LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
JOHN W. RAWLINGS SCHOOL of DIVINITY
 
 
The Background of the New Testament Essay: Epistles Assignment
 
Submitted to Dr. Joseph Cathey
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the completion of
 
 
NBST800_D02_202440
New Testament Backgrounds (D02)
 
 
by
 
Paul Whitehorn
L00182201
November 24th, 2024
 
 

3 John 9-10: Avoiding the Diotrephes Dilemma:
Apostolic Guidance Vs. Hermit Kingdoms
 
 
Preface

As we reflect on authority within the church, as shown in 3 John, it is fitting to begin with a story that demonstrates how the challenges faced in the late first century remain pressing issues for the church today. Many years ago, a young student attended an interview for a position at a local church. At first, the interview went well, and the church leaders said that he was the ideal candidate. However, as the interview progressed, the student noticed something unusual: the church’s leadership was six female deaconesses and a blind female pastor. Out of simple curiosity, he politely asked how the church came to this matriarchy and if they would have a problem with him someday taking a leadership role. The atmosphere immediately shifted and they had him wait while they discussed if he was a good fit. A man, presumably the husband of one of the deaconesses, came into the waiting room with an angry disposition, and without warning, forcefully removed the student from the building. What followed was even more surprising. The church leaders contacted the student’s school, writing complaints and leaving negative online reviews in an apparent effort to damage his reputation. For the young student, this encounter became more than an unfortunate interview: it was a defining moment. He resolved never to allow power or position within the church to draw him away from the spirit of Christ’s teachings, which prioritize humility, grace, and compassion. This experience made him question authority within the church. He thought: if leadership is exercised in a way that goes against the humility and love of Christ, does it have any real value? What’s the point of authority if it loses sight of Christ’s example?
 

Introduction

The early church grappled with similar questions regarding leadership and authority. The apostle John, in 3 John, deals with this matter also. In 3 John 9-10, John addresses a local leader, Diotrephes (Dee-oh-TRÉ-fees), whose desire for preeminence drove him to reject apostolic authority, divide the community, and throw out those who disagreed with him. This scene also reveals a fundamental question about church leadership: what purpose does authority serve within the church if it’s disconnected from the example of Christ’s humility? The tension between the Apostle John and Diotrephes in 3 John 9-10 reveals the allure and dangers of selfish leadership within the church, showing how the rejection of apostolic authority, hospitality, and unity hurts the overarching mission of the church. This paper explores the historical and cultural contexts of Christian and Roman practices to demonstrate the need for servant-leadership that's modeled on Christ's humility and its enduring relevance for addressing hermit kingdoms in modern church polity. It will accomplish this by exploring historical accounts from Roman philosophy and early church documents to show that humility, hospitality, and acceptance of authority were staples in the church and the Greco-Roman world. Sources such as the Didache, the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, and the writings of Clement of Rome all emphasize these principles as foundational to a healthy Christian community. In a nutshell, through the example of Diotrephes, who refused to receive John’s emissaries and had a “love to be first,” this paper will examine self-centered leadership and how it’s wrong (3 John 9).
 

