Weird question, I know. Let me explain. This phrase is from C. S. Lewis’s classic book Mere Christianity.[1] Lewis journeyed from atheism to a believer in Jesus as the Christ. In Mere Christianity, he articulated an argument in support of the deity of Jesus commonly styled the trilemma.
Actually, Lewis’ classic argument emerges from his desire to disabuse his readers who are tempted to accept Jesus of Nazareth “as a great moral teacher” and yet reject his claims “to be God.” Lewis is very adamant, “That is the one thing we must not say.”[2] Why? The reason is simple. Jesus made claims to have divine privileges, claims to be divine, and exercised the rights of God by forgiving others of their sins.
How could we rationalizeJesus being a “great moral teacher,” Lewis argues, when he makes such claims to which places him beyond humanity? We are forced to make a decision: accept all that Jesus teaches or attempt to separate this claim to divinity from his teachings.
Decisions, We Have to Make One
At this point, the question about Jesus of Nazareth could be reduced to a dilemma. Professor Maurice Stanley explains that the “dilemma is among the most powerful forms of argument. Like the horns of a charging bull, its alternatives seem to leave you with no escape.”[3]
For example, we may argue that eitherJesus is the Christ or He is just “a great moral teacher.”
IfJesus is the Christ, then his teaching is absolutely true.
IfJesus is just a great moral teacher, then his teaching is subjective.
Consequently, you are left with two alternatives: either what Jesus taught (1) is absolutely true, or(2) it is decidedly subjective (we may pick and choose).
As a dilemma, there is no both-and. If you accept one, you deny the other conclusion.
Lewis knew, however, there was a third element regarding the case of Jesus of Nazareth. It simply is not that Jesus is either the Christ or a great moral teacher. Jesus made too many claims to divinity recorded in the Gospel Accounts to leave it at those two options.
Lewis goes to see that Jesus is either one of three things.[4]Jesus is either (1) a lunatic (Lewis’s “a poached egg”), (2) a devil, or (3) the Son of God. This is the trilemma where there is no both-and-and. If you accept one, you deny the other two conclusions.
If you accept that Jesus is a lunatic, then he is the sort of man “who says he is a poached egg” — i.e, a madman.
No madman is a “great moral teacher.” Is Charlie Manson a great moral teacher? What about Jim Jones? Or, David Koresh? Hardly. These are the questions readers of the New Testament need to ask. Interestingly, we find that these questions were raised as well during the ministry of Jesus himself.
They Said, “Jesus is Beside Himself”
In Mark 3:20-21, the family of Jesus had heard that he was home in Capernaum (2:1). They rushed “to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.” [All Scripture references are from the American Standard Version unless otherwise noted.]
The language is very vivid. Jesus’ own family was so concerned about what people were saying about Jesus that they rushed to take him into their “protective” custody. However, certain Jerusalem scribes had already come and dismissed the exorcisms of Jesus as the work and influence of Beelzebul and “the prince of the demons” (3:22).
The text forces the question concerning Jesus: He is either (1) “out of his mind” (i.e., “a poached egg”) or (2) in cooperation with evil spirits (“a demon”). In the latter point, no one disputed the supernatural elements of the exorcisms.
In this text, Jesus responds with a third option (Mark 3:22-27). He argues that He is not cooperating with Satan, nor is Satan in a civil war against himself since his kingdom would fall apart. Instead, Jesus demonstrates his power and authority over Satan by subduing him in his own home. Jesus, then, logically argues for his superiority over the demonic and satanic world.
This passage then, which questions his sanity, demonstrates that he possesses all his mental faculties (he is not crazy) and that he is no emissary of Satan (he is no deceiver). But true to his power and authority, he is in the company and presence of the Holy Spirit (he is from God). Mark presents Jesus as mentally stable and confident in his power over evil spiritual forces.
Did Jesus Go Crazy Later?
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), an Irish playwright, once claimed that Jesus began his teaching ministry as a sane Rabbi but later after being exalted by the masses as Christ lost his mind.[5] This is not, however, the testimony of the Gospel Accounts which are of such authenticity that they could arguably be “admissible as evidence in a court of law” as true ancient eyewitness documents.[6] This is significant since the only authentic evidence for the existence of Jesus, his teaching, and his ministry are the first-century documents of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
But still, if a person claims to be God today, we would say they are insane. The Gospel Accounts, however, are united in their presentation that Jesus claimed both the power and the nature of God. In Mark 2:1-12, Jesus demonstrates that he not only has supernatural powers to heal a disabled man but also the prerogative and power of God to forgive sins (2:7). He then affirms, “that ye may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins” he heals the man (2:10).
Jesus not only taught that he had this divine privilege, but he also claimed to be God in the flesh (John 1:14, 10:29-33). Furthermore, he accepted worship — a significant acceptance of an act only due to God (Matt 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 20:20; Mark 5:6-7; John 9:35-38).
When pressed about Jesus’ “I am God” claim as a demonstration that he was insane, psychologist Dr. Gary R. Collins responded that it is important to remember that “psychologists don’t just look at what a person says. They’ll go much deeper than that.”[7]
Dr. Collins sets forth four particular problems “disturbed individuals frequently show” that Jesus does not demonstrate, namely:
(1) Emotional instability.
(2) Out of touch with reality (misperceptions, paranoia, etc).
Instead, Collins praises the emotional and mental stability of Jesus, giving his “diagnosis” as follows: “All in all, I just don’t see signs that Jesus was suffering from any known mental illness… He was much healthier than anyone else I know —including me!”[9]
The Significance of Jesus and His Resurrection
Ultimately, the Gospel Accounts emphasize the story of Jesus and his significance. This is summed up in the word “gospel” (Grk. euangelion) which means “a good tiding” or “a tiding of joy” (Matt 4:23; Mark 1:1; Luke 1:19, 4:18; John 1:11-13). Surely, the authors would not attempt to establish their gospel message upon a delusional Rabbi from a backwater city like Nazareth (John 1:46). Yet their story hangs on such an individual.
The only thing that makes Jesus’ claim to divinity (“I and the Father are one”) credible is the resurrection from the dead (Rom 1:3-5). While Lewis would ask us to choose between the three options based upon the logic of the Gospel Accounts, the real evidence lies in the resurrection of Jesus.
The strongest evidence for the empty tomb of Jesus is seen in the various conversions of those who did not believe in Jesus (James the brother of Jesus) and those who persecuted Christianity (like Saul-Paul the apostle), who was moved from being unbelievers to significant leaders of the primitive Christian faith (1 Cor 15:1-11).
Gary Habermas reminds us that the earliest belief “that they had actually seen Jesus after his death led to a radical transformation in their lives, even to the point of being willing to die for their faith.”[10] Their conversion and capacity to endure sufferings as eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus are unexplainable otherwise.
