Apt to Teach - "Apt in teaching" or "Apt in doctrine"?
Forum category
1. Lexical Consideration
διδακτικός Occurrence: 1 Timothy 3:2, 2 Timothy 2:24
Adjective
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/definitionlookup?type=exact&q=teach…
TDNT 2:165,161
There are in Greek three adjectives based on the noun “διδαχή.”
διδακτικός “apt at teaching”
This is the word in 1 Timothy 3:2. It only occurs 2 times in Scripture. Both times it is in a list and immediate context doesn’t limit meaning.
When it occurs in Greek literature, it always means, “the virtue that makes one teachable,” not “able to give instruction.”
διδακτός “taught”
This occurs in NT and clearly means “taught.”
διδασκαλικός “fit for teaching, capable of giving instruction, instructive”
This word does not appear in the NT or LXX. In Greek literature, this is the word that means “able to give instruction.”
If all other things were equal (that is, if historical interpretations were split and context didn’t weigh towards either interpretation), the lexical evidence is much in favor of “able in doctrine.” There are lexicons that give the meaning according to the traditional interpretation (below), but they are never based on considerations within the Text or on Greek literature.
2. Historical Consideration
JFB, Matthew Henry, Calvin, Chrysostom, etc. all exposit this “able to give instruction.” I have not by any means exhaustively studied historical theology on this matter, but so far, most go with that.
If all other things were equal, Historical interpretation favors “able to give instruction.”
I’ll only counter with two things:
1. Commentators tend to stand on previous interpretations. If an ancient commentator finds 2 previous church fathers who took a position, then he becomes the 3rd. Then, when the 5th commentator comes along, he finds 4 who agree.
In other words, if there are multiple guys who say, “X,” and they all say it because the first guy did and the Text isn’t clear enough to contradict, then there is really only one person who has given his view.
2. There is a possible selfish motive here. Chrysostom was a much better public speaker than a theologian. He was a better public speaker than anything. And in my view, he was not a good theologian. Is it a coincidence that the best public speaker in the world says that the word means “able to preach”?
3. Contextual and Analogous Consideration
In the immediate context, there is nothing. This is a list of things that are required in an elder. There is no logical way to assert that the meaning of διδακτικός is altered by anything else in the list.
In the slightly broader context, however, there is something that helps. 1 Timothy 5:17 says, “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.” By this we know that only some elders labor in preaching and teaching. There are some who are not. If there exist a plan for elders who are not teaching, why have a requirement that they be able to give instruction?
In other words, ability to give instruction would not be likely to be a requirement for a position unless everyone in that position will have to give instruction.
Conclusions
I believe that “able in doctrine” is much more believable. But it’s hard to be sure when tradition disagrees.
Certainly:
1. “Able in doctrine” would be a very reasonable thing to require in an elder. Can you think of an objection to it being there?
2. “Able in doctrine” would be a very obvious thing to require in an elder. It’s absence from the list would be odd. No matter how good someone is a public speaking, if they are not able to study the Word and learn doctrine, they would not be a good elder.
3. “Able in giving instruction” is actually harmful if not backed by “able in doctrine.”
If Paul meant, “able in giving instruction,” then he mentioned the less important and neglected to mention the more important requirement. This is not impossible. Perhaps he considered “able in doctrine” to be so obvious that mentioning it seemed unnecessary.
About this I am pretty sure:
4. The church needs a man (or men) who are good at doctrine and public speaking. I don’t think it’s in 1 Timothy 3, but I think it’s in 1 Timothy 5 and it is, practically speaking, very important to the life of the church.
Here’s how this impacts the church:
If we insist that this means “able in public speaking” then here are the consequences:
Consider a man who is able in doctrine. He is intelligent and has studied extensively. He would be an effective agent for the guarding of doctrine in the church, but he does not have a good speaking abilities. If we believe that “able in public speaking” is a requirement for elder, then this man can not be an elder.
But if we believe that the requirement is “able in doctrine,” then he can be an elder. I believe that such a man should be an elder. Not “one who labors in preaching and teaching,” but still, an elder.
Consider also that “able in doctrine” is a pre-requisite for “able in good preaching.” That is, if you can’t learn good doctrine, then you can’t be a good preacher.
So the practical difference between my view and the traditional view is what you do with the guy who is good at doctrine, but can’t speak well. Is he eligible to be an elder in the church?
διδακτικός Occurrence: 1 Timothy 3:2, 2 Timothy 2:24
Adjective
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/definitionlookup?type=exact&q=teach…
TDNT 2:165,161
There are in Greek three adjectives based on the noun “διδαχή.”
διδακτικός “apt at teaching”
This is the word in 1 Timothy 3:2. It only occurs 2 times in Scripture. Both times it is in a list and immediate context doesn’t limit meaning.
When it occurs in Greek literature, it always means, “the virtue that makes one teachable,” not “able to give instruction.”
διδακτός “taught”
This occurs in NT and clearly means “taught.”
διδασκαλικός “fit for teaching, capable of giving instruction, instructive”
This word does not appear in the NT or LXX. In Greek literature, this is the word that means “able to give instruction.”
If all other things were equal (that is, if historical interpretations were split and context didn’t weigh towards either interpretation), the lexical evidence is much in favor of “able in doctrine.” There are lexicons that give the meaning according to the traditional interpretation (below), but they are never based on considerations within the Text or on Greek literature.
2. Historical Consideration
JFB, Matthew Henry, Calvin, Chrysostom, etc. all exposit this “able to give instruction.” I have not by any means exhaustively studied historical theology on this matter, but so far, most go with that.
If all other things were equal, Historical interpretation favors “able to give instruction.”
I’ll only counter with two things:
1. Commentators tend to stand on previous interpretations. If an ancient commentator finds 2 previous church fathers who took a position, then he becomes the 3rd. Then, when the 5th commentator comes along, he finds 4 who agree.
In other words, if there are multiple guys who say, “X,” and they all say it because the first guy did and the Text isn’t clear enough to contradict, then there is really only one person who has given his view.
2. There is a possible selfish motive here. Chrysostom was a much better public speaker than a theologian. He was a better public speaker than anything. And in my view, he was not a good theologian. Is it a coincidence that the best public speaker in the world says that the word means “able to preach”?