2. Background Context of 3 John 9-10

The historical context of 3 John 9-10 provides a valuable glimpse into the late first-century church's social and theological dynamics. This was a time when faith communities struggled with leadership, authority, and unity issues.[1] The early church was still in its infancy, and as it grew up, it needed structure to survive. This meant that an effective leadership dynamic and accountability within that structure became essential. However, as Marshall notes, this period also brought about several challenges, and as these new leaders emerged with various perspectives on authority, this led to numerous conflicts within the various congregations.[2] With this image in the background, John’s short letter to Gaius reveals a pointed conflict with Diotrephes, a local leader of sorts who was trying to exert control over his local congregation. His desire for power led to him reject apostolic authority and the emissaries he sent (3 John 9-10). According to Farley, Diotrephes’ actions don’t just speak to a personal conflict between two church leaders; rather, it illustrates the broader challenges faced by the early church regarding authority, hospitality, and loyalty to apostolic tradition.[3] Diotrephes’ defiance of apostolic authority in 3 John is a clear example of what the early Church often faced: when local leaders rejected any kind of top down authority. Irenaeus, in Against Heresies 3.2.2, described such figures as those who thought of themselves sed etiam apostolis exsistentes sapientiores, "even wiser than the apostles."[4] There is no doubt that Diotrephes was an archetype of this kind of rabble-rouser within the body of Christ; however, he was not alone in this struggle. Many New Testament passages address leaders who had gone off the rails, challenging the apostles and asserting their own power and influence as superior to that of the apostles. (cf. 1 Cor. 1:11, Gal. 1:6-7b)
John criticizes Diotrephes as one who φιλοπρωτεύων, “φιλο/loves πρωτεύω/to be foremost,” suggesting that he placed his personal authority above the values of the community and the traditions upheld by John and his fellow apostles. (3 John 1:9) Diotrephes not only rejected the preachers that John sent, but he expeled members of the congregation who wanted to welcome them. His lack of humility is a clear example of the type of κατακυριεύω/“lord it over” authoritarian leadership that stands in direct opposition to the model of servanthood that Jesus demonstrated and preached. (Matt. 20:25) By resisting John’s authority as an apostle, Diotrephes created division and shattered the unity within the church, placing his personal agenda and thirst for power above apostolic teaching. This tragic story underscores the need for a balance between the local leadership and established authority that’s rooted in the apostolic tradition. This subject would nip at the heels of the early church and ultimately shape church polity for many years to come.
The sheer magnitude of Diotrephes’ error is highlighted by the importance of hospitality within the early community. In the first-century church, hospitality was not merely a cultural courtesy; it was a theological practice that reinforced communal bonds and supported the spread of the gospel. Hospitality in the first-century church was more than a social obligation. Aristides describes it in his Apology, section XV, as a central mark of the Christian community, noting that “when they see a stranger, they take him into their homes and rejoice over him as a very brother.”[5] Traveling missionaries and teachers were often dependent on the hospitality of local brothers and sisters in Christ: welcoming them was seen as an act of service. (e.g. Heb 13:2) In fact, Jesus taught that receiving his messengers was equivalent to receiving him, stating, “the one who receives you receives me.” (Matt. 10:40) This teaching is echoed in the writings of many other early Christian leaders and pagans, such as Polybius, who recounts in his historical works the cultural importance of receiving emissaries. In Roman life, this practice carried significant diplomatic and social weight. Rejecting an envoy could signal an outright refusal to recognize the sender’s influence or status.[6] [7] Therefore, for Christians, hospitality would have been not only a vital expression of love but also the appropriate response for fostering unity and supporting the mission across an expanding network. This practice would have resonated with any Roman familiar with the cultural expectation of welcoming guests and treating travelers with respect.
By rejecting John’s messengers, Diotrephes not only undermined the apostolic mission but he also violated a practice that was crucial to the early church’s spiritual and social calling. In the Epistle of Barnabas, the author of Hebrews writes, “αγαπησεις τον πλησιον σου ϋπερ τον εχθρον σου” or “you shall love your neighbor above your enemy.”[8] At first glance, this may seem in direct opposition to the golden rule, which promotes universal love; however, it reflects an early Christian emphasis on prioritizing support and unity within the community of believers. Therefore, Diotrephes’ refusal of hospitality was a serious breach of what this community was suppose to look like. It signified a radical shift away from the communal and the inclusive nature of the early Christian gatherings toward a more exclusive and controlling form of leadership, almost like a cult leader. By rejecting hospitality, he severed ties with other Christian communities, choosing isolation over connection. In doing so, he isolated his congregation from apostolic influence, creating a kind of hermit kingdom. This act would have been a bold warning to the Apostles, revealing the threat posed by power-hungry leaders who value their own position over the care of God’s flock. Therefore, the conflict in 3 John 9-10 reflects not only the practical challenges of leadership for one congregation but also the theological backbone of Church polity in perpetuity. It emphasizes the need for leaders who know how to balance their authority with humility while remaining committed to the broader mission of “The Name.”(3 John 1:7)
 

3. Key Early Church Documents Addressing Polity and Leadership

Conflicts like those found in 3 John were not unique: they point to a much larger issue within the church about how authority should be distributed. There are a number of various early church writings that confront the issue of power-hungry leaders. The early church was struggling to find governing structures to preserve order and uphold the universal church’s will over that of a single individual. The Didache, the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, 1 Clement, The Shepherd of Hermas, and the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians are just a few examples that addressed this problem. These texts provide direction on how to counteract future Diotrephes types while promoting humble, service-oriented leadership. Here is a basic overview of each document and its relevance to this issue.
 