Concluding Thoughts
Similar arguments can be made from various other texts, but the present discussion should be helpful to demonstrate that Jesus is no “poached egg,” nor is he a liar. We are then led to the only true credible conclusion that Jesus is the son of God.
What will you decide based upon the evidence and testimony of the Gospel Accounts (John 20:30–31; 21:25)? As Lewis reminds us:
let us not come with any patronising [sic] nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.[11]
Endnotes
Clive S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (NY: Macmillan, 1952).
Lewis, Mere Christianity, 56.
Maurice F. Stanely, Logic and Controversy (Boston, MA: Wadsworth, 2002), 192.
N.T. Wright critiques Lewis’ “lunatic, liar, Lord” trilemma argument, or as he rephrases it “bad or mad or God,” by observing that the argument does not take into account the pre-existing “incarnational model” of Israel in the Scriptures and consequently “drastically short-circuits the argument” (“Simply Lewis: Reflections on a Master Apologist After 60 Years,” TouchstoneMag.com). That criticism acknowledged, Lewis does provide the basic contours of the question by forcing his readers to decide if Jesus was a lunatic, a liar, or Lord.
Wayne Jackson calls attention to Shaw’s point of view in Jackson, Eric Lyons, and Kyle Butt, Surveying the Evidence (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 2008), 175.
Pamela Binnings Ewen, Faith on Trial: An Attorney Analyzes the Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus (Nashville, TN: B&H, 1999). It has been reprinted with slight variation to the title, Faith on Trial: Analyze the Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2013). The purpose of the volume is to demonstrate the credibility of the Gospel Accounts to have the internal evidence to stand up in a court of law as eyewitness documents. Ewen argues forcefully that they do. See also Simon Greenleaf, Faith on Trial: Analyze the Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus (1874; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1995).
Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 146.
Strobel, The Case for Christ, 146-47.
Strobel, The Case for Christ, 147.
G. Habermas, To Everyone an Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview, eds. Francis J. Beckwith, William Lane Craig, James P. Moreland (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 189.
Lewis, Mere Christianity, 56.
This is a reformatted and slightly expanded version of the article which originally published in The Glendale Gleaner (Newbern, TN: Glendale church of Christ).
In Philippians 1:1, Paul addresses himself “to all the holy ones in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi with the guardians and servants.” In Acts 20, Paul addresses “the elders of the church” from Ephesus and calls them to a commitment to their pastoral ministry. In this admonition, he reaffirms that it was the Holy Spirit that “set them forth as guardians” (Acts 20:28). These few references point to the organization structure of the early Christian congregations in apostolic times but provide little by way of an exposition of qualifications needed to assume such a role.
Moreover, there are approximately four terms that are used in concert when touching the topic of church leadership; their common glosses are elder, overseer (“guardian”), shepherd (“pastor”), and steward. While this connection demonstrates their interdependence upon each other to explain the function of such leaders, only two pericopes develop the qualifications with specific details.[1] These are 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 which show some variation in terminology, though “the same ideas are often expressed.”[2] The former is the focus of this reading.
Understanding the qualifications for those aspiring to the episkope in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 is a pressing need for the body of Christ, in general, and local congregations in particular which seek to establish their organizational model upon the pattern of the primitive church reflected in the New Testament. A reading of this passage will be accomplished in three progressions. First, 1 Timothy 3:1-7 must be understood in its connection to the previous chapters. Second, the passage must be taken as a whole along with its subdivisions. Finally, translation and reading of the passage will provide a proper understanding of the qualification of the guardians.
Evaluating the Internal Context
The context of the previous chapters must be considered. In the assumption that 1 Timothy is a genuine Pauline document, Paul is writing to Timothy at the beginning to the sixth decade of the first century A.D., to excel in his ministry of the word in Ephesus against various false teachers and threats to church life (1 Tim 4:11-16).[3]
Contextually, in the first two chapters Paul leads his letter with a reminder of his warning against false teachers and immorality (1:3-11), then balances the rebuke against false teachers with another reminder of God’s “mercy” (1:12-17), ending with a call to wage war against false teacher and detractors (1:18-20). In the second chapter, Paul shifts into another call for action and this time in reference to prayer that it may result in, among many things, lives framed in “dignity” in matters of authority, gender roles, and domestic roles (2:2; 2:1-15; cf. 3:4, 8; Tit 2:7).
From here, Paul transitions quickly into the qualifications of the “guardians” (3:1-7) and “servants” (3:8-13) which are framed in a virtue list. As such, then, Paul uses a common literary tool to “communicate his own theological intent.”[4] “Guardians” are part of the solution to protect and lead the church.
Breaking Down 1 Timothy 3:1-7
The pericope can be subdivided into reasonable progressions beyond the broader paragraph.[5] Gordon D. Fee organizes his analysis of this passage into five progressions (3:1, 2-3, 4-5, 6, 7).[6] Others focus on the two main aspects of this section: the faithful saying (3:1) and the qualifications (3:1-7).[7] This reading will follow a three-movement progression: the faithful saying (3:1), the things which must be (3:2-5), and the dangers of the Devil (3:6-7).
The first progression is based upon the introductory statement of 3:1, which is used elsewhere in the letter (1:15, 4:9). The second progression is established by the leading statement regarding the things which are “fitting” (or “necessary”) “to be” (i.e. the qualifications) in 3:2, introducing the virtue list which technically concludes in verse 7.
However, 3:6-7 are unique in the section because they set up two warnings in connection with two qualifications (“not a new convert” and “a good testimony from non-Christians”). For this reason, these last verses are seen as a final progression.
An outline of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 is as follows:
The Faithful Saying (3:1)
What the Guardian Must Be (3:2-5)
Two Warnings for the Guardians (3:6-7)
A Reading of 1 Timothy 3:1-7
A reading and translation of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 a proper appreciation of the flow and meaning can be gained with the intention of having true “guardians” of church based upon the fifteen virtues in the apostle Paul’s list.
The First Progression. The first section of the pericope begins with no particle of transition or connective conjunction;[8] instead, 3:1 begins with the introductory slogan, “The statement is true” (pistos ho logos).
The nominatives stand grammatically separate, and the adjective πιστὸς stands in the predicate position to ho logos. Robertson disagrees with this slogan beginning the section; instead, he affirms this “phrase points to the preceding words (not like 1:15) and should close the preceding paragraph.”[9] In brief response, the “faithful saying” better introduces the protasis, “if someone aspires…,” in the present simple conditional clause in 3:1b.[10] In the end, the phrase is used to emphasize the following truth:[11] “If someone aspires to the responsibility of a guardian, he desires to secure a good work” (3:1b).