3. Contextual and Analogous Consideration
In the immediate context, there is nothing. This is a list of things that are required in an elder. There is no logical way to assert that the meaning of διδακτικός is altered by anything else in the list.
In the slightly broader context, however, there is something that helps. 1 Timothy 5:17 says, “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.” By this we know that only some elders labor in preaching and teaching. There are some who are not. If there exist a plan for elders who are not teaching, why have a requirement that they be able to give instruction?
In other words, ability to give instruction would not be likely to be a requirement for a position unless everyone in that position will have to give instruction.
Conclusions
I believe that “able in doctrine” is much more believable. But it’s hard to be sure when tradition disagrees.
Certainly:
1. “Able in doctrine” would be a very reasonable thing to require in an elder. Can you think of an objection to it being there?
2. “Able in doctrine” would be a very obvious thing to require in an elder. It’s absence from the list would be odd. No matter how good someone is a public speaking, if they are not able to study the Word and learn doctrine, they would not be a good elder.
3. “Able in giving instruction” is actually harmful if not backed by “able in doctrine.”
If Paul meant, “able in giving instruction,” then he mentioned the less important and neglected to mention the more important requirement. This is not impossible. Perhaps he considered “able in doctrine” to be so obvious that mentioning it seemed unnecessary.
About this I am pretty sure:
4. The church needs a man (or men) who are good at doctrine and public speaking. I don’t think it’s in 1 Timothy 3, but I think it’s in 1 Timothy 5 and it is, practically speaking, very important to the life of the church.
Here’s how this impacts the church:
If we insist that this means “able in public speaking” then here are the consequences:
Consider a man who is able in doctrine. He is intelligent and has studied extensively. He would be an effective agent for the guarding of doctrine in the church, but he does not have a good speaking abilities. If we believe that “able in public speaking” is a requirement for elder, then this man can not be an elder.
But if we believe that the requirement is “able in doctrine,” then he can be an elder. I believe that such a man should be an elder. Not “one who labors in preaching and teaching,” but still, an elder.
Consider also that “able in doctrine” is a pre-requisite for “able in good preaching.” That is, if you can’t learn good doctrine, then you can’t be a good preacher.
So the practical difference between my view and the traditional view is what you do with the guy who is good at doctrine, but can’t speak well. Is he eligible to be an elder in the church?
- 174 views
The hermeneutic here seems to depart from exegesis into isogesis. I do follow the rationale here, it isn’t poorly constructed, that is the proposition and conclusion match but the hermeneutic appears to use the isogetical method in order to explain or justify the ecclesiastical model of *plurality of elders.
*When I refer to the plurality of elders here I am speaking to Dan’s context, that is what is commonly associated with Presbyterianism.
*When I refer to the plurality of elders here I am speaking to Dan’s context, that is what is commonly associated with Presbyterianism.
[Dan Miller] When it occurs in Greek literature, it always means, “the virtue that makes one teachable,” not “able to give instruction.”I suppose you mean in other Greek literature. You didn’t give any support or examples for this statement, but I assume you have some?
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Alex,
Your objections are somewhat fair. You accuse me of eisegesis because you see me reading plurality into 1 Timothy 3. That’s basically what I’m suggesting Chrysostom of (except I’m saying he would have read in “must be a good speaker”).
But in actuality, I don’t think it’s really a fair objection.
I’m not sure that there would be a clear solution in my mind if we only had 1 Tim 3 to go on. I actually don’t read evidence for plurality into 1 Tim 3:2. I read plurality in 1 Tim 5. I think it’s pretty clear there. I also see in 1 Tim 5 a situation in which some of the elders do not preach and teach.
Taking information from one part of Scripture and using it to refine less clear parts of Scripture is actually a pretty good hermeneutic. That is what I believe I’m doing here - taking plurality and non-teaching elders from ch 5 and applying that information to ch. 3.
Charlie,
If you click the link I put in the original post, you’ll get the Tufts University site that allows searches of Greek Lit.
Click here to go directly to this word:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=didaskaliko%2Fs&la=greek
As I look through these, some seem to be “teachable” but others might be “able to instruct.” So perhaps I need to allow that the word was used for both.
The thing that first put me on to this study was the latter part of the definition given in Thayer’s Lexicon at Blue Letter Bible:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1317&t…
Your objections are somewhat fair. You accuse me of eisegesis because you see me reading plurality into 1 Timothy 3. That’s basically what I’m suggesting Chrysostom of (except I’m saying he would have read in “must be a good speaker”).
But in actuality, I don’t think it’s really a fair objection.
I’m not sure that there would be a clear solution in my mind if we only had 1 Tim 3 to go on. I actually don’t read evidence for plurality into 1 Tim 3:2. I read plurality in 1 Tim 5. I think it’s pretty clear there. I also see in 1 Tim 5 a situation in which some of the elders do not preach and teach.
Taking information from one part of Scripture and using it to refine less clear parts of Scripture is actually a pretty good hermeneutic. That is what I believe I’m doing here - taking plurality and non-teaching elders from ch 5 and applying that information to ch. 3.
Charlie,
If you click the link I put in the original post, you’ll get the Tufts University site that allows searches of Greek Lit.
Click here to go directly to this word:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=didaskaliko%2Fs&la=greek
As I look through these, some seem to be “teachable” but others might be “able to instruct.” So perhaps I need to allow that the word was used for both.
The thing that first put me on to this study was the latter part of the definition given in Thayer’s Lexicon at Blue Letter Bible:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1317&t…
Dan,
My references are BDAG, LSJ, MM, and TDNT. Only Rengstorf in TDNT gives the meaning, “able to learn.” The ultimate answer on this would come from a search engine of all instances of didaktikos (not sure how you make the Gk font work on this site). Your caution, on account of a tradition is correct. When one exegete after another. But even without the search engine results, the parallel passage in Titus 1:9 makes it clear that the ability of an elder to publicly handle the Word of God and openly confront false teaching is a must. In 1 Peter 5:1, the apostle instructs elders to “shepherd the flock of God.” No shepherd takes care of a flock, that does not feed it. No one can feed God’s flock without teaching it the Word of God.
