Paraclete’s work as does the tense shift in 16:15.[51]
Endnotes
Gary M. Burge, “Interpreting the Gospel of John,” Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues, eds. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2001), 357-70.
Burge, “Interpreting,” 376-78.
Craig Blomberg, “The Diversity of Literary Genres in the New Testament,” Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues, eds. David Alan Black and David S. Dockery (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2001), 274.
Blomberg, “The Diversity of Literary Genres,” 274.
Blomberg, “The Diversity of Literary Genres,” 275.
Larry W. Hurtado, “Gospel (Genre),” DJG 278.
Hurtado, “Gospel (Genre),” 281.
C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2d ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1978), 43.
Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, rev. ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 45.
Burge, “Interpreting,” 376-78.
Jeff Staley, “The Structure of John’s Prologue: Its Implications for the Gospel’s Narrative Structure,” CBQ 48.2 (April 1986): 241-49.
Burge, “Interpreting,” 382.
C. H. Dodd takes note of the significant fact, that John 15.1 to 16.15 is a pure monologue, and is in fact, the longest monologue in the entire Johannine Gospel (The Interpretation of the FourthGospel [New York, NY: Cambridge at the University Press, 1965], 410).
The translations are the author’s unless otherwise noted.
George R. Beasley-Murray, Gospel of Life: Theology in the Fourth Gospel (1991; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 78.
BDAG 400.
BDAG 45.
BDAG 171; Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 590.
“The principal difficulty encountered in rendering parákletos is the fact that this term covers potentially such a wide area of meaning. The traditional rendering of ‘Comforter’ is especially misleading because it suggests only one very limited aspect of what the Holy Spirit does” (L&N 12.19). There are three semantic domains in which it overlaps: (1) psychological factors of encouragement, (2) definite communication aspects, and (3) intercessory aspects leading toward certain legal implications and procedures (L&N 35:16, fn. 4).
Beasley-Murray, Gospel of Life, 71-72.
Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (1994; repr., Stuttgart, Germany: German Bible Society, 2001), 14*.
Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 210; cf., Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2005), 151-52.
Interestingly, Stanley E. Porter discusses the morphological connection between eis and en, noting that eis “may have been formally derived from the preposition ἐν, through the process of adding a final sigma (ens), the nu dropping out, and compensatory lengthening of the vowel from e to ei” (Idioms, 151) As a result, there is evidence of a connection, observing that “eis in its basic meaning is concerned with the movement of the sphere toward and into” a location, “as if this were the action that resulted in the condition of en” (Idioms, 151). There is much, therefore, to agree with Barrett’s observation that: “The difference in meaning between the two readings is slight, but whereas eis t. al. suggests that, under the Spirit’s guidance, the disciples will come to know all truth, en t. al. suggests guidance in the whole sphere of truth; they will be kept in the truth of God […] which is guaranteed by the mission of Jesus” (Gospel According to St. John, 489).
Randall Buth, “Oun, De, Kai, and Asyndeton in John’s Gospel,” Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis, eds. David Alan Black, et al. (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1992), 145, 151.
Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics,331-32.
That one who is ho parákletos will come as a guide in all truth, and it is only fitting then that ho parákletos is called “the Spirit of Truth” (tò pneùma tés aletheías). The two titles are complex conceptions; however, they appeal to certain Hebrew motifs that need some attention here. Without developing too deeply some of the backgrounds of each of these phrases, John employs the phrases ho parákletos (5 times) and tò pneùma tés aletheía (4 times) exclusively among New Testament authors. However, cognates are used by other authors.
T. Judas 20, ANF 8:20.
1QS 3:18–21 as quoted in Craig A. Evans, Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background of John’s Prologue, JSNT Supplement 89 (England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 147.
Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John, SP 4 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998), 441.
Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 490.
George R. Beasley-Murray, John, 2d ed., WBC 36 (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1999), 283; Rodney A. Whitacre, John, IVPNTC, eds. Grant Osborne, et al. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999), 392-93.
D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, PNTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 540.
D. A. Carson, The Farewell Discourse and Final Prayer of Jesus: An Exposition of John 14:-17 (1980; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1988), 149-51.
Ceslas Spicq, “dóxa, doxádzō, sundoxádzō,” Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, trans. James D. Ernest (1994; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 1:376-78.
Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 459-60.
Carson, The Farewell Discourse, 150.
BDAG 59.
BDAG 59.
Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John,490; Carson, According to John, 540.
Lawrence J. Lutkemeyer, “The Role of the Paraclete (John 16:7-15),” CBQ 8.2 (April 1946): 228.
Andreas J. Köstenberger, The Missions of Jesus and the Disciples According to the Fourth Gospel: With Implications for the Fourth Gospel’s Purpose and the Mission of the Contemporary Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 173-74; Lutkemeyer, “The Role of the Paraclete,” 228; Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 490-91.
Carson,According to John, 541.
“The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 16.10 ESV).
Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 333.
Matthew S. DeMoss, Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 107.
James Allen Hewitt, New Testament Greek: A Beginning and Intermediate Grammar (1986; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 52.
A. T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis, A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, 10th ed. (1958; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1979), 364.
Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 208.
Moloney, The Gospel of John, 447.
Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 491.
Moloney, The Gospel of John, 447.
Bibliography
Barrett, Charles K. The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text. 2d edition. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1978.
(BDAG) Bauer, Walter, F.W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. 3rd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Beasley-Murray, George R. Gospel of Life: Theology in the Fourth Gospel. 1991. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995.
Blomberg, Craig. “The Diversity of Literary Genres in the New Testament.” Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues. Edited by David Alan Black and David S. Dockery. Nashville, TN: B&H, 2001.