The second half of the verse contains the trustworthy maxim. First, consider the logic of 3:1b. As previously mention, it is a present simple conditional statement. The present middle indicative protasis, ei tis and oregetai, includes within it the personal emotional interest (lit. “I stretch myself to reach”)[12] of the one “aspiring to the responsibility of a guardian.” The verb oregetai takes the genitive episkopes as its direct object which suggests that episkopes defines what is the aspiration.[13] It is the episkopes and “no other” which serves as the root idea of the verb.[14]
The present active indicative apodosis, kalou ergou epithumei, portrays the simple consequence, “he desires to secure a good work.”Another verb of emotion, epithumei likewise has a genitive as its direct object.[15] This verb is often associated with an inordinate emotion (i.e. sexual lust, covet, etc.), but in this instance the connotation of a positive desire as colored by its object “a good work.”
Second, there is a need to briefly explain why the term “guardian” (episkopos) and the phrase “responsibility of a guardian” (episkope) has been selected over its contemporary gloss “overseer” and “office of an overseer.” In brief, the New Testament use of these terms does not inherently suggest an “office” (status) as they do stress a responsibility (function). There is evidence in the papyri showing the use as a title and an office;[16] however, its contextual use in the New Testament emphasizes function over office.[17] Categories of use in the New Testament such as “one being present watching over” to care or to punish (Luke 19:44; 1 Pet 2:12), or “a position of responsibility” due to an assignment (Acts 1:20), and the act of “supervision.”[18]
In 1 Peter 2:25, God is both shepherd and “guardian” of our souls; moreover, in 1 Peter 5:2 “being guardians” displays the function of “overseeing.”[19] Agreeably, it does seem “important to try to combine the concepts of both service and leadership […] the responsibility of caring for the needs of a congregation as well as directing the activities of the membership.”[20] This is not an appeal for an exclusive gloss, but an attempt to emphasize the function of “guardian.”
Second Progression. In the second progression of 1 Timothy 3:1-7, Paul begins his virtue list regarding the “guardian” of the church of God (3:2-5). After the “faithful saying” of 3:1a, the impersonal present active indicative verb of obligation dei (lit. “it is necessary”) and oun transitions Paul’s readers to the virtue list with, “It is, then, fitting” (3:2). There is also the difficulty due to the wide “colloquial” use of dei, because it complicates how to view the nature of the obligation. Generally, it refers to “something that happens because” it is “fitting” (due to internal or external reasons) and is often followed by an infinitive verb as here (einai).[21]
In such a case, the infinitive may function as “the subject of a finite verb”[22] as it has been rendered here: “It is, then, fitting to be.” However, due to English grammar, the subject of the infinitive (ton episkopon) is translated along with the leading verb dei;[23] hence, “It is, then, fitting for the guardian to be.” The semantic force here displayed is what Wallace calls the “potential indicative” for it places an emphasis on the desire, not upon the doing.[24] This is a blanket declarative statement for each adjectival qualification.[25]
In keeping with what is fitting, the “guardian” (ton episkopon) stands as a representative of this class of church leadership.[26] In other words, in keeping with a virtue list which will be compared or contrasted against “deacons” or false teachers, the category of the “guardian” is in focus.From 3:2b-5, Paul develops thirteen different qualifications, all adjectival words or participles in the accusative case. With a few exceptions, the terms are straightforward. Paul writes:
It is, then, fitting for the guardian to be: irreproachable, a-man-of-one-woman, clear-headed (i.e. wineless), self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, skilled in teaching, not quarrelsome, not combative, but forbearing, peaceable, not a lover of money, one who is engaged in the care of his own household, having children in submission with all dignity (but if he does not know how to care for his own household, how will he take care of God’s church?). (1 Tim 3:2-5 AT)
Of the thirteen terms enlisted above, three phrases were of interest in this reading. The most controversial phrase is “a-man-of-one-woman” (mias yunaikos andra, cf. 3:12, 5:12).[27] The anarthrous accusative andra is modified by the genitive mias gunaikos. Before any theological meaning can be derived from the phrase, the syntactical limits of the phrase must be established. It seems a qualitative[28] or descriptive genitive,[29] or a possessive genitive[30] are three of the best options. Of these three, a qualitative or descriptive genitive is probably under consideration as each of these uses underscores character over mere possession of a woman or wife.[31]
The second term, emphasizes the type of character which has as its primary meaning to be free of the influence of wine (i.e. wineless);[32] consequently, as a secondary meaning portrays a person who is “level-headed”[33] and “clear-headed.”[34] This is in contrast to the negative “not quarrelsome” (me paroinon) which has a primary meaning of being “given to drinking too much wine” as in being “addicted to wine;”[35] consequently, this refers to a person who would is abusive or brash, everything a guardian is not supposed to be.
The third phrase, is a present middle participle meaning “one who is engaged in the care of his own household” it describes “involvement or leadership” which must first be demonstrated “in house;” hence, the potential “guardian” must show himself to be an “active” family man who plays an important role in training and developing his children.[36] This last phrase is the subject of a parenthetical statement (3:5). In this statement, the apostle Paul forms a question in a present simple conditional sentence setting a portrayal of the sort of “guardianship” God intends to occur. “If he does not know how to care for his own household, how will he take care of God’s church?” In other words, if one has not been involved at home to personally mature and develop those in their care, the portrayal goes, the “guardian” of the church will not have the “how to” of experience.
The Third Progression. Finally, the last two verses (3:6-7) reflect the final progression with two strong warnings of how well-intended leadership can go bad. This last progression is built upon dei and einai from 3:2. It is, then, fitting for the guardian to not be “a new convert, so that he may not —having become conceited— fall into the judgment of the Devil” (3:6). The warning against a newly planted Christian becoming a “guardian” is seen in the hina and subjunctive clause, reflecting the potential result of such a fall into judgment. The same sort of warning closes the pericope: “But, it is also fitting to have a good testimony from non-Christians, so that he may not fall into the disgrace and snare of the Devil” (3:7).[37]
The section closes with a few similarities from within the pericope (3:1-7), in that a combination of an impersonal present active verb dei (lit. “it is necessary”) and the present active infinitive echein (lit. “to have”): “it is fitting to have.” The subject of the infinitive is the accusative “a good testimony” modified with the genitive of source “from non-Christians.” The point is, there is a certain fall out which results if these qualifications are not met.