I do not accept the idea that there are teaching and non-teaching elders in the NT church. To my knowledge, John Calvin was the first to advance the idea in 1 Tim 5:17. But he also had to conform his concepts to the Geneva consistory. If 1 Tim. 5:17 means that one has to remunierate the elders well (idiomatic meaning of “double”), then Paul is saying, that those who preach and teach are to get extra pay beyond this. Why? Instead, malista can be translated, “namely.” I take this to be a better translation. Thus, there is only one kind of elder. He must be able to teach the group.
When one realizes that most full time pastors stand before a congregation of 100 or less, then it is clear that an elder in a church of 1000 is not required to be able to speak regularly before the whole body. The issue is whether he not only understands right doctrine very well (deacons have to understand that according to Paul), as an overseer, he has to be able to publicly instruct in, and correct from the Word.
I could go on for a good while, but will stop here for time’s sake.
My references are BDAG, LSJ, MM, and TDNT. Only Rengstorf in TDNT gives the meaning, “able to learn.” The ultimate answer on this would come from a search engine of all instances of didaktikos (not sure how you make the Gk font work on this site). Your caution, on account of a tradition is correct. When one exegete after another. But even without the search engine results, the parallel passage in Titus 1:9 makes it clear that the ability of an elder to publicly handle the Word of God and openly confront false teaching is a must. In 1 Peter 5:1, the apostle instructs elders to “shepherd the flock of God.” No shepherd takes care of a flock, that does not feed it. No one can feed God’s flock without teaching it the Word of God.
I do not accept the idea that there are teaching and non-teaching elders in the NT church. To my knowledge, John Calvin was the first to advance the idea in 1 Tim 5:17. But he also had to conform his concepts to the Geneva consistory. If 1 Tim. 5:17 means that one has to remunierate the elders well (idiomatic meaning of “double”), then Paul is saying, that those who preach and teach are to get extra pay beyond this. Why? Instead, malista can be translated, “namely.” I take this to be a better translation. Thus, there is only one kind of elder. He must be able to teach the group.
When one realizes that most full time pastors stand before a congregation of 100 or less, then it is clear that an elder in a church of 1000 is not required to be able to speak regularly before the whole body. The issue is whether he not only understands right doctrine very well (deacons have to understand that according to Paul), as an overseer, he has to be able to publicly instruct in, and correct from the Word.
I could go on for a good while, but will stop here for time’s sake.
Jeff Brown
Dan, I followed your latest link, but it was for the word διδασκαλικος (which clearly means “able to instruct”) not διδακτικος. When I tried διδακτικος the only references I got were from the NT. So, I’m still not sure where you’re getting the idea that in Greek literature it means “the virtue that makes one teachable.”
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Dan Miller] Alex,Dan, it was not meant to be received in an accusatory context, rather an observatory one. My observation was not meant to be antagonistic, rather one that needed assurance which is why I brought it up and what you, here, subsequently provide. Thanks. By the way, most of my life I have run into the use of both eisegesis and isogesis and recognize the former use is the most appropriate for scholarly discussions and considerations so pardon the popular transliterated form I used (at least I have assumed it was a transliteration seeing that eis and iso are not synonyms).
Your objections are somewhat fair. You accuse me of eisegesis because you see me reading plurality into 1 Timothy 3. That’s basically what I’m suggesting Chrysostom of (except I’m saying he would have read in “must be a good speaker”).
[Dan Miller] But in actuality, I don’t think it’s really a fair objection.Thanks for the explanation and argument. I still find some room for viewing a certain importation but as you explained, the force of your argument and hermeneutical appeal is grammatical and not theological. My personal view on the matter if appropriately reflected by Jeff Brown above.
I’m not sure that there would be a clear solution in my mind if we only had 1 Tim 3 to go on. I actually don’t read evidence for plurality into 1 Tim 3:2. I read plurality in 1 Tim 5. I think it’s pretty clear there. I also see in 1 Tim 5 a situation in which some of the elders do not preach and teach.
Taking information from one part of Scripture and using it to refine less clear parts of Scripture is actually a pretty good hermeneutic. That is what I believe I’m doing here - taking plurality and non-teaching elders from ch 5 and applying that information to ch. 3.
Charlie,
If you click the link I put in the original post, you’ll get the Tufts University site that allows searches of Greek Lit.
Click here to go directly to this word:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=didaskaliko%2Fs&la=greek
As I look through these, some seem to be “teachable” but others might be “able to instruct.” So perhaps I need to allow that the word was used for both.
The thing that first put me on to this study was the latter part of the definition given in Thayer’s Lexicon at Blue Letter Bible:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1317&t…
I would like to point everyone to a good discussion on this qualification in the SI archives (featuring Christian Markle, Mike Durning, JG, and even Dan Miller). It is located here - http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=5135&highlight=teach
Dan,
It is good to communicate with you again? Played any volleyball, lately?
As I read your post, a few things come to mind.
1. I am a little confused as to the nature of your concern. Is the concern about being able to teach vs. being able in doctrine - which is what the title seems to imply? Or is the concern about having an ability to speak publicly vs. not having an ability to speak publicly - which is what seems to be the concern of latter part of your post?
It would seem that in the case of the first question, being able to teach requires being able in doctrine. You are not able to teach something that you do not know.
2. I am also confused as to how you arrive at your statement:
3. I would also argue that you are reading a non-teaching elder into your view of 1 Timothy 5:17.”Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.” This verse does not create a distinction between those who preach and teach versus those who rule, but rather clarifies/limits the description of those rule well/are worthy of double honor. The passage is indicating that the elders who rule well are to be counted worthy of double honor (and I agree with Jeff that this probably has monetary considerations). And then it indicates that this is to be the case especially (chiefly) in regards to those that labor/work hard at preaching/teaching. (A good parallel example of malista is in Galatians 6:10.) (Somewhere in the archives I believe I and others have commented on this more fully, but I am not sure where at this time.)
4. Ephesians 4:11 indicates that a pastor (elder) is a teacher. (Pastor-teacher). The terms are connected in the description.