Burge, Gary M. “Interpreting the Gospel of John.” Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues. Edited by David Alan Black and David S. Dockery. Nashville, TN: B&H, 2001.
Buth, Randall. “Oun, De, Kai, and Asyndeton in John’s Gospel.” Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis. Edited by David Alan Black, et al. Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1992.
Carson, Donald A. The Farewell Discourse and Final Prayer of Jesus: An Exposition of John 14:-17. 1980. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1988.
—-. The Gospel According to John. PNTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991.
DeMoss, Matthew S. Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek.Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001.
Dodd, C. H. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. New York, NY: Cambridge at the University Press, 1965.
Evans, Craig A. Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background of John’s Prologue. JSNT Supplement 89. Library of New Testament Studies. England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.
Hewitt, James Allen. New Testament Greek: A Beginning and Intermediate Grammar. 1986. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004.
Hurtado, Larry W. “Gospel (Genre).” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green, et al. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992.
Köstenberger, Andreas J. The Missions of Jesus and the Disciples According to the Fourth Gospel: With Implications for the Fourth Gospel’s Purpose and the Mission of the Contemporary Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998.
(L&N) Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Albert Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. 2d edition. New York: United Bible Societies, 1996.
Lutkemeyer, Lawrence J. “The Role of the Paraclete (John 16:7-15).” CBQ 8.2 (April 1946): 220-29.
Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2d edition. 1994. Repr., Stuttgart, Germany: German Bible Society, 2001.
Moloney, Francis J. The Gospel of John. SP 4. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998.
Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. Revised edition. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995.
Porter, Stanley E. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. 2d edition. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2005.
Robertson, Archibald T., and W. Hersey Davis. A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament. 10th ed. 1958. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1979.
Spicq, Ceslas. “dóxa, doxádzō, sundoxádzō.” Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by James D. Ernest. 1994. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996.
Staley, Jeff. “The Structure of John’s Prologue: Its Implications for the Gospel’s Narrative Structure.” CBQ 48.2 (April 1986): 241-63.
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]
Ambition to hold prominence.
Refusal to submit to those of greater authority (e.g. apostle John).
Slanders and oppresses those undermining his “perceived” right to prominence.
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
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.
Luke T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation, rev. ed., rev. Todd C. Penner (Minneapolis, MI: Fortress Press, 1999), 562.
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.
John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John (1988; repr. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 44.
Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament, 362-63.
J. Gresham Machen, New Testament Greek for Beginners (1923; repr. Unicoi, TN: Trinity Foundation, 2000), 48-49.
Frederick F. Bruce, The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), 147.
D. Edmond Hiebert, “Studies in 3 John Part 1: An Exposition of 3 John 1-4,” BSac 144 (1987): 62.
Daniel B. Wallace, The Basics of New Testament Syntax: An Intermediate Greek Grammar (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 222-23.
Machen, New Testament Greek, 46.
Hiebert, “Studies in 3 John Part 1,” 65; emphasis added.
Everett Ferguson, The Letters of John (Abilene, TX: Biblical Research, 1984), 99.
Bruce, The Letters of John, 149.
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.
Stott, The Letters of John, 226.
D. Edmond Hiebert, “Studies in 3 John Part 2 (of 3 Parts): An Exposition of 3 John 5-10,” BSac 144 (1987): 199.
Stott, The Letters of John, 226.
Stott, The Letters of John, 226-27.
Michael W. Holmes, ed., The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999).
Ferguson, The Letters of John, 99.
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.
Hiebert, “An Exposition of 3 John 5-10,″ 200.
Hiebert, “An Exposition of 3 John 5-10,″ 200.
BDAG 743.
David Smith, “The Epistles of John,” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (New York, NY: Doran, 1901), 5:207.
Adam Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, n.d.), 6:942.
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.
Stott, The Letters of John, 228.
Ferguson, The Letters of John, 99.
Guy N. Woods, A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles of Peter, John, and Jude (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1973), 362.
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.
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.
Hiebert, “Studies in 3 John Part 2,” 203.
Stott, The Letters of John, 228-29.
Hiebert, “Studies in 3 John Part 2,” 203.
“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.
Oskar Seyffert, 1966, Dictionary of Classical Antiquities, rev. ed., rev. and eds. Henry Nettleship and J.E. Sandys (N.p.: World Publishing, 1966), 704.
Ferguson, The Letters of John, 100.
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.
Stott, The Letters of John, 230.
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.
William E. Vine, The Collected Writings of W.E. Vine (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1996), 3:412.
Ferguson, The Letters of John, 100.
Wayne Jackson, Notes From the Margin of My Bible (Stockton, CA.: Courier Publications, 1993), 2:172
J. Jackson, “Fellow Workers for the Truth,” par. 15.
Lloyd J. Ogilvie qtd. in Hiebert, “Studies in 3 John Part 2,” 204.
BDAG 7.
Paul G. Hiebert, 1985, Anthropological Insights for Missionaries (1985; repr. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 21.
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.
BDAG 803.
Woods, A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles of Peter, John, and Jude, 360.
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).
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.
Stott, The Letters of John, 232.
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).
Oliver B. Greene, The Epistles of John (Greenville, SC: The Gospel Hour, 1966), 256-57.
Ronald F. Youngblood, ed., Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1989), 346.
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.
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.
My translation.
John Nelson Darby, New Testament Translation (1884; repr. Franklin, Tenn.; e-Sword, 2000-2012).
Machen, New Testament Greek for Beginners, 187.
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.
Hiebert, 1987, “Studies in 3 John Part 3,” 301.
Barclay M. Newman, Jr., A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1993), 112, 91.
Hiebert, “Studies in 3 John Part 3,” 302.
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.
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.
Hiebert, “Studies in 3 John Part 3,” 303.
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.
biblicalfaith.online 