The genitive of source is in contrast to the failures or work of the Devil, which depends upon how one reads tou diabolou in 3:6 and 7. In connection with 3:6-7, the genitive of tou diabolou shows there is a connection between the two “he may fall” statements and the Devil. What that connection may be is debated. The Devil may be the subject of the condemnation received from God or condemnation one endures at the hands of Satan (3:6).[38] It is read here with the former in mind; namely, in 3:6 the warning is against judgment as a result of arrogance. This is genitive of possession (“the Devil’s guilty verdict”) and it fits with the overall biblical context of the Devil’s standing before God (John 16:11).
In 3:7, there is a good reason to consider the genitive of agency or source. The context is of having a good testimony, which has its hindrances; namely, those which are done by or have their origin from tou diabolou (lit. “the adversary”). The Devil is ready to bring a shameful charge or a snare upon a would-be “guardian” to entrap him so that he falls. In both cases, the Devil stands as a warning to a prospective guardian. The Devil is the “poster child” for falling prey to arrogance, and in 3:7 stands as an ever-present enemy to those seeking to establish marturian kalen.
Concluding Thoughts
Jack P. Lewis once wrote, “Words create the patterns in which men think.”[39] It then follows that a reading and translation of this passage should help in this endeavor to think in the patterns Paul deems fitting regarding “guardians.” This reading of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 originates from a pressing need to explore the inner workings one of the two “complete” virtue lists in the New Testament for the “guardians of the church.”
The immediate context demonstrates Paul making a theological assertion about the leadership qualities of the “guardians” which reflect one who has restraint and conviction, steady relationships in the home and in the community, and is compassionate and genuine, a leader in the things which matter most in life and faith.
Endnotes
Donald A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005). As Carson and Moo observe, “It comes as something of a surprise to realize that, apart from the Pastoral Epistles, the New Testament has very little to say about it (and with it does, it speaks of forms like the apostle or the prophet, which, at least in their narrowest definitions, have ceased to exist). It is accordingly important that 1 Timothy has so much to say about ministers —more, indeed, than has any other New Testament writing” (575). The same can be said for the episkopos.
Everett Ferguson, The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 323.
Carson and Moo, An Introduction, 571.
David A. Mappes, “Moral Virtues Associated with Eldership,” BSac 160 (April-June 2003): 211.
There are many popular commentaries that outline 1 Timothy broadly then focus verse by verse. David Lipscomb and J. W. Shepherd, 1-2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, ed. J.W. Shepherd (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1942), Wayne Jackson, Before I Die: Paul’s Letters to Timothy and Titus (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publications, 2007), Denny Petrillo, Commentary on 1, 2 Timothy (Abilene, TX: Quality Publications, 1998), Carl Spain, The Letters of Paul to Timothy and Titus (Austin, TX: Sweet Publishing, 1970), William E. Vine, “1 Timothy,” volume 3 of The Collected Writings of W.E. Vine (Nashville, Tenn.: Nelson, 1996).
Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (1988; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000), 79-83.
J. W. Roberts, Letters to Timothy (Austin, TX: Sweet Publishing, 1961), Walter Lock, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles(1924; repr., Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1959), Walter L. Liefeld, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999).
R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus, and to Philemon (1937; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001), 576.
Archibald T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (1931; repr., Nashville, TN: Broadman, n.d.), 4:572. This is also how the editorial committee of the NA28 have rendered the paragraph.
Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 79. Herbert W. Smyth, A Greek Grammar for Colleges (New York, NY: American Book Company, 1920), par. 2297. Lock, Pastoral Epistles, 35.
James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1979). “Some verbs have a root idea (i.e. meaning) which is so closely related to the root idea of the genitive (i.e. description, definition) that they take their direct object in the genitive rather than the accusative case” (20).
Archibald T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis, A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, 10th ed. (1958; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979), 230; cf. Robertson, Grammar, 506.
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 132. Wallace advises not to make much out of this construction because it generally takes a genitive direct object.
G. Adolf Deissmann, Bible Studies, trans. Alexander Grieve (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1901; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988), 230-31.
L&N 53.71. Barclay M. Newman, Jr., A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, revised ed. (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1993). Newman provides the following glosses: “overseer, guardian, supervisor” (72).
Wallace, Greek Grammar, 451-52. Wallace goes on to say that it “is important to understand that normal force of the indicative mood is not thereby denied; rather, the assertion is simply in the desire, not the doing. Thus, this usage is really a subcategory of the declarative indicative” (451). This seems to be the force here and in 3:6 (dei de and echein).
Robertson, Grammar, 1168-72.
Harvey E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey. A Manuel Grammar of the Greek New Testament (1927; repr., New York, NY: Macmillan, 1957), 144. Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (1994; repr., London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2005). Porter calls this the “categorical” use of the article, whereby, the article makes a substantive represent a category of items (104-105).
Ed Glasscock, “‘The Husband of one Wife’ Requirement in 1 Timothy 3:2.” BSac 140 (July-Sept. 1983): 244-58, Robert L. Saucy, “The Husband of One Wife.” BSac 131 (July-Sept. 1974): 229-40.
Wallace, Greek Grammar, 86-88.
Wallace, Greek Grammar, 79-81.
Wallace, Greek Grammar, 81-83.
J. W. Roberts, “Exegetical Helps,” ResQ 2.3 (1958): 128-131. Andreas J. Köstenberger, “Hermeneutical and Exegetical Challenges in Interpreting the Pastoral Epistles,” Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul’s Theology in the Pastoral Epistles, eds. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Terry L. Wilder (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2010), 1-27.
MM 426.
BDAG 672.
Richard J. Goodrich and Albert L. Lukaszewski, A Reader’s Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003), 459.
BDAG 780.
Ron Clark, “Family Management or Involvement? Paul’s Use of Proistemi in 1 Timothy 3 as a Requirement for Church Leadership,” Stone-Campbell Journal 9 (Fall 2006): 251.
Newport J. D. White, EGT 4:114. There “is something blameworthy in a man’s character if the consensus of outside opinion be unfavorable to him; no matter how much he may be admired and respected by his own party.”
White, EGT 4:114.
Jack P. Lewis, Leadership Questions Confronting the Church (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1985), 11-12.
But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous, forgiving us our sins and cleansing us from all unrighteousness. (New English Translation)[1]
“I never get it right.” “I feel like such a failure.” Ever say this to yourself with respect to your Christian relationship with God? You are not alone; in fact, you are not alone in more ways than this sense of moral and spiritual frustration. But, I’m jumping the gun a little; so read on.
The apostle John writes these words to a group of Christians that are actually having the opposite problem. As hard as it may be to believe, this letter was written to remind Christians that admission of spiritual and moral failures (sin) is actually a mark of faithfulness. Some had become so misguided to believe that how a person lives does not affect their relationship with God.