5. As “apt to teach” is probably the glaring difference between the qualifications of elders and deacons in the 1 Timothy 3 passage you site, if the meaning is merely “the virtue that makes on teachable” it does not seem to make sense that this would be required of the elders and not the deacons.
Anyway, I hope that helps. Some, at least.
In Christ,
Pastor Frank Sansone
Dan,
It is good to communicate with you again? Played any volleyball, lately?
As I read your post, a few things come to mind.
1. I am a little confused as to the nature of your concern. Is the concern about being able to teach vs. being able in doctrine - which is what the title seems to imply? Or is the concern about having an ability to speak publicly vs. not having an ability to speak publicly - which is what seems to be the concern of latter part of your post?
It would seem that in the case of the first question, being able to teach requires being able in doctrine. You are not able to teach something that you do not know.
2. I am also confused as to how you arrive at your statement:
[Dan Miller] When it occurs in Greek literature, it always means, “the virtue that makes one teachable,” not “able to give instruction.”It does not seem that either the lexicons I have available or the link that you supplied seem to indicate that this is the case. I do not have my TDNT with me, but I can check that later. My guess, however, is that TDNT will agree with the link you provided (which agrees with the majority (all?) of the translators of this passage).
3. I would also argue that you are reading a non-teaching elder into your view of 1 Timothy 5:17.”Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.” This verse does not create a distinction between those who preach and teach versus those who rule, but rather clarifies/limits the description of those rule well/are worthy of double honor. The passage is indicating that the elders who rule well are to be counted worthy of double honor (and I agree with Jeff that this probably has monetary considerations). And then it indicates that this is to be the case especially (chiefly) in regards to those that labor/work hard at preaching/teaching. (A good parallel example of malista is in Galatians 6:10.) (Somewhere in the archives I believe I and others have commented on this more fully, but I am not sure where at this time.)
4. Ephesians 4:11 indicates that a pastor (elder) is a teacher. (Pastor-teacher). The terms are connected in the description.
5. As “apt to teach” is probably the glaring difference between the qualifications of elders and deacons in the 1 Timothy 3 passage you site, if the meaning is merely “the virtue that makes on teachable” it does not seem to make sense that this would be required of the elders and not the deacons.
Anyway, I hope that helps. Some, at least.
In Christ,
Pastor Frank Sansone
As noted above in #4, it seems to me when considering this via the methodology used by Dan Miller, one very necessary and impacting element of the formula should be an inclusion of the gift of Pastor-teacher (if one accepts the Greek “hendiadus/hendiadys” here which is somewhat hard to oppose and some even translate “teaching Pastors”) which is an office gift rather explicitly demanding the one fulfilling it have the appropriate gift(s), one of which clearly is teaching.
I need to correct an earlier statement. Checked a work I had read earlier, and even underlined. Calvin was not the first to divide presbyteroi into groups (can anyone help me with the Gk font feature?). That was done already by, who else, Dan? Chrysostom. :) He divided elders into those who could teach and those who were less intelligent, who could baptize (I think he meant less educated): Homily 3, ch 3, in his Epistle to the Corinthians.
Jeff Brown
Although the word didaktikos (forgive again my not knowing the Gk feature!) only occurs twice in the NT, and rarely otherwise, my guess is that the Gk experts of the past understood the form immediately and translated it as “capable of teaching”. The ending -tikos, in Gk means “capable of.” See viz. hairetikos: “capable of choosing” or kritikos: capable of discerning. Check Moulton’s Grammar, Vol II, p.379.
Jeff Brown
I use a unicode font, switch to my Greek keyboard and type directly into whatever form or document I want. Here’s a link. http://www.biblicalgreek.org/links/fonts.php
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Dan,
I wanted to address a certain faux pas on my part that, upon further investigation by myself involving a discussion with a relative of mine who is both a former theological editor/translator and currently a Pastor, for quite some time has been a misunderstanding on my part. And when I say a faux pas I am being kind to myself.
Apparently, well obviously, for a number of years I have lived on the assumption that isogesis is a transliteration of eisigesis and have used the terms synonymously. It is not as though I was not taught Greek as well having the minimal 4 semesters so while I did recognize the prefixes I ignored their implication with my assumption. I can only say that it is most likely early on I encountered this same error in my reading and without further investigation imported it into my thinking, hence when encountering the term isogesis I habitually assumed the writer meant eisigesis and the odd similarity to isogogics which is also called isogesis (the historical context or measure of comparative information) was just that, an oddity but one accepted.
Your graciousness in tolerating my error yet still understanding what I meant in referring to eisigesis via the now obviously erroneous version of “isogesis” is appreciated. I have made the appropriate corrections in my frame of reference and vocabulary and will no longer assume that isogesis is both a reference to eisigesis and isogogics, rather it is only properly used in reference to isogogics and is not a valid transliterated alternative to eisigesis.
Thanks
Alex
I wanted to address a certain faux pas on my part that, upon further investigation by myself involving a discussion with a relative of mine who is both a former theological editor/translator and currently a Pastor, for quite some time has been a misunderstanding on my part. And when I say a faux pas I am being kind to myself.
Apparently, well obviously, for a number of years I have lived on the assumption that isogesis is a transliteration of eisigesis and have used the terms synonymously. It is not as though I was not taught Greek as well having the minimal 4 semesters so while I did recognize the prefixes I ignored their implication with my assumption. I can only say that it is most likely early on I encountered this same error in my reading and without further investigation imported it into my thinking, hence when encountering the term isogesis I habitually assumed the writer meant eisigesis and the odd similarity to isogogics which is also called isogesis (the historical context or measure of comparative information) was just that, an oddity but one accepted.
Your graciousness in tolerating my error yet still understanding what I meant in referring to eisigesis via the now obviously erroneous version of “isogesis” is appreciated. I have made the appropriate corrections in my frame of reference and vocabulary and will no longer assume that isogesis is both a reference to eisigesis and isogogics, rather it is only properly used in reference to isogogics and is not a valid transliterated alternative to eisigesis.
Thanks
Alex
Alex, no problem.
