leadership

Church politics

John dedicated his third epistle to the topic of church politics. There was one leader in particular, Diotriphes who was impeding John’s work. He said, “I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us” (3 John 1:9, NKJV). Diotrephes may have been concerned that John’s position of being an apostle of Jesus Christ would cause his parishioners to see him as less important and perhaps not think his messages were authoritative enough. John said Diotrephes did not receive him, meaning he wouldn’t allow John to preach at his church.

It is possible that Gaius, the person John addressed his third letter to (3 John 1:1) was a member of Diotrephes’ church and he was trying to help John get an audience with the believers that attended there. Gaius had a reputation for lodging the itinerant preachers that visited his area in order to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (3 John 1:5-7). John commended Gaius for his service and encouraged him to continue his work. He said, “We therefore ought to receive such, that we may become fellow workers for the truth” (3 John 1:8, NKJV).

One of the things that seemed to be troubling John was the power Diotrephes exercised to control the membership of his church. John said, “Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the church” (3 John 1:10, NKJV). Diotrephes ability to prevent people from attending his church was probably offensive to John because it was contrary to the way Jesus had treated people that came to him for spiritual help.

John instructed Gaius to be careful about his leadership choice. He said, “Dear friend, do not follow what is sinful, but follow what is good. The person who does what is good belongs to God. The person who does what is sinful has not seen God” (3 John 1:11, NLV). John’s opinion of Diotrephes was that he was leading people astray. The Greek word John used that is translated sinful, kakopoieo (kak-op-oy-eh’-o) refers to someone with bad character that injures others (G2554) and suggests that Diotrephes may not have been saved, but was being used by Satan to disrupt John’s ministry.

Team building

Paul’s second missionary journey, which took place approximately A.D. 49-52, encompassed a much larger territory than his first expedition did. The initial purpose of Paul’s trip was to visit the believers in every city that he and Barnabas had previously preached the gospel in (Acts 15:36), but a conflict between Paul and Barnabas caused the two to go their separate ways. Luke’s description of the incident suggests that the leadership role had become an issue, and at that point, Paul was unwilling to follow Barnabas’ direction. Luke stated, “And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; and Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.

The break up of Paul and Barnabas’ ministry partnership may have seemed like a problem at first, but it actually led to a much better outcome in the end. Because Mark was left behind, he joined up with Peter and eventually wrote the second book of the New Testament titled “The Gospel According to S. Mark.” It is likely that most, if not all of Mark’s factual data came directly from Peter who was a member of Jesus’ inner circle of friends, as well as, the primary leader of the church located in Jerusalem. Paul’s selection of Silas to travel with him may have been the reason why his second trip was much more aggressive than his first, covering approximately twice the amount of territory than his first missionary journey did (Paul’s Second Missionary Journey, p. 1588). When Paul and Silas arrived in Lystra, they were joined by Timothy, “the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek: which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium” (Acts:16:1-2).

The fourth person to join Paul’s missionary team was the author of the book of Acts, Luke. The transition in the language from they to we suggests that Luke joined Paul’s team in Troas. It says in Acts 16:8-10, “And they passing by Mysia came down to Troas. And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us. And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavored to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them.” Timothy and Luke were key members of Paul’s missionary team that stayed with him throughout the rest of his life. The final book Paul wrote, 2 Timothy was addressed to “my dearly beloved son” (2 Timothy 1:2) indicating Paul and Timothy developed a very close personal relationship. In that book, which was written while Paul was in prison waiting to be executed, Paul said, “Only Luke is with me” (2 Timothy 4:11), suggesting Luke was not only Paul’s partner in ministry, but a faithful companion until his death.

Leadership

The covenant the Jews entered into after Ezra the scribe read the book of God’s laws to them specifically stated that they would “observe and do all the commandments of the LORD” (Nehemiah 10:29). Sometime after his first term as governor had ended, Nehemiah returned to Jerusalem and found that the Jews were doing things they had promised God they wouldn’t. Nehemiah was frustrated by the people’s lack of commitment and prayed, “Remember me, O my God, concerning this, and wipe not out my good deeds that I have done for the house of my God, and for the offices thereof” (Nehemiah 13:14). Nehemiah probably felt that his effort to revive the relationship between God and his chosen people had been wasted, but may have hoped that the LORD would at least give him credit for attempting to get the Jews back on track.

More than a hundred years had passed since the first wave of exiles had returned to the Promised Land. In some ways, the circumstances in Jerusalem were no better than they were before God’s people were taken into captivity in Babylon, but there was one major difference. The political structure that existed before the Jew’s captivity was gone. There was no king or even an official leader of the nation. The governor role was primarily established by Artaxerxes to oversee the rebuilding of the wall around Jerusalem and to ensure that the resources he provided were used appropriately. After the building project was finished, the governor role may have continued so that the Jews would have a representative of the Persian government to consult with, somewhat like the role of an ambassador today.