But the apostle of love reminds them that living in denial is actually lying (1:6), self-deception (1:8), and an outright attack upon God’s integrity (1:10). All this is a reflection of human arrogance, and as such reflects a life lived in darkness (1:6). It appears, then, that when we try to cover up our moral and spiritual failures, weaknesses, and limitations, we are in fact covering up our dependence upon a faithful and just God.
Growing up in San Francisco, I would often look out into the bay and see sailboats. Sometimes, if close to the breakers I can even see windsurfers speeding along. A sailboat depends upon the wind in its sail to propel it upon its nautical journey. Would it not be the most ridiculous thing for the captain of the vessel to say, “I do not need the wind!” Stuck in the bay would be his lot. For that matter, ask a windsurfer how important wind is to her endeavors. The matter is equally obvious.
The Christians who first read these words were struggling with a teaching that encouraged a sense of arrogance about their lifestyle, that they were not accountable for their decisions; however, today, many Christians are afflicted with an unbalanced sense of guilt for their past sins, and for those more current, to the point where they judge themselves beyond the borders of God’s continued forgiveness.
In putting these early Christians in their place, John gives all Christians in every generation the truth that consoles the self-afflicted: God is faithful – despite our sins – and He will not abandon His children should they approach Him confessing sin, seeking forgiveness. Forgiveness is a privilege of “sonship”; and as such restores us in conscience and service by the cleansing power of God as he imparts to us the righteousness that is not our own (Phil 3:9).
Knowing this, let us remember our shortcomings are a reminder that we are not always faithful and just – but God is. It is the faithfulness of God that should give us confidence and joy in the face of our spiritual struggles. If he prepared to forgive us initially through Christ, shall he not also keep us in spite of our sins through Him as well? The answer is obvious.
On one occasion in the ministry of our Lord, Jesus accepted a dinner invitation from a Pharisee named Simon (Luke 7:40); interestingly, a woman with a reputation for being a “sinner” had heard of Jesus’ arrival and interrupted the dinner by cleaning his feet with her tears and hair and anointing them with oil (Luke 7:36-38).
Simon recoils at the woman’s act, and has an internal monologue that essentially questions the validity of the Lord’s ministry:
If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner. (Luke 7:39)[1]
As in other occasions, Jesus answers this unspoken criticism (Luke 7:40; cf. Matt 9:4, Mark 2:8). The Lord responds with a “parable of two debtors” (Luke 7:41-43), which has as its main thrust the point that “our sense of forgiveness will evidence itself in love and service.”[2]
There are points in the narrative that suggest that the woman and the Lord had known each other previously. The woman’s act of service and love (Luke 7:44-46) is a demonstration of her gratitude. This gratitude is based upon the fact that her sins “are forgiven” (Luke 7:47-48).
In the first instance, Jesus speaking to Simon the Pharisee states that this woman’s sins “stand forgiven” (v. 47). The phrase is one word in the original and is in the perfect passive indicative form. The verb reflects that her sins were forgiven at some point previous to their encounter at Simon’s house, and remain to be so. This would explain her great demonstration, of which Simon was critical.
In the second instance, Jesus turns to the woman and speaks the exact same phrase (v. 48). This time, the Lord encourages her – your sins remain to be forgiven. The woman “stands saved” (Grk. sesoken) because of her faith in the Lord; consequently, the Savior could send her into a life of “peace” (v. 50). The Lord emphasizes the abiding results of her forgiveness received prior to this dinner.
Moreover, Jesus concedes the point that the woman’s life had been ravaged by sin: “her sins, which are many” (v. 47). This strikes at one of Simon’s criticisms raised by the woman’s action, and Jesus demonstrates his full knowledge of the situation. He knew “what sort of woman” she was. Now, she is different; now, she is saved and forgiven, commissioned to live a new life embraced by the peace of God (Rom 5:1).
If Service is the Symptom… Stay Sick
It ought to go without saying that this encounter with our Lord is one that should pull at our hearts, for we share, as Christians, the same plight as this woman. Knowing the debt of forgiveness we owe to our God, knowing that the Lord went behind enemy lines to rescue us from a calamity worse than death, we too should be of similar passions to show our love through service.
The idea of service is not an abstract notion that we subscribe to, service is an expression of love. It is a symptom of our love for God. Consequently, if service is a “symptom,” then love and gratitude generated by salvation is the “infection.” And in this analogy, we would rather be sick than cured.
Christians, therefore, should never be complacent in their service to God. Packed pews look nice, but if that is all we offer to God, we have failed. Service, as demonstrated by this woman, sacrifices time, resources, and energy, and offers it to her Lord. Can we do any less?
When there are cards to mail, people to visit, broken hearts to help mend, and souls to invite to our Father’s promises in the Gospel, it should be done by our hands – not by the hands of another. The most natural explanation for this behavior is our gratitude and love for our Lord.
Lessons to be Learned
Besides the principle emphasis from this passage that forgiveness leads to a sense of gratitude which showcases itself in acts of love and service, there are a few other lessons that may be observed.
(1)This passage highlights the divinity of Jesus, bearing witness that He has the right to forgive sin.
Jesus’ claims to divine authority are well documented in the New Testament, and even as a basis for the plots against his life (John 5:17-18; 7:1).
In Luke, Jesus declared that the woman’s sins stand forgiven (7:47-48), and this offended the group of Pharisees at the dinner party. They reasoned, “Who is this, who even forgives sins?” (v. 49). They understood Jesus’ claims were not idealistic (mere wishful thinking), but were literal claims to divine authority (cf. Luke 5:17-26).
(2)A person’s new life may be overshadowed, for a time, by their past moral failures.
We know virtually nothing about this woman only that she is labeled as “a woman of the city” (v. 37) and “a sinner” (vv. 37, 39). This is not just a note from Luke, the narrator, but this was Simon’s understanding of who this mysterious woman was.
Nevertheless, critics will come and go, but the peace of God lasts forever (v. 50). The unrelenting critics who so often affirm, “you’ll do it again”, will be silenced and shamed by service to God (1 Pet 3:13-17; 2:11-12). We do not serve to prove others wrong, we serve to love God. The motivation behind our service must be fueled by our gratitude; as it is written:
Now which of them will love him more? Simon [the Pharisee] answered, "The one, I suppose, for whom he cancelled the larger debt." And he said to him, "You have judged rightly." (Luke 7:42b-43)
(3)A life troubled by the ravages of a sinful life can become a life of peace devoted to godly service to God.
The change of life brought about by a new way of thinking in light of God’s forgiveness has the overwhelming power to transform a person (Acts 2:38; Rom 12:1-2). Experiencing the grace of God, understanding that we who were once dead are now made alive in Christ brings tremendous peace, for our Lord never leaves us (Heb 13:5-6; 1 John 1:7).