Didache

According to Wilhite, the Didache, also known as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, is dated to the late first or early second century and serves as one of the earliest surviving manuals for Christian community life.[9] Discovered in 1873, this very brief document can be read in less than 10 minutes, yet it covers core theological doctrines as well as practical guidance for Christian living and church governance. The Didache underscores the importance of discernment and accountability in the early church, particularly concerning itinerant teachers and prophets. It advises believers to “welcome every apostle as the Lord,” yet cautions that if a prophet “asks for money, he is a false prophet,” ensuring that those with self-serving motives are recognized and dismissed.(Didache 11:4, 6)[10] Furthermore, “every genuine prophet who is willing to settle among you is entitled to his support” (Didache 13:1), echoing Paul’s teaching that “the worker deserves his wages” (1 Tim. 5:18). These passages, alongside instructions to carefully test and appoint bishops and deacons, reflect a balanced approach to hospitality and leadership, prioritizing integrity, communal support, and the spiritual health of the early church. (Didache 15:1-2) This teaching shapes the church’s stance toward Christmongers[11] and false prophets along with anyone else who might exploit their position in the community for personal gain or influence.[12] Sometimes the best way to learn and drive change within an organization is by recognizing mistakes and learning from both positive and negative examples. The Didache warnings closely parallel the situation in 3 John, where a negative example like Diotrephes’ refusal to welcome John’s emissaries underscored the need to create documents like itself. Such guidance helped local congregations quickly identify and remove future "Diotrephes" who sought personal power over genuine servanthood.
 

Letters of Ignatius of Antioch

Ignatius of Antioch, the Bishop of Smyrna, wrote at least six letters to various churches and one to Polycarp during his captivity under Emperor Trajan.[13] These letters were composed by him during his captivity while being transported from Antioch to Rome, where he was martyred around 115 AD. Before Ignatius’ letters, the church followed a more collegial or monepiscopalmodel, where multiple leaders shared oversight. This model often operated through a council of elders, with the apostles or their disciples providing additional guidance.[14] When the Apostles died, this model collapsed. In response to this vacuum of power, Ignatius tries to advocate for a more centralized model by placing a single bishop over each congregation, supported by presbyters and deacons. (Ign. Magn. 6.1).[15] [16]His insistence on obedience to the bishop as a means of preserving unity within the church and doctrinal integrity reflects Ignatius’ awareness of conflicts arising from independent leaders who might challenge apostolic authority, much like Diotrephes did. In virtually every letter, Ignatius stresses this need for obedience to the bishop in order to protect the church’s unity and her teachings: he emphasizes this in Philadelphians 3, Smyrnaeans 9, Magnesians 13, and Trallians 2, etc. He further suggests that unchecked local leaders posed a major risk to the community's stability and its doctrinal fidelity. (Ign. Smyr. 8.1-2, Eph. 5.1, Magn. 7.1) Diotrephes, and those like him,embody this kind of divisive behavior that Ignatius warns against. To see how far Ignatius takes this idea, consider his statement in his letter to the Smyrneans: μηδεὶς χωρὶς τοῦ ἐπισκόπου τι πρασσέτω τῶν ἀνηκόντων εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν.[17] (Ign. Smyr. 8.1) Regardless of how Protestants might interpret this polity today, Ignatius’ ideas were intended to strengthen the church’s efforts to preserve unity and sound doctrine against the many “Diotrephes” of his time.
 

Clement of Rome

Another critical document in this context is 1 Clement, a letter written by Clement of Rome to the Corinthian church and dated towards the end of the first century.[18] Welborn notes that it was among the most known writings in all of the early church (cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.16.1).[19] Furthermore, Polycarp, along with many in the churches of Egypt and Syria, regarded it as Scripture.[20] The letter was written to address a crisis where the members of the congregation had made a rebellion against the church's established leaders (1 Clement 42:4-5). Thus, in 1 Clement, the importance of orderly succession and respect for church-appointed authorities is emphasized. The text describes the early practice of appointing leaders κατὰ χώρας οὖν καὶ πόλεις, “in each region and city,” showing that bishops and deacons were approved by the church write large, δοκιμάσαντες τῷ πνεύματι, “after testing them by the Spirit,” to ensure they met all of the spiritual qualifications. This selection process shows that the leadership roles were not simply given, but rather, they were thoroughly vetted.[21] Furthermore, 1 Clement asserts that this process was not new or arbitrary; rather, it had been grounded in Scripture and tradition, as the author states, ἐκ γὰρ δὴ πολλῶν χρόνων ἐγέγραπτο/for it had indeed been written long ago: magnifying the fact that true authority in the church rests on a foundation of divine approval and moral character. In short, Clement appeals to apostolic tradition, asserting that God ordained a specific structure for leadership within the church to prevent division and to maintain peace among believers. In short, Clement appeals to apostolic tradition, making a case that God is the one who ultimately ordained this structure for leadership within the church to prevent further division. This emphasis on respect for authority aligns with John’s condemnation of Diotrephes’ aberrant behavior. That is, in both 1 Clement and 3 John, refusal to honor appointed leaders is depicted as a serious threat to both communal unity and doctrinal integrity: who we are must align with who He is.