Everyone, I need to respond to quite a few things. I’ve been on call this weekend, and feeding the cute little guy on the left of this note, and teaching tonight at youth group. Jen has the flu - so hopefully she doesn’t give it to us…
Your argument continues that all elders “teach” because all shepherds feed the flock. I agree, but it does not follow that they must be great public speakers. Take for instance the discussions and applications of the council at Jerusalem in Acts 15. The discussants were the apostles and elders. There are a lot of guys who spoke there. Somehow, they arrived at a [vote?consensus?] , which was to agree with Peter’s conclusion.
Frank, good observation. I initially named two possibilities of meaning of διδακτικός. But there is a third, which is a sort of middle road that I think we need to be able to define and consider (I think that Jeff Brown’s response showed my mistake in definitions here).
Considered as a spectrum, the possibilities would be:
Able to learn good doctrine - - - - - - Able to communicate good doctrine - - - - - - Able to speak well.
- - - - “Learner” - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - “Good Doctrine Teacher” - - - - - - - - - - - - - - “Speaker.”
On the extreme far left would be someone who could learn but could not communicate what he has learned at all. If that’s the meaning, then the requirement only regards teachability.
On the extreme far right would be someone who can communicate REALLY well, but can’t study very well at all.
However, consider the extreme far left again (the pure “Learner”). If his ability to communicate what he had learned was really ZERO, then how would you even evaluate to see if he has learned? He would be a kind of information black hole, learning everything, but explaining and revealing nothing. So I think that in reality, even in “Learner,” there must be some ability to teach or communicate in some way.
Also consider the extreme right (the pure “Speaker”). If his ability to learn is zero, who wants to hear him? (Well, sadly, a lot of people do…) This could still be the requirement, but surely it would have to be seen as a relative requirement, with emphasis on “relative.” Because a moderately good speaker might aspire to be an elder, and if all else is well, I would think he would be allowed.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I believe that Scripture expects non-teaching elders. I mean that in the sense of public speaking. Not in the sense that they never teach.
The responses so far also make me realize that I should have emphasized that this was the origin of this study.
So, a discussion of the basis for non-teaching elders. I’ll have to come back to this as I’m out of time for now.
Everyone, I need to respond to quite a few things. I’ve been on call this weekend, and feeding the cute little guy on the left of this note, and teaching tonight at youth group. Jen has the flu - so hopefully she doesn’t give it to us…
[Charlie] Dan, I followed your latest link, but it was for the word διδασκαλικος (which clearly means “able to instruct”) not διδακτικος. When I tried διδακτικος the only references I got were from the NT. So, I’m still not sure where you’re getting the idea that in Greek literature it means “the virtue that makes one teachable.”Sorry for grabbing the wrong link. I don’t know why διδακτικος only gave you two from the NT. There should have been three or four from Philo, at least…
[Jeff Brown]… Titus 1:9 makes it clear that the ability of an elder to publicly handle the Word of God and openly confront false teaching is a must. In 1 Peter 5:1, the apostle instructs elders to “shepherd the flock of God.” No shepherd takes care of a flock, that does not feed it. No one can feed God’s flock without teaching it the Word of God. …I respond that not all feeding must be done in the format of great public speaking*. I think that in the context of Titus the vast majority of what was called for was not necessarily great public speaking, but one-on-one and small group teaching.
Your argument continues that all elders “teach” because all shepherds feed the flock. I agree, but it does not follow that they must be great public speakers. Take for instance the discussions and applications of the council at Jerusalem in Acts 15. The discussants were the apostles and elders. There are a lot of guys who spoke there. Somehow, they arrived at a [vote?consensus?] , which was to agree with Peter’s conclusion.
[fsansone] 1. I am a little confused as to the nature of your concern. Is the concern about being able to teach vs. being able in doctrine - which is what the title seems to imply? Or is the concern about having an ability to speak publicly vs. not having an ability to speak publicly - which is what seems to be the concern of latter part of your post?* (What follows is also in response to Jeff on the issue of elders “feeding” the flock and what that might be required to look like.)
Frank, good observation. I initially named two possibilities of meaning of διδακτικός. But there is a third, which is a sort of middle road that I think we need to be able to define and consider (I think that Jeff Brown’s response showed my mistake in definitions here).
Considered as a spectrum, the possibilities would be:
Able to learn good doctrine - - - - - - Able to communicate good doctrine - - - - - - Able to speak well.
- - - - “Learner” - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - “Good Doctrine Teacher” - - - - - - - - - - - - - - “Speaker.”
On the extreme far left would be someone who could learn but could not communicate what he has learned at all. If that’s the meaning, then the requirement only regards teachability.
On the extreme far right would be someone who can communicate REALLY well, but can’t study very well at all.
However, consider the extreme far left again (the pure “Learner”). If his ability to communicate what he had learned was really ZERO, then how would you even evaluate to see if he has learned? He would be a kind of information black hole, learning everything, but explaining and revealing nothing. So I think that in reality, even in “Learner,” there must be some ability to teach or communicate in some way.
Also consider the extreme right (the pure “Speaker”). If his ability to learn is zero, who wants to hear him? (Well, sadly, a lot of people do…) This could still be the requirement, but surely it would have to be seen as a relative requirement, with emphasis on “relative.” Because a moderately good speaker might aspire to be an elder, and if all else is well, I would think he would be allowed.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I believe that Scripture expects non-teaching elders. I mean that in the sense of public speaking. Not in the sense that they never teach.
The responses so far also make me realize that I should have emphasized that this was the origin of this study.
So, a discussion of the basis for non-teaching elders. I’ll have to come back to this as I’m out of time for now.
Dan,
I have three comments:
First, You have a legitimate question about whether an elder has to be able to be a great public speaker. But I doubt you will find this idea anywhere in academic or doctrinal discussions of this subject. Nor do I mention anything about “great public speakers.” There have always been small churches throughout Church history. The Bible is quite clear that these need elders. This point, I think, is easily answered, “of course elders are not required to be great public speakers.” For this we do not need much discussion. The ability to teach a group of believers is the point. With an audience of 20, you have already reached a public speaking setting. Perhaps we are saying the same thing, but talking by each other.