Indeed, Paul writes,
...if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. (2 Corinthians 5:17)
This new birth (John 3:4-5) brings with it “the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension” (Phil 4:7); moreover, this peace guards our hearts and minds. In this new life, in true appreciation of the grace of God, we are qualified not only to experience a heavenly reward (Col 1:12) but are also sanctified for service (Eph 2:10; 1 Cor 6:19-20).
There is no person that God cannot use in holy service, especially his children whom he has “delivered… from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved son” (Col 1:13).
Concluding Thoughts
I remember seeing an article entitled, “Sluggish Slumbering Saints,” and the essence of the piece was to wake up Christians and call them to their responsibilities as servants of God to serve their Lord (Rom 6:16-18). Indeed, perhaps one of the more critical questions we must ask is this: if the lack of service is the symptom, then what is the infection? The sad answer is a lack of love and gratitude for all of God’s demonstrations of love.
This spiritual malignancy will only go into remission once we see afresh the great debt we owe our Lord. Should it be that a renewal of this kind is needed in the Christian’s life, then we are to seek Him in repentance and faith knowing that He will receive us and reward us (Heb 11:6; Acts 8:22).
You can be a servant like this wonderful woman, who despite her sin-filled past has been immortalized in the pages of God’s book for posterity so that all may see their own story of salvation and love, and be moved to faithfully serve Him from whom all blessings flow.
Sources
Unless otherwise noted all Bible quotations are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV) (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016).
Wayne Jackson, The Parables in Profile: Exegetical Outlines of the Parables of Christ, rev. ed. (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publications, 1998), 70.
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.
Demas. His name is on a list of names posted on the pages of the New Testament as one of the most notorious of Christian apostates. There are only three references to his name and his contribution to Paul’s ministry (Col 4:14, Philm 24) and his later detraction from it (2 Tim 4:9–10).
From these limited Scriptural references what can be possibly learned from this Christian man? Apparently much. This is the goal of this particular piece, to consider the lesson of Demas who at some point was counted among Paul’s “fellow workers” but then deserted Paul at a most crucial point in his ministry.
The Man in Question
In all fairness, there is next to nothing explicitly known about Demas, so we are forced in many ways to stretch out as much as possible (within fair limits) from what we do know about him.
Demas was a common enough name to be found in documents found among the ancient papyri of the New Testament era and beyond. The name is found in the company of several Jewish names. His name is a shortened form either Demetrius (cf. Acts 19:24, 3 John 12), Demarchus, or Demaratos.[1]
He could either be a Greek convert or a convert from among the Greek speaking Jews like Timothy (Acts 16:1). The last time we read of him he is journey bound to Thessalonica (2 Tim 4:10), which could point to his origins. Paul and Silas established a congregation in that city made up Jews and Greeks (cf. Acts 17:1–9).
Ultimately, we are left with reasonable speculation as to his origins. At some point, Demas comes in contact with the Gospel and with Paul. His reputation for service is of such caliber that he joins Paul’s mission to the Gentiles (2 Tim 4:17, Acts 9:15–16, Gal 2:6–10).
All this being said, we must ask a puzzling question, “What went wrong?” Here is a gentleman that labored alongside the Apostle Paul during some of the most epic moments of his ministry only to defect at the last. It’s baffling, if not disconcerting.
Background
Perhaps a little background is in order. The New Testament reflects that Paul experienced two significant imprisonments in Rome. The first imprisonment lasted two years and dates roughly to about A.D. 61–62, the second traditionally dates around A.D. 64.
The letters of Philippians, Ephesians and Colossians, and Philemon were dispatched during the first imprisonment as he waited for his hearing before Caesar (cf. Acts 28), from which he was subsequently released (Phil 1:25–26, Rom 15:24).
Demas was there with Paul when the Apostle was awaiting trial. He stands alongside noteworthy men such as Tychicus, Onesimus, Mark, Jesus (Justus), Epaphras, and Luke (Col 4:10–17, Philm 23–44). Those arduous years in Rome were filled with much turmoil as well as victories.
No wonder he was labeled as a “fellow worker” (Philm 24). This word reflects the fact that Demas was no slouch. He was every bit as critical as those listed above. He helped in doing his part in the division of labor. Such is the meaning of the phrase “fellow worker” (Grk. synergos).[2] But just a few years later, his heart desired no part of this work.
Upon release, Paul was ready to set in motion the things necessary to go West in Spain as he wrote to Christians in Rome (Rom 15:24). Also, Paul addresses some matters with Timothy in Ephesus (1 Timothy), and Titus in Crete (Titus).
All things seem to be progressing. At some point, however, Paul is arrested again. This time it is for keeps. The city of Rome suffered a week long fire that catastrophically destroyed the center of the empire in A.D. 64. The Great Fire of Rome is said to have “deprived numerous families of their homes and caused widespread discontent.”[3]
It is widely accepted that the fire was created by Caesar Nero (A.D. 54–68), and that he blamed the Christians for this crime (Tacitus [ca. 60-120], Annals 15.44).[4] According to tradition, Paul and Peter were both caught up in the persecution which followed; both were arrested and executed under Nero.[5] In fact, early tradition says their executions happened around the same time, the fourteenth year of Nero (A.D. 67–68).[6]
Paul has the trial of his life before him and he needs “the books and the parchments” (4:13). He also needed heaven bound Christians; yet, Paul was aware that this time his outcome did not look good (4:6). Yet, he trusted in the Lord.
“Demas… has Deserted Me”
This brings us to 2 Timothy 4:10. In Paul’s final letter he laments Demas as an unfortunate casualty:
“Demas, in love with this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica.” (4:10 ESV)
It is quite possible that the fierceness of the persecution and atmosphere in Rome played a factor in Demas’s desert towards Thessalonica. For this reason, he asks Timothy to leave Ephesus and come to Rome in a hurry (4:9). Ironically, Timothy would sail out of the Aegean Sea, waters shared with Thessalonica.
Paul is quite clear that Demas is a “deserter.”[7] That the desertion had already happened by the time the letter is obvious. Paul felt the sting of being left behind in his bonds by one who had been so trusted an ally in Christ. Demas forsook, abandoned, and deserted Paul while he was in a dire situation. This requires little exposition, Demas left Paul abandoned in his bonds and set his course to Thessalonica.