The lack of leadership in Jerusalem seemed to have both positive and negative effects on the people. The kings of Israel and Judah were for the most part a bad influence on the Israelites. There were only a few exceptions to the list of kings that “did evil in the sight of the LORD” (2 Kings 14:24). While Nehemiah did do a lot to improve the situation in Jerusalem while he was there, things seemed to deteriorate pretty quickly after he went back to Sushan the palace. On the positive side, in spite of their other infractions of the law, the Jews stopped practicing idolatry, the main reason God had sent them into captivity. It could be that their leadership was at fault for this problem. God’s people had demanded a king so that they could be “like all the nations” (1 Samuel 8:5). Perhaps, they realized afterward that they were better off not having someone to lead them into sin.

Mischief

Nehemiah’s commitment to completing his mission of rebuilding the wall around Jerusalem was met with opposition that eventually turned into personal attacks on his character. Nehemiah remained focused and would not risk even the slightest delay in the work. Two of Nehemiah’s most determined distractors, Sanballet and Geshem tried to get him involved in a political battle that would have most likely led to a protracted argument. Making it seem as if they were extending an invitation for him to join their prestigious ranks, Nehemiah said, “That Sanballet and Geshem sent unto me, saying, Come, let us meet together in some one of the villages in the plain of Ono. But they thought to do me mischief. The Hebrew word translated mischief, ra’ah means bad or evil (7451). The point Nehemiah was trying to make was that these men were trying to keep him from doing God’s will. If he allowed himself to be concerned with their demands, Nehemiah probably would have lost the respect of his followers.

Nehemiah’s response conveyed the importance of his mission. Nehemiah felt that a delay in completing his assignment was equivalent to disobedience to God. He said, “I am doing a great work, so that I cannot come down: why should the work cease whilst I leave it, and come down to you?” (Nehemiah 6:3). Sanballet refused to take no for an answer. He sent the same message to Nehemiah four times and then made a fifth, more intimidating, attempt to convince Nehemiah he should comply with his request. Sanballet sent what was referred to as an open letter (Nehemiah 6:5). Basically, the purpose of the open letter was to make it possible for rumors to be started that would get word back to King Artaxerxes that a problem existed in Jerusalem. The letter addressed to Nehemiah stated:

It is reported among the heathen, and Gashmu saith it, that thou and the Jews think to rebel: for which cause thou buildest the wall, that thou mayest be their king, according to these words. And thou hast also appointed prophets to preach of thee at Jerusalem, saying, There is a king in Judah. (Nehemiah 6:7)

Sanballet’s threatening letter ended with a direct request for Nehemiah to become a member of his organization. He said, “Come now therefore, and let us take counsel together” (Nehemiah 6:7). The phrase “take counsel together” could be translated, devise a unified plan or join forces (3289/3162). Sanballet was probably implying that he would make it worth Nehemiah’s while to work for him rather than to serve God.

Perhaps the lowest trick Nehemiah was exposed to was an enticement to hide in the house of God in order to avoid being killed by Sanballet and Tobiah (Nehemiah 6:10). Nehemiah responded, “And I said, Should such a man as I flee? and who is there, that, being as I am, would go into the temple to save his life? I will not go in” (Nehemiah 6:11). It was Nehemiah’s example as a leader that was being challenged in this cowardly suggestion. Nehemiah was right to reject such a proposal, but also wise in his understanding of the impression it would give. Nehemiah’s interpretation of the situation showed that he was aware of his enemy’s attempt to ruin his reputation. He said, “Therefore was he hired, that I should be afraid, and do so, and sin, and that they might have matter for an evil report, that they might reproach me” (Nehemiah 6:13).

Opposition

There were two types of opposition that caused interruptions to the Jews work of rebuilding the wall around Jerusalem, internal and external opposition. After the work had started, a group of men showed up that were determined to keep the Jews from making progress. Nehemiah recorded, “But when Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite, and Geshem the Arabian, heard it, they laughed us to scorn, and despised us, and said, What is this thing that ye do? will ye rebel against the king?” (Nehemiah 2:19). The continual mocking that took place at their worksite was a type of external opposition that reminded the Jews of the ridicule they could expect if they dared to be different from the people around them. Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem represented dominant cultures that had previously enticed God’s people to reject him. When these influential men heard that the Jews were trying to start over and intended to obey God’s commandments, they did everything they could to put a stop to it.