Second, one-on-one teaching is already covered by such passages as Hebrews 5:11ff and Acts 18:24-26, for example. The ability to teach God’s truth one-on-one is expected by the New Testament of every mature believer. This is not what 1 Tim. 3:2 and Titus 1:5-9 are talking about. An elder has to have the ability to do more than one-on-one teaching.
Third, you have given an interesting analysis, but I find none of this in any Greek work on didaktikos. The root word is, didasko. which means “teach,” and never “learn.” As I mentioned before, -tikos means “able to”. Thus, “ability to teach” is the meaning of didaktikos. “ability to learn” is definitely not the meaning. You are introducing interesting concepts, worthy of consideration about speakers, but they have little to do with the meaning of didaktikos. In the biblical sense, someone who could teach also understood the content of what he was teaching. Those who were just blabbing, were the false teachers, according to Paul.
I have three comments:
First, You have a legitimate question about whether an elder has to be able to be a great public speaker. But I doubt you will find this idea anywhere in academic or doctrinal discussions of this subject. Nor do I mention anything about “great public speakers.” There have always been small churches throughout Church history. The Bible is quite clear that these need elders. This point, I think, is easily answered, “of course elders are not required to be great public speakers.” For this we do not need much discussion. The ability to teach a group of believers is the point. With an audience of 20, you have already reached a public speaking setting. Perhaps we are saying the same thing, but talking by each other.
Second, one-on-one teaching is already covered by such passages as Hebrews 5:11ff and Acts 18:24-26, for example. The ability to teach God’s truth one-on-one is expected by the New Testament of every mature believer. This is not what 1 Tim. 3:2 and Titus 1:5-9 are talking about. An elder has to have the ability to do more than one-on-one teaching.
Third, you have given an interesting analysis, but I find none of this in any Greek work on didaktikos. The root word is, didasko. which means “teach,” and never “learn.” As I mentioned before, -tikos means “able to”. Thus, “ability to teach” is the meaning of didaktikos. “ability to learn” is definitely not the meaning. You are introducing interesting concepts, worthy of consideration about speakers, but they have little to do with the meaning of didaktikos. In the biblical sense, someone who could teach also understood the content of what he was teaching. Those who were just blabbing, were the false teachers, according to Paul.
Jeff Brown
Since my dissertation involves some word study on the passages Dan mentioned regarding didaktikos I thought I’d chime in here.
While I would disagree with the presupposition that there is a multiplicity of elders that includes men who don’t teach, this word by itself doesn’t connote or denote that the teacher in question has to be the next Chuck Swindoll, John MacArthur, or Mark Minnick (or even Chrysostom for that matter). However, it does connote the ability to communicate truth, which is more than standing up and talking. Thayer and Gingrich both use the word “skillful” in their definitions of didaktikos, and I think some read a higher level of skill into that definition than is fair to expect.
Dan alluded to references in Philo. Those references should really be part of the discussion since he is 1st C. and way closer to Paul than Chrysostom. The 4 references in his writings refer to virtue “acquired by teaching,” “derived by teaching,” or “proceeds from instruction.” In the context he is using didaktikos in contrast to learning something by practice or experience. Though Abraham learned the virtue spoken of, Philo chose to emphasize that he was taught and didn’t just pick it up by watching someone else. The emphasis is on how Abraham got his learned “virtue.”
TDNT makes the assertion that “one of the marks of NT didaskein (“teaching”—the root of our word) is the constant reference to Scripture, … includ[ing] proving from Scripture that Jesus is the promised Messiah.” They go further to say that the role of teacher morphed into the role of leader in the early church by necessity. These teachers were the ones who protected the church against falsehood and error. Of course, they say that’s the reason didaktikos is a requirement for the elder. He needs to be “able to teach” the truth and combat error. (This seems to complement the other NT passages dealing with requirements.) This man is contrasted with the false teacher by way of identification.
Since all we have to go on in Greek literature is Philo and Paul (according to TDNT) the meaning seems clear that it’s talking about the act of teaching or the ability to teach and not the content. But, with that said, I think the TDNT idea that NT “teaching” includes or is in a way synonymous with sound doctrine is born out by the context and parallel passages. Therefore, the elder who is “apt to teach” is one who is able to communicate the ideas of the Gospel in a way that people can understand, regardless of the size of the group.
While I would disagree with the presupposition that there is a multiplicity of elders that includes men who don’t teach, this word by itself doesn’t connote or denote that the teacher in question has to be the next Chuck Swindoll, John MacArthur, or Mark Minnick (or even Chrysostom for that matter). However, it does connote the ability to communicate truth, which is more than standing up and talking. Thayer and Gingrich both use the word “skillful” in their definitions of didaktikos, and I think some read a higher level of skill into that definition than is fair to expect.
Dan alluded to references in Philo. Those references should really be part of the discussion since he is 1st C. and way closer to Paul than Chrysostom. The 4 references in his writings refer to virtue “acquired by teaching,” “derived by teaching,” or “proceeds from instruction.” In the context he is using didaktikos in contrast to learning something by practice or experience. Though Abraham learned the virtue spoken of, Philo chose to emphasize that he was taught and didn’t just pick it up by watching someone else. The emphasis is on how Abraham got his learned “virtue.”
TDNT makes the assertion that “one of the marks of NT didaskein (“teaching”—the root of our word) is the constant reference to Scripture, … includ[ing] proving from Scripture that Jesus is the promised Messiah.” They go further to say that the role of teacher morphed into the role of leader in the early church by necessity. These teachers were the ones who protected the church against falsehood and error. Of course, they say that’s the reason didaktikos is a requirement for the elder. He needs to be “able to teach” the truth and combat error. (This seems to complement the other NT passages dealing with requirements.) This man is contrasted with the false teacher by way of identification.
Since all we have to go on in Greek literature is Philo and Paul (according to TDNT) the meaning seems clear that it’s talking about the act of teaching or the ability to teach and not the content. But, with that said, I think the TDNT idea that NT “teaching” includes or is in a way synonymous with sound doctrine is born out by the context and parallel passages. Therefore, the elder who is “apt to teach” is one who is able to communicate the ideas of the Gospel in a way that people can understand, regardless of the size of the group.