Shepherd of Hermas

The Shepherd of Hermas is widely recognized as a non-canonical text.[22] Yet, it was written between the late first century and the mid-second century, which is supported by its internal references. Its thought that the final text was completed in the early second century, since it was discussed frequently by Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Origen and Tertullian.[23] Regardless, it presented a series of visions and allegories that addressed themes of righteous leadership, warning the church against leaders who sought authority for selfish reasons. It’s true that The Shepherd of Hermas isn’t a manual on church polity. However, it does give a stern warning against the pride and ambition of leaders, acting as a kind of moral guideline that speaks directly to the outrageous behavior of Diotrephes and others. In Vision 3 and Similitude 9, Hermas talks about how dangerous pride can be and explains just how important humility is for anyone in a leadership role. Leaders driven by personal ambition, wealth, or pride are depicted as serious threats to the spiritual well-being of the church. Hermas directly addresses the leaders, urging, μὴ γίνεσθε ὅμοιοι τοῖς φαρμακοῖς, “do not be like the enchanters,” who keep their charms in boxes, while Christian leaders are to metaphorically carry their "poison and medicine" in their hearts.[24] (Vision 3:7-10) He warns against having hardened hearts, calling leaders to “cleanse your hearts” and unify their minds ἐν καθαρᾷ καρδίᾳ, “in purity of heart" to receive mercy from God. This guidance makes it clear that selfish ambition can eat away at church unity, reminding leaders that embracing humility is key to avoiding divisions that could be spiritually harmful.[25] Simply put, Diotrephes’ refusal to accept John’s messengers and his desire for preeminence go against the humble leadership values promoted in The Shepherd of Hermas. (3 John 1:10d)
 

Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians

The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians was written in the early second century.[26] As a direct disciple of Apostle John and later the bishop of Smyrna, Polycarp wrote this epistle to urge the church to maintain unity and steer clear of authoritarian tendencies. In the Epistle of Polycarp, 5.2-3, he encourages presbyters and deacons to lead with the highest moral standards, calling them to be ἄμεμπτοι, “blameless,” again, showing that leaders should be completely free from domineering attitudes. He reminds them that their accountability is ultimately κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ τῆς δικαιοσύνης, “before Him in righteousness,” emphasizing that they must act with integrity not self-interest. Polycarp also stresses that leaders should be ἐπιμελεῖς, “diligent,” meaning that they should always be working on the community’s welfare rather than their own personal goals or agendas. Leaders are further encouraged to πορευόμενοι κατὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ Κυρίου,“walk in the truth of the Lord,” reflecting Christ’s example as “the servant of all,” again demonstrating that they are to reject the kind of attitude found in Diotrephes and to embrace the kind of humility that Jesus emulated.[27] For Polycarp, being a leader was all about serving others. This is a big contrast to Diotrephes' power-hungry style. It’s clear that the early church expected leaders to be humble and focused on others, not trying to build their own hermit kingdoms.
            These early documents show that, right from the start, the church is focused on what real leadership looks like. Their unanimous conclusion was that true leadership should mirror Jesus’ example. It should be marked by humility, service, and a strong commitment to unity within the community. The apostles stood in opposition to figures like Diotrephes, who tossed people out of the church in attempted to control rather than heal. The Didache, 1 Clement, and other early writings emphasize a model of governance grounded in respect for apostolic tradition, warning against the dangers of self-serving leaders and isolated communities lacking unified, top-down guidance. This issue has undoubtedly carried over to modern evangelical churches, where "mom and pop" congregations, appearing on every corner like candy stores, often center around Diotrephes type leaders who create small, insular kingdoms that serve their own glory rather than the greater mission of the Kingdom.
 