The real curious aspect of this text is the phrase, “in love with this present world” (or “having loved the present age”). The usual word translated “world” (kosmos) which suggests the material world and universe is not used here by the Apostle; instead, Paul employs a term which means “a very long time,” like the term “eternity” (Jude 25, John 6:51, 58). It may also mean the created world (Heb 1:2; 11:3), but this use is very limited; or, as is the case here, “a segment of time” as in an “age, an epoch.”[8]
There is a moral quality to this phrase. In 1 Corinthians 3:18b, Paul writes, “If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age.” There is a way one is wise in the things “which people in this world think” or “think are right.”[9] Again, in Mark 4.19 we read, “the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful.” It is not that much different, then, to have a “high esteem” for the present world/age with all its “cares” and “wisdom.”[10]
Demas’s interest and concern (“being in love” or “having loved”) with this present age was materialized, then, in his desertion of Paul. In fact, it would be reasonable to understand “being in love with this world/age” as defining the nature of the desertion. Demas forsook Paul “in that he held a high appraisal of this present world” over the faithfulness of God and the promises of the Gospel. It is quite clear that the vigor of faith that he had early on was now replaced by a desire to be satisfied by what the world offers. So, he departed from Paul.
What Can We Learn?
There are some painful lessons to observe from Demas. But they call upon us to be vigilant of our motives for being followers of Christ. Briefly, here are some lessons:
Difficult times reveal the quality of one’s conversion. Moments don’t define the quality of our conversion, they reveal it.
Great Christians can fall. Demas was a guy that no one perhaps would have suspected to abandon his brethren in hard times.
What we care about can be dangerous. Demas had become so concerned with what the world valued that it became more alluring than his witness to the world with the Gospel.
What matters most to you will always be revealed. Demas was unable to stay focused on the temporary nature of this life; his love of this world outweighed his love for the next life.
Demas reminds us of how fragile faith can be. More specifically, Demas gives us a spiritual “wake up” call. It is time to pick up!
Sources
James H. 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), 144. William Smith, A Dictionary of the Bible, rev. ed., eds. F. N. Peloubet and M. A. Peloubet (Chicago, IL: Winston Co., 1884), 142. Smith defines Demas as “governor of the people” which is not as enlightening as we would like. B. H. Throckmorton, Jr., “Demas” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, edited by George A. Buttrick (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1962), IDB 1:815.
Michael Grant, The Roman Emperors: A Biographical Guide to the Rulers of Imperial Rome 31 B.C. – A.D. 476 (1985; repr. New York, NY: Barnes & Noble, 1997), 38.
Harvey E. Dana, The New Testament World, 3rd ed. (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1937), 176.
E. E. Ellis, “Pastoral Letters” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, eds. Gerald F. Hawthorne, et al. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 662.
“engkataleipo” Walter Bauer, et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1979), BAGD 215; Moulton and Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, 179; Henry G. Liddell and Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1889). This is in keeping with the classical meaning, “to leave in the lurch.”
Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 2d ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 41:38.
BAGD 4-5. Agapao, “of the love for things; denoting high esteem for or satisfaction with something.”
Reconstruction of Fort Antonia by Ehud Netzer in Biblical Archaeology Review 35.1 (Jan.-Feb. 2009).
Claudius Lysias, the Tribune
Claudius Lysias is called “the tribune” (χιλίαρχος, chilíarchos) 16 times within Acts 21-24 (21:31-33, 37; 22:24, 26-29; 23:10, 15, 17, 19, 22; 24:22); 17 times if Claudius Lysias is also included in among the “military tribunes” in the “audience hall” when Herod Agrippa II and Bernice come to hear Paul (Acts 25:23). However, such speculation is uncertain, especially considering a minimum of two years from when Claudius Lysias sent Paul to the Procurator Marcus Antonius Felix in c. AD 57/58 Acts 23:26-35, to within the first few months of the new Procurator Porcius Festus who rules from AD 60-62 (Acts 24:27-25:1-22).
The Greek term chilíarchos is said to be used to translate the Roman tribunus militum (following Polybius), and also for the phrase tribuni militares consulari potestate (Plutarch). The responsibilities of a chilíarchos were as a “commander of a thousand men”.[1] Essentially, Claudius Lysias is “a high ranking military officer in charge” of anywhere from 600 to 1,000 men,[2] and this appears to be the case for it is said that his command was over a “cohort” (σπειρα, speira) in Jerusalem which is “the tenth part of a Roman legion having about 600 men” (Acts 21:31).[3]
Tribune of a Jerusalem Cohort
Claudius Lysias’s complete description as found in the New Testament book of the Acts of the Apostles is “the tribune of the cohort” in Jerusalem, which resided in nearby “barracks” (Acts 21:34, 37; 22:24, 23:10, 16, 32). It takes six cohorts to make up a legion, and each legion had six tribunes with a thousand men (“soldiers and centurions” Acts 21:32) under his command if the cohort was full; consequently, Claudius Lysias was a part of a larger military force.
The exact numbers in his cohort may never be known, however, he had sufficient men to spare two centurions, two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen, and two hundred spearmen to accompany Paul to Caesarea Acts 23:23-24. Furthermore, when the security detail arrives before Antipatris (Acts 23:31), Claudius Lysias allows for the seventy horsemen to go on with him and Paul to Caesarea, the headquarters of the Procurator Felix (Acts 23:32-35).
The “barracks” referenced in the book of Acts (21:34, 37; 22:24; 23:10, 16, 32), in connection to Claudius Lysias and his cohort are references to the Tower of Antonia, which Herod the Great rebuilt from a previous structure and named it after Marc Antony.[4] The Antonia was added on to the northwest side of the Temple facilities, “from which stairs descend into the outer court of the temple” (Acts 21:32, 35, 22:30).[5] For this reason, the Roman Tribune could hear the commotion caused by the confusing riot over Paul’s presence in the Temple and respond with speed (Acts 21:27-32).
Claudius Lysias in the New Testament
The military tribune Claudius Lysias enters the New Testament narrative when he protects Paul of Tarsus from a hostile Jewish mob on the outside of the Temple grounds in Jerusalem (Acts 21:30-32). The Acts text does not explicitly state why the tribune arrests Paul aside from asking “who he was and what he had done” (Acts 21:33); consequently, it appears Paul is detained for investigation as reflected later in Paul’s interrogation in the Antonian barracks because he was a cause of instigation among the Jews (Acts 22:23-24).
Claudius Lysias is aware of Jewish anarchistic movements, for when Paul speaking in Greek asks permission to speak to the shouting Jewish mob, the tribune appears shocked that he speaks Greek (Acts 21:37). Paul, as a controversial Greek-speaking Hebrew, evidently met some of the criteria for Lysias to conclude he was a Jewish revolutionist. Consequently, it appears that Lysias suspects him of being “the Egyptian” who “stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Assassins [σικαρίων] out into the wilderness” (Acts 21:38).