#2 and satisfied http://satisfied2nd.wordpress.com/
[Jeff Brown] Dan,Perhaps we are - I alluded to that somewhat in my last post, I think. And some of that might be due to my introduction of only two opposing meanings (Learner-Only -vs- Orator-Only), when in fact we’ll both agree that some of each will always be needed by an elder. So it’s easy to paint the alternative as the contra-extreme. So I might say, “Is it really possible that a man is qualified as an elder who is a dynamite speaker and can’t tell an heretic from a hairdo?” And my opponent might ask, “How would a guy who can learn but can’t communicate feed the church? He won’t.”
I have three comments:
First, You have a legitimate question about whether an elder has to be able to be a great public speaker. But I doubt you will find this idea anywhere in academic or doctrinal discussions of this subject. Nor do I mention anything about “great public speakers.” There have always been small churches throughout Church history. The Bible is quite clear that these need elders. This point, I think, is easily answered, “of course elders are not required to be great public speakers.” For this we do not need much discussion. The ability to teach a group of believers is the point. With an audience of 20, you have already reached a public speaking setting. Perhaps we are saying the same thing, but talking by each other.
Part of the problem is that I think we basically agree on a lot of what is required of an elder looking at the whole NT (though we have some disagreement over 1 Tim 5). He must be good at doctrine (we all must, but definitely he). He must be able to feed the flock (I don’t really believe with you that that requires every elder to be a public speaker; I think that the flock needs public speakers, but that doctrinal guardians who aren’t public speakers are also vital to feeding the flock).
The question is what this word one means. I think (or thought) that maybe it meant “teachable.” But I also admit that the church needs elders who are “able-to-teach.”
You believe it means “able-to-teach.” But you also agree that he must be doctrinally “teachable.”
Also, perhaps much or all of my thesis with regard to this word is just wrong.
I still think Philo must be dealt with…
[MarkClements] Dan alluded to references in Philo. Those references should really be part of the discussion since he is 1st C. and way closer to Paul than Chrysostom. The 4 references in his writings refer to virtue “acquired by teaching,” “derived by teaching,” or “proceeds from instruction.” In the context he is using didaktikos in contrast to learning something by practice or experience. Though Abraham learned the virtue spoken of, Philo chose to emphasize that he was taught and didn’t just pick it up by watching someone else. The emphasis is on how Abraham got his learned “virtue.”Thanks, Mark.
Are you saying (I’ll phrase it as a question): Was didaktikos descriptive of Abraham [insofar as he learned from a teacher]?
Was the word descriptive (grammatically) of Abraham, or of his environment?
Do you have an English translation of these selections from Philo?
Before that you said:
[MarkClements] However, it does connote the ability to communicate truth, which is more than standing up and talking. Thayer and Gingrich both use the word “skillful” in their definitions of didaktikos, and I think some read a higher level of skill into that definition than is fair to expect.The problem with this wording is that I would echo what you say about “skillful” and “more than standing up an talking.” But I still think that there might be ambiguity about what that skillfulness means.
It could mean:
- he doesn’t just teach, he teaches in such a way that people enjoy it and take it in easily
or
- he doesn’t just teach, he teaches in such a way that demonstrates that he has learned Biblical doctrine.
I got my English translations of Philo on the web at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/
From my reading, Philo was stressing that Abraham’s “virtue” was “taught” not “caught.” I’m not pretending to be an authority on interpreting Philo by any stretch. For transparency’s sake, here are the texts from Yonge’s translation @ earlychristianwritings.com
On Preliminary Studies (or On Mating with Preliminary Studies)
35) Why was this? Because the virtue acquired by teaching, which Abraham pursues, requires many things, both such as are legitimate according to prudence, and such also as are illegitimate according to the exegetical contemplations of preliminary instruction.
On Change of Names
83) And it is worth while here to raise the question why Abraham, from the time that his name was changed, is always thought worthy of this same appellation, and is no longer called by his former name; but Jacob, who is also called Israel, is nevertheless called Jacob too, as he was before the change of his name; and, indeed, is called Jacob oftener than Israel. We must say, then, that these facts are characters by which it is seen that the virtue which is taught differs from that which is acquired by practice;
88) … But, there being three leaders and authors of this race, the two at each extremity of it had their names changed, namely Abraham and Jacob: but the one in the middle, Isaac, always retained the same appellation. Why was this? Because both that virtue which is derived from teaching and that which is attained to by practice,
On Rewards and Punishments
27) Therefore, the first establisher of the sentiments devoted to God, namely, Abraham, the first person who passed over from pride to truth, employing that virtue which proceeds from instruction as a means towards perfection, chooses as his reward faith in God.
The text points in each case to the “virtue” that was taught to him. He seems a passive party in the exchange (grammatically).
I think I could be happy with either of your takes on the “skillfulness” since that’s just applying how two lexicons glossed the word in question. I would go back to the TDNT idea that the teaching must be biblically sound (representing his study of doctrine). The word didaktikos doesn’t denote any level of skill or aptitude. It refers to the action. As always, context helps us determine what the writer meant. From there I have to make application to the circumstances in which I find myself. If the meaning is teaching and the context is ministering the gospel then the teaching must be gospel-centered. If this refers to a person then he must be one who can teach the gospel. My application would be to say that he must be able to teach in a way that communicates the gospel and the doctrines of the gospel so that people can understand. I won’t argue for incredible giftedness (oratorical skill) but I will argue that one who is called to the ministry will be gifted enough to accomplish this kind of teaching for the benefit of the body of Christ.
Personally, I really believe that both of your options need to be present. I’m not so worried about people enjoying it but I think if they don’t “get it” there’s a problem. I also think there’s a problem with good presentation that shows that the preacher doesn’t “get” the doctrine himself.
From my reading, Philo was stressing that Abraham’s “virtue” was “taught” not “caught.” I’m not pretending to be an authority on interpreting Philo by any stretch. For transparency’s sake, here are the texts from Yonge’s translation @ earlychristianwritings.com
On Preliminary Studies (or On Mating with Preliminary Studies)
35) Why was this? Because the virtue acquired by teaching, which Abraham pursues, requires many things, both such as are legitimate according to prudence, and such also as are illegitimate according to the exegetical contemplations of preliminary instruction.