4. Roman Patronage, Ambition, And Social Stability

According to deSilva, Roman society emphasized a strict social hierarchy and placed great importance on the values of honor and patronage. Diotrephes’ behavior would have been disruptive not only from a Christian standpoint but also from a Roman one. DeSilva explains the cultural expectations for gratitude within patronal relationships, noting:
Gratitude toward one’s patrons (or toward public benefactors) was a prominent example in discussions of what it meant to live out the cardinal virtue of justice, a virtue defined as giving to each person his or her due. It ranked in importance next to showing the gods, those supreme benefactors, the proper honor and services. Failure to show gratitude, however, was classed as the worst of crimes, being compared to sacrilege against the gods, since the Graces were considered goddesses. It was censured as an injury against the human race, since ingratitude discourages the very generosity that is so crucial to public life and to personal aid.[28]
 
This expectation of reciprocal respect makes Diotrephes’ refusal to honor John’s emissaries even more troubling, as it disregards both gratitude toward benefactors and respect for authority. By failing to offer hospitality and respect, he not only disrupts a virtue essential to social stability but also undermines the cohesion of the community.
Figures like Seneca further articulated the dangers of individuals, like this, who disrupted established authority. In Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium 14, Seneca emphasizes the necessity of loyalty within structured relationships while denouncing divisive ambition as a threat to communal stability. In Letter 14, he warns that excessive self-interest leads individuals to serve personal desires over the collective good, stating, serviendum nego...qui pro illo nimium timet, qui ad illud omnia refert, “I deny that we should be enslaved to it; for whoever serves his body will serve many others, who fears too much on its behalf, who refers everything to it.”[29] In Seneca’s view, Diotrephes’ self-centered ambition would create an instability within the community, sacrificing long-term harmony for short-term gains. Such behavior, Seneca argues, would enslave the individual to fleeting desires at the expense of the lasting well-being, both for oneself and for the larger group. This kind of philosophy permeates Roman thought and writing, after all Roman society itself was rooted in a patron-client system: a social arrangement that carried expectations of respect, loyalty, and mutual obligation. All facets of Roman life, from top to bottom, from political relationships to personal interactions while buying bread in the market was touched by these ideals: one might say that patronage was the very glue that held society together (Seneca, De Beneficiis 1.3.2).[30] [31]
Roman patrons were expected to provide protection and benefits to their clients, while clients were expected to show respect and allegiance in return.  In De Officiis, Cicero emphasizes the necessity of this order which upheld societas hominum coniunctioque, “the association and union of humankind,” ensuring social stability and trust. He describes how honestatem et decus conservabimus, “honor and dignity are preserved,” when we apply modum quendam et ordinem, “a certain measure and order” to our dealings in life, safeguarding the bonds of mutual respect within society(De Officiis 1.17).[32]All I’m saying is this: the very foundation of Cicero’s work, along with the vast majority of Roman texts, points to a concept of societas hominum coniunctioque. If a friend of Cicero were to send someone to his house, it would have been unheard of for him to kick that person out or treat him disrespectfully, as Diotrephes did to the Apostle John. That’s not how you treat friends in Rome, that how you treat enemies. Thus, Diotrephes’ rejection of John’s emissaries would have been interpreted as open hostility.
Also, contrary to modern TV shows like Rome, which portray the Greco-Roman world as amenable to ambition above all else, in reality most Romans saw this very differently.[33] Roman moral philosophy had a major disdain for those seeking self-promotion, particularly when such ambition posed a threat to legitimate authority. Roman moralists like Cicero and Seneca warned against this personal ambition when it undermined the good of the group. Cicero, argues that true leadership should first be rooted in service to others, rather than self-interest (De Officiis 1.85).[34] Finally, even Seneca, in his Epistles, criticizes leaders who prioritize their own advancement over communal harmony, emphasizing that the pursuit of power must be tempered by concern for the welfare of others (Epistulae Morales 94).[35]
The Roman emphasis on cohesion within groups, especially in military and political contexts, further magnifies how Diotrephes’ behavior would have been viewed as problematic. Julius Caesar, in his Commentarii de Bello Gallico, shows the critical importance of discipline and cohesion among his troops, showing that a unified command structure was essential for success and stability. In Commentarius Quintus, Chapter 27, Ambiorix appeals to the Roman officer Titurius, urging him to prioritize the safety of his soldiers and act swiftly to avoid danger: orare Titurium... ut suae ac militum saluti consulat, “he implores Titurius to look after his own safety and that of his soldiers.”[36] This appeal shows the Roman emphasis on duty, loyalty, and a disciplined response to threats. By recounting this advice, Caesar emphasizes that disciplined, unified action within the command structure was fundamental to maintaining Roman military stability (Commentarii de Bello Gallico 5.27.7). In short, Diotrephes’ behavior mirrors the type of insubordination that Romans would penalize in both military and civic life: the kind of resistance to authority that both Roman society and early Christian leaders found problematic.
 