This individual operated around A.D. 53, and this revolution amounted to amassing these four thousand men, positioning themselves upon the Mount of Olives outside Jerusalem, and anticipating the walls of Jerusalem to collapse at his command. The Romans attacked this band of men, and the Egyptian lost six hundred men, and fled into the wilderness where he disappears awaiting “further revelation.” Evidently, “the Egyptian” was still on the run, wanted by the Roman military and the tribune was going to see if Paul was this anarchist.[6]
Paul was able to persuade Lysias that he was not an agitator, and provides him with his provincial citizenship as being from Tarsus, in the province of Cilicia (Acts 21:39). This was not an “obscure city” and either this suggests his citizenship could be authenticated, or Paul distinguished himself from the obscure Egyptian. In either case, Paul’s point is clear, he is not the Egyptian; the tribune accepts Paul’s case, and grants Paul an opportunity to speak to the Jews on the steps of the Temple facilities adjoined to the Antonian fortress (Acts 22:39-40).
The Jews did not respond peaceably to Paul’s speech, and Claudius Lysias decides to take Paul into the “barracks” of Antonia and “examine” him through the process of binding him to flog him (Acts 22:22-24). On receiving a report that Paul was a Roman citizen and then making a personal inquiry, Claudius is afraid of having violated the rights of a Roman by having him bound (see “Roman Citizenship” below). Claudius desires to arrive at the truth concerning the Jewish case against Paul and commands the Sanhedrin to assemble. Dissension among the Sanhedrin towards Paul arises again and causes Claudius Lysias to order his men to take Paul to the safety of the Antonian barracks (Acts 22:30-23:10).
Upon learning of a plot to kill Paul, Claudius Lysias summoned a military convoy to leave for Caesarea Maritima. In compliance with Roman law, he also sent a statement of the case to the procurator Antonius Felix. The letter reads:
Claudius Lysias, to his Excellency the governor Felix, greetings.
This man was seized by the Jews and was about to be killed by them when I came upon them with the soldiers and rescued him, having learned that he was a Roman citizen. And desiring to know the charge for which they were accusing him, I brought him down to their council. I found that he was being accused about questions of their law, but charged with nothing deserving death or imprisonment.
And when it was disclosed to me that there would be a plot against the man, I sent him to you at once, ordering his accusers also to state before you what they have against him. (Acts 23:26-30, English Standard Version)
The letter format is consistent with the general format in the Graeco-Roman world, of “author” to “recipient” with a “greeting” with the subsequent content of the reason for the letter.[7] This letter, however, was not altogether factual. It is an interesting “specimen” of Roman military correspondence (Acts 23:26-30).
Although acknowledging Paul’s innocence, Claudius Lysias gave the impression that he had rescued Paul because of having learned that the apostle was a Roman, whereas in reality, he had violated Paul’s citizenship rights by having him bound and even ordering that he be examined under scourgings. As to the disciple Luke’s knowledge of the letter’s contents, it may be that the letter itself was read at the time Paul’s case was heard.
Roman Citizenship
In Acts 22:23-29, a discussion between Paul and Claudius emerges on the topic of Roman citizenship. Part of Claudius’ investigation procedure to find out more information was to stretch out the detained for whips and flog them.
Before his flogging begins, Paul questions the centurion given this detail, “Is it lawful for you to flog a man who is a Roman citizen and uncondemned?” (Acts 22:25). Roman citizenship had a number of privileges, as John Polhill writes:
A Roman citizen was subject to Roman law and thus was protected from such things as being beaten without a trial, from cruel punishments like crucifixion, and from unlawful imprisonment, rights which did not belong to an ordinary provincial (peregrinus). Citizens had the right of appeal. Only a Roman citizen could legally marry another Roman citizen. Citizens were exempted from certain taxes. Beyond this, there was the considerable factor of honor and deference such a status afforded.[8]
It was such a valued honor, that some people risked the death penalty given for falsely claiming citizenship.[9] Interestingly, one could hold dual citizenship, as Paul was not only a citizen of the city of Rome but was also a citizen of the city of Tarsus from the province of Cilicia (Acts 21.39; 23.34).
Roman citizenship was conferred in a number of ways. The basic ones are as follows:
(1) The most common way was being born of two Roman citizens.
This is the claim Paul makes when asked how he obtained his citizenship (“I am a citizen by birth” Acts 22:28), which implies that both of Paul’s parents were Jewish Roman citizens (cf. #4).
(2) One could obtain citizenship as a reward for military service.
Regularly, military veterans were given citizenship upon discharge. This was the surest way to get it, taking 20 to 25 years depending on the level of ranking.
(3) Imperial conference, though heard of, was not entirely common.
Nevertheless, the emperor could confer citizenship, either on individuals or on whole communities, as in the establishment of a new colony. Often the result of doing some loyal service to Rome. Also, many times through these services, one gained an audience with the Emperor through expensive gifts to members of the inner Imperial court.
This may have been how the Tribune Claudius Lysias gained his citizenship (Acts 22:27-28). In fact, the tribune’s name provides evidence to assume the plausibility that Emperor Claudius (A.D. 41 – A.D. 54) conferred upon Lysias citizenship since those granted this honor would bear the name (the nomen) of the family or patron which conferred it; hence, Lysias gained the name of his patron Claudius. It has been noted that the emperor was quite “promiscuous” in his conference of citizenship.[10]
(4) Roman citizenship was also conferred through the emancipation of a slave from the house of a Roman citizen.
Some have suggested that Paul’s ancestors may have been freedmen from among the thousands of Jews whom Pompey took as slaves in 63 B.C.[11]
Endnotes
H. G. Liddell, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon: Abridged from Liddel and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon (1888; repr.; Oak Harbor, Wash.: Logos Research Systems, 1996), 888.
Barclay Newman, Jr., A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, revised ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010), 200.
George A. Smith, et al., “Jerusalem,” Encyclopaedia Biblica, eds. T. K. Cheyne and J. Southerland Black (London: A & C Black, 1901), 1:2429.
Robert M. Grant, The Sword and the Cross (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1955), 49.
T. C. Mitchell, Biblical Archaeology: Documents from the British Museum (New York, NY: University of Cambridge, 1988), 89.
John B. Polhill, “Political Background of the New Testament,” Foundations for Biblical Interpretation, eds. David S. Dockery, et al. (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 531-32.
Abraham J. Malherbe, “Life in the Graeco-Roman World,” The World of the New Testament, ed. Abraham J. Malherbe (1967; repr., Abilene, Tex.: Abilene Christian University Press, 1984), 9.
Polhill, “Political Background of the New Testament,” 532.
John B. Polhill, “Political Background of the New Testament,” 532; Richard R. Losch, The Uttermost Part of the Earth: A Guide to Places in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 176-77.
This originally appeared as a fully edited submission to Wikipedia.org. I have posted this here in case it is revised or rewritten.
biblicalfaith.online 