In spite of the external opposition they faced, the Jews were able to complete the first half of their assignment, but afterwards, they were threatened with a military attack. Nehemiah stated, “And our adversaries said, They shall not know, neither see, till we come in the midst among them, and slay them, and cause the work to cease” (Nehemiah 3:11). Nehemiah’s response was to arm the people and get them back to work as quickly as possible (Nehemiah 3:13, 15). Surprisingly, the threat of being attacked didn’t make the Jews want to quit, but Nehemiah knew his crew needed to be guarded or their lives could be in danger, so he armed them with weapons. It says in Nehemiah 4:16-18:

And it came to pass from that time forth, that the half of my servants wrought in the work, and the other half of them held both, the spears, the shields, and the bows, and the habergeons; and the rulers were behind all the house of Judah. They which builded on the wall, and they that bare burdens, with those that laded, every one with one of his hands wrought in the work, and with the other hand held a weapon. For the builders, every one had his sword girded by his side, and so builded. And he that sounded the trumpet was by me.

As soon as Nehemiah got the situation with his external opposition under control, an internal conflict broke out. Some of the Jews were upset because their children were being forced into slavery because they were too poor to pay the interest on their debt to the Jewish nobles and rulers (Nehemiah 4:1-4). Nehemiah said, “And I was very angry when I heard their cry and these words. Then I consulted with myself, and I rebuked the nobles, and the rulers, and said unto them, You exact usury, every one of his brother. And I set a great assembly against them” (Nehemiah 4:6-7). Nehemiah’s approach to the internal opposition he faced was to take upon himself the responsibility that would normally be expected of a king. The Hebrew phrase Nehemiah used that is translated, “I consulted with myself” could be interpreted as, I put myself in a position of authority, or I took responsibility for the people’s circumstances. When he said he rebuked the nobles, and the rulers and set a great assembly against them, Nehemiah was implying he challenged their leadership openly, as if these men were being put on trial.

Nehemiah was the type of leader that led by example. He didn’t separate himself from the common people, nor did he expect special treatment. One of the things Nehemiah was entitled to as Artaxerxes’ governor of Judah was a daily ration of food. Nehemiah didn’t take this portion from the people as other governors had, but provided regular meals for more than 150 persons out of his own resources. Nehemiah’s explanation for his behavior was  a fear of God and “because the bondage was heavy upon this people” (Nehemiah 4:15, 18). Nehemiah’s motive for overcoming the external and internal opposition he faced seemed to be to protect his reputation with God. Nehemiah appeared to care what God thought of his behavior more than anything else. He prayed to the LORD, “Think upon me, my God, for good, according to all that I have done for this people” (Nehemiah 4:19).

Collaboration

Nehemiah’s assignment to rebuild the wall around Jerusalem was something that he said, “my God had put in my heart to do” (Nehemiah 2:12). Initially, Nehemiah kept his mission a secret, perhaps because he thought there was a traitor among the Jews living in Jerusalem. It might have been that Nehemiah just wanted to get a first hand look at what needed to be done to secure the perimeter of the city before he shared his action plan. Nehemiah’s night inspection revealed that the wall had been completely destroyed. There was nothing left but rubble of the once magnificent structure that protected God’s people from enemy attacks. Immediately after he had gained the support of the people to start rebuilding the wall, Nehemiah was hit with opposition from what could be considered the local mafia or an organized crime syndicate. It says in Nehemiah 2:19-20:

But when Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite, and Geshem the Arabian, heard it, they laughed us to scorn, and despised us, and said, What is this thing that ye do? will ye rebel against the king? Then answered I them, and said unto them, The God of heaven, he will prosper us: therefore we his servants will arise and build: but you have no portion, nor right, nor memorial, in Jerusalem.

The key to Nehemiah’s plan to rebuild the wall around Jerusalem was collaboration. Whether or not this idea came to him directly from God or was something that Nehemiah developed on his own was not clearly stated, but it seems likely that collaboration was God’s idea, not Nehemiah’s. Everyone in the city was expected to participate in the effort, including the priests, government officials, and even Nehemiah himself. Nehemiah gave out work assignments, making sure that every section of the wall had a leader assigned to it. The way Nehemiah described his plan, there were to be no gaps in building activity, everything was to be done simultaneously.

Throughout the third chapter of the book of Nehemiah the phrases “next unto him” and “after him” appear repeatedly. The picture that Nehemiah painted was an unbroken chain of people surrounding the city of Jerusalem, each person with an assigned task directly related to their own personal welfare and stake in the family’s inheritance of property. Included in Nehemiah’s plan was the restoration of ten of the twelve gates that controlled access into and out of the city. Beginning and ending with the sheep gate, Nehemiah laid out his work plan stating, “Then Eliashib the high priest rose up with his brethren the priests, and they built the sheep gate; they sanctified it, and set up the doors of it; even unto the tower of Meah they sanctified it, unto the tower of Hananeel…After him repaired Malchiah the goldsmith’s son unto the place of the Nethinims, and of the merchants, over against the gate of Miphkad, and to the going up of the corner. And between the going up of the corner unto the sheep gate repaired the goldsmiths and the merchants” (Nehemiah 3).