Conclusion

The story of Diotrephes in 3 John 9-10 offers a case study and reminder of what can happen when personal ambition gets in the way of the church's true mission: spreading the good news. His behavior shows the true dangers that can develop from totally isolated leadership in the church. This scenario is a clarion call to the modern church, a church that has embraced the pastor as a despot. It serves as a warning across time, urging the church to adopt the same kind of oversight and accountability that the early church embraced. While evangelical model that has defined reformed churches in North America has proven effective in spreading the Gospel, history has also revealed significant risks. Unchecked authority can lead to isolated “hermit kingdoms” that produce radical and heretical behaviors. By listening to the voices of the apostles and learning from the model of the Early Church Fathers, we see a community rooted in accountability from the top down. As seen in early Christian texts like the Didache and the letters of Ignatius, foundational leaders stressed humility, unity, and service as essential elements of polity. These principles can guide the modern church in fostering leadership that protects communal integrity and aligns with the teachings of Jesus. Finally, the church must answer the sirens in 3 John to examine its patterns of independence that have led it far from the path of the first Christians. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Bibliography

 
 
Aristides. Apology, XV. Translated by D. M. Kay. In Early Christian Writings. Accessed November 12, 2024. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/aristides-kay.html.
 
Brannan, Rick. Apostolic Fathers Greek-English Interlinear. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2011.
 
Caesar, Julius. C. Iuli Commentarii Rerum in Gallia Gestarum VII A. Hirti Commentarius VIII. Edited by T. Rice Holmes. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1914. Accessed at Perseus Digital Library.https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0002%3Abook%3D5%3Achapter%3D27%3Asection%3D7.
 
Cicero, M. Tullius. De Officiis With An English Translation. Edited by Walter Miller. Medford, MA: Harvard University Press; Cambridge, Mass., London, England, 1913.
 
deSilva, David A. Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture. Westmont, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012.
 
Elwell, Walter A., and Philip Wesley Comfort. Tyndale Bible Dictionary. Tyndale Reference Library. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001.
 
Farley, Lawrence R. Universal Truth: The Catholic Epistles of James, Peter, Jude, and John. The Orthodox Bible Study Companion. Chesterton, IN: Ancient Faith Publishing, 2008.
 
International Greek New Testament Project (IGNTP). "Codex Sinaiticus: Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas." Cambridge, UK: The Codex Sinaiticus Project Board, 2012.
 
Ignatius of Antioch. The Letters: Greek Text. Edited by John Behr. Popular Patristics Series. Yonkers, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2013.
 
Jefford, Clayton N. “Polycarp, Epistle of.” In Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, edited by David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck, 1068. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000.
 
Lightfoot, Joseph Barber, and J. R. Harmer. The Apostolic Fathers. London: Macmillan and Co., 1891.
 
Marshall, I. Howard. The Epistles of John. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978.
 
Meeks, Charles. “Shepherd of Hermas.” In The Lexham Bible Dictionary, edited by John D. Barry et al. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016.
 
Migne, J. P. Patrologia Graeca: Latin Text, vol. VII, Patrologiæ Cursus Completus. Paris: J. P. Migne, 1857.
 
Mitchell, Margaret M. “‘Diotrephes Does Not Receive Us’: The Lexicographical and Social Context of 3 John 9–10.” Journal of Biblical Literature 117 (1998): 312–313.
 
Polybius. The Histories: Greek Text. Edited by G. P. Goold. The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press, 1925.
 
Quasten, Johannes, and Joseph C. Plumpe, eds. The Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, The Epistles and the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, The Fragments of Papias and The Epistle to Diognetus. Translated by James A. Kleist. 6th ed. Ancient Christian Writers. New York; Mahwah, NJ: The Newman Press, 1948.
 
Simmons, William A. Peoples of the New Testament World: An Illustrated Guide. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008.
 
Seneca. Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales, Volume 1-3. Edited by Richard M. Gummere. Medford, MA: Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd., 1917–1925.
 
Seneca. Moral Essays: Volume 3. Edited by John W. Basore. Medford, MA: Heinemann, 1935.
 
Watts, James W. “Ritual Legitimacy and Scriptural Authority.” Journal of Biblical Literature 124 (2005): 406.
 
Welborn, Laurence L. “Clement, First Epistle of.” In The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman, 1056. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
 
Wilhite, Shawn J. “Didache.” In The Lexham Bible Dictionary, edited by John D. Barry et al. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016.
 
Wilson, J. Christian. “Ignatius of Antioch.” In Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, edited by David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck, 627. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000.
 
Wilcoxen, Matthew A. “Clement, First Letter of.” In The Lexham Bible Dictionary, edited by John D. Barry et al. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016.


[1] Watts, James W. “Ritual Legitimacy and Scriptural Authority.” Journal of Biblical Literature 124 (2005): 406.
[2] I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978), 89.
[3] Lawrence R. Farley, Universal Truth: The Catholic Epistles of James, Peter, Jude, and John, The Orthodox Bible Study Companion (Chesterton, IN: Ancient Faith Publishing, 2008), 215-216.
[4] J. P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca: Latin Text, vol. VII, Patrologiæ Cursus Completus (Paris: J. P. Migne, 1857), 846.
[5] Aristides, Apology, XV, trans. D. M. Kay, in Early Christian Writings, accessed November 12, 2024, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/aristides-kay.html.
[6] Margaret M. Mitchell, “‘Diotrephes Does Not Receive Us’: The Lexicographical and Social Context of 3 John 9–10,” Journal of Biblical Literature 117 (1998): 312–313.
[7] Polybius shows us that the Roman Senate’s radical reaction to the Dalmatian resistance and the Aetolian turmoil. It reveals just how seriously they took this act of refusing to receive emissaries or to simply engage diplomatically. In 13.1-2, he uses the phrase “οὐδὲ λόγον ἐπιδέχοιντο καθόλου,” meaning the Dalmatians “would not even accept any words from them at all,” to illustrate a complete refusal to either hear or acknowledge Roman authority. This wasn’t just rude; it was a bold dismissal of Rome’s status, much like the error of Diotrephes. Likewise, when the Senate sent Gaius Fannius and others to Illyria (32.9.3), they expected the Illyrians to show hospitality by being open to negotiation, which implied respect for Rome’s standing. Regardless, Polybius shows us that rejecting an envoy wasn’t simply a little brush-off; it was a statement, one that demanded a strong response to restore the sender's influence: something Rome was all to eager to respond to in force. Rome crushed Illyria in a series of brutal conflicts. cf. Polybius, “The Histories: Greek Text,” ed. G. P. Goold, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press, 1925), 410.
[8] International Greek New Testament Project (IGNTP), “Codex Sinaiticus: Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas” (Cambridge, UK: The Codex Sinaiticus Project Board, 2012).
[9] Shawn J. Wilhite, “Didache,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).
[10] Johannes Quasten and Joseph C. Plumpe, eds., The Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, The Epistles and the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, The Fragments of Papias and The Epistle to Diognetus, trans. James A. Kleist, 6th ed., Ancient Christian Writers (New York; Mahwah, NJ: The Newman Press, 1948), 22.
[11] he term χριστέμπορός breaks down into two parts: Christos (Christ) and emporos (merchant or trader), together meaning “Christmonger” or one who “traffics in Christ.” A case could be made that Diotrephes falls into this camp. This label was applied to individuals who exploited the Christian faith for personal gain, as though treating it like merchandise. Such people were seen as undermining the integrity of the faith, and the early church strongly cautioned believers to guard against these self-serving figures.   Joseph Barber Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, “The Apostolic Fathers” (London: Macmillan and Co., 1891), 223.
[12] Johannes Quasten and Joseph C. Plumpe, eds., The Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, The Epistles and the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, The Fragments of Papias and The Epistle to Diognetus, trans. James A. Kleist, 6th ed., Ancient Christian Writers (New York; Mahwah, NJ: The Newman Press, 1948), 22.
[13] J. Christian Wilson, “Ignatius of Antioch,” ed. David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 627.
[14] Ralph P. Martin, “Early Catholicism,” ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 223.
[15] Ignatius of Antioch, “The Letters: Greek Text,” ed. John Behr, Popular Patristics Series (Yonkers, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2013), 46.
[16] He believes that the bishop, presbyters, and deacons model ensures unity and stability. He describes the bishop as προκαθημένου τοῦ ἐπισκόπου εἰς τύπον θεοῦ, or “presiding as the representative of God.” The term προκαθημένου means “sitting foremost” or “presiding,” showing the bishop’s role in embodying God’s authority. Presbyters are described as εἰς τύπον συνεδρίου τῶν ἀποστόλων, “in the likeness of the apostles’ council.” The word συνεδρίου emphasizes their role as an advisory council, reinforcing the bishop’s authority and preserving apostolic teaching. Ignatius calls deacons τῶν διακόνων τῶν ἐμοὶ γλυκυτάτων, πεπιστευμένων διακονίαν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, “my beloved ones, entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ.” The term γλυκυτάτων, “most beloved,” shows Ignatius’ affection, highlighting their role in serving with Christ’s humility. This model reflects a structured, unified church leadership focused on doctrinal integrity and servanthood.
[17] Ignatius' phrase, “μηδεὶς χωρὶς τοῦ ἐπισκόπου τι πρασσέτω τῶν ἀνηκόντων εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν,” which means "Let no one do anything related to the church without the bishop," gets right to the heart of his idea of how church polity should function. For Ignatius, the bishop wasn’t just a leader, he was a symbol of unity and a source of stability against the growing concern of heresy and one man kingdoms. This idea of doing everything with the bishop’s blessing was his way of making sure the church stayed together and stayed true to its beliefs. Ignatius saw the bishop’s role as a safeguard against people like Diotrephes who might stir up division or go off on their own, much like many protestant churches today. By keeping everyone under the bishop’s guidance, Ignatius hoped to protect the early church from splintering and drifting from the teachings of the apostles.
[18] Matthew A. Wilcoxen, “Clement, First Letter of,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).
[19] Eusebius of Caesaria, “The Church History of Eusebius,” in Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890), 147.
[20] Laurence L. Welborn, “Clement, First Epistle of,” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1056.
[21] Rick Brannan, “Apostolic Fathers Greek-English Interlinear” (Lexham Press, 2011).
[22] Walter A. Elwell and Philip Wesley Comfort, Tyndale Bible Dictionary, Tyndale Reference Library (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001), 1192.
[23] Charles Meeks, “Shepherd of Hermas,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).
[24] Joseph Barber Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, “The Apostolic Fathers” (London: Macmillan and Co., 1891), 311.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Clayton N. Jefford, “Polycarp, Epistle of,” ed. David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 1068.
[27] Joseph Barber Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, “The Apostolic Fathers” (London: Macmillan and Co., 1891), 170.
[28] David A. deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture (Westmont, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 110.
[29] Seneca, “Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales, Volume 1-3,” ed. Richard M. Gummere (Medford, MA: Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd., 1917–1925), 92.
[30] Seneca, “Moral Essays: Volume 3,” ed. John W. Basore (Medford, MA: Heinemann, 1935), 12.
[31] William A. Simmons, Peoples of the New Testament World: An Illustrated Guide (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 275–276.
[32] M. Tullius Cicero, De Officiis With An English Translation, ed. Walter Miller (Medford, MA: Harvard University Press; Cambridge, Mass., London, England, 1913), 18.
[33] In Rome, Season 1, Episode 12, “Kalends of February,” Caesar appoints Lucius Vorenus, a former soldier, as a senator, a decision that shocks Cicero, who reacts with disdain, remarking that Caesar has gone too far by placing "a lowly pleb in the Senate." The show portrays Roman ambition as a tool for personal advancement and political maneuvering, often at the expense of tradition and hierarchy. This contrasts with Roman moral philosophy, as Cicero notes in De Officiis, which values honestas “honor” and decorum “dignity” as essential to preserving societas hominum coniunctioque: the unity and proper order of society. While the series dramatizes ambition as a primary motivator, Romans almost always regarded unchecked ambition that disrupted established structures as harmful to social stability. cf Rome. Season 1, Episode 12, “Kalends of February.” Directed by Michael Apted. Aired November 20, 2005, on HBO.
[34] M. Tullius Cicero, De Officiis With An English Translation, ed. Walter Miller (Medford, MA: Harvard University Press; Cambridge, Mass., London, England, 1913), 86.
[35] Seneca, “Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales, Volume 1-3,” ed. Richard M. Gummere (Medford, MA: Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd., 1917–1925), 16.
[36] Julius Caesar, C. Iuli Commentarii Rerum in Gallia Gestarum VII A. Hirti Commentarius VIII, ed. T. Rice Holmes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1914), Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis, accessed at Perseus Digital Library, https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0002%3Abook%3D5%3Achapter%3D27%3Asection%3D7.