On Change of Names
83) And it is worth while here to raise the question why Abraham, from the time that his name was changed, is always thought worthy of this same appellation, and is no longer called by his former name; but Jacob, who is also called Israel, is nevertheless called Jacob too, as he was before the change of his name; and, indeed, is called Jacob oftener than Israel. We must say, then, that these facts are characters by which it is seen that the virtue which is taught differs from that which is acquired by practice;
88) … But, there being three leaders and authors of this race, the two at each extremity of it had their names changed, namely Abraham and Jacob: but the one in the middle, Isaac, always retained the same appellation. Why was this? Because both that virtue which is derived from teaching and that which is attained to by practice,
On Rewards and Punishments
27) Therefore, the first establisher of the sentiments devoted to God, namely, Abraham, the first person who passed over from pride to truth, employing that virtue which proceeds from instruction as a means towards perfection, chooses as his reward faith in God.
The text points in each case to the “virtue” that was taught to him. He seems a passive party in the exchange (grammatically).
I think I could be happy with either of your takes on the “skillfulness” since that’s just applying how two lexicons glossed the word in question. I would go back to the TDNT idea that the teaching must be biblically sound (representing his study of doctrine). The word didaktikos doesn’t denote any level of skill or aptitude. It refers to the action. As always, context helps us determine what the writer meant. From there I have to make application to the circumstances in which I find myself. If the meaning is teaching and the context is ministering the gospel then the teaching must be gospel-centered. If this refers to a person then he must be one who can teach the gospel. My application would be to say that he must be able to teach in a way that communicates the gospel and the doctrines of the gospel so that people can understand. I won’t argue for incredible giftedness (oratorical skill) but I will argue that one who is called to the ministry will be gifted enough to accomplish this kind of teaching for the benefit of the body of Christ.
Personally, I really believe that both of your options need to be present. I’m not so worried about people enjoying it but I think if they don’t “get it” there’s a problem. I also think there’s a problem with good presentation that shows that the preacher doesn’t “get” the doctrine himself.
#2 and satisfied http://satisfied2nd.wordpress.com/
Philo is really tangential, since all of his uses are adjectival to the idea of virtue (αρετη). That creates its own mini-context. You can’t precisely predict the meaning of the word “runs” in varying contexts if the subject of all your sample sentences is “my computer.” The way to solve this would be to take a TLG (Thesaurus Linguae Graecae) CD and search the lexical root.
I note that the BDAG editors included the Philo references along with several others to which I have no access. I assume that they looked at them and concluded that the most probable meaning was “apt to teach.” Thayer also comments that διδακτικος served as a synonym to διδασκαλικος. He doesn’t give any proof, but until counter-evidence is presented, I will give benefit of doubt to the authorities.
Dan, I think your spectrum is way off. No Greek would call someone “apt to teach” simply because he was a dynamic public speaker. Demonstrated results in the pupil was the measure of pedgagogical success during that period. Plato and Aristotle both push that against their opponents.
I note that the BDAG editors included the Philo references along with several others to which I have no access. I assume that they looked at them and concluded that the most probable meaning was “apt to teach.” Thayer also comments that διδακτικος served as a synonym to διδασκαλικος. He doesn’t give any proof, but until counter-evidence is presented, I will give benefit of doubt to the authorities.
Dan, I think your spectrum is way off. No Greek would call someone “apt to teach” simply because he was a dynamic public speaker. Demonstrated results in the pupil was the measure of pedgagogical success during that period. Plato and Aristotle both push that against their opponents.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Quick note as I’m in the surgeon’s lounge waiting for an OR. An 8 month old boy was attacked tonight by the dog. Pretty good sized eyelid and cheek lacs. Pray for this poor little guy.
I’m reading Philo while I wait. The first one was a long explanation about why a man who is well-rounded and virtuous needs multiple wives and concubines. Irrelevant here, but interesting…
–—
As Charlie said, “virtue” is what is apt to teach. I’m not sure I can explain Thayer’s note.
––
I want to thank everybody who helped on this thread. It may have seemed like a crazy no-brainer to some, but the discussion certainly was profitable to me. It will be, of course less profitable to everybody else who was wise enough to discount my thesis at the outset.
I am not afraid to read with fresh eyes. I must remember the Cox rule of 90:9:1. (Of new ideas, 90% are worthless, 9% are dangerous, and 1% are of great value.)
––
I’ll continue in this thread a little as time allows. I’ll look at the Philo passages. And then I’ll re-visit Jeff and Mark’s objection to non-teaching elders.
I’m reading Philo while I wait. The first one was a long explanation about why a man who is well-rounded and virtuous needs multiple wives and concubines. Irrelevant here, but interesting…
–—
As Charlie said, “virtue” is what is apt to teach. I’m not sure I can explain Thayer’s note.
[Charlie] Dan, I think your spectrum is way off. No Greek would call someone “apt to teach” simply because he was a dynamic public speaker. Demonstrated results in the pupil was the measure of pedgagogical success during that period. Plato and Aristotle both push that against their opponents.That makes sense.
––
I want to thank everybody who helped on this thread. It may have seemed like a crazy no-brainer to some, but the discussion certainly was profitable to me. It will be, of course less profitable to everybody else who was wise enough to discount my thesis at the outset.
I am not afraid to read with fresh eyes. I must remember the Cox rule of 90:9:1. (Of new ideas, 90% are worthless, 9% are dangerous, and 1% are of great value.)
––
I’ll continue in this thread a little as time allows. I’ll look at the Philo passages. And then I’ll re-visit Jeff and Mark’s objection to non-teaching elders.
[Dan Miller]You have a special place in my heart. :)
I’m reading Philo while I wait.
On the whole, your suggestion about the meaning of the word isn’t impossible. If I had unrestricted access to TLG, I could really do some work on this. I read Philo, but his usage is too specialized for us to draw conclusions. Maybe someday, when I get TLG access, I can get back to the question.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Dan, I found a master’s thesis on this subject through WorldCat. The only physical copy is in the Biola library. Perhaps you could Inter-Library loan it.
http://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/15872765?page=frame&url=http%3A%2F%2F…
http://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/15872765?page=frame&url=http%3A%2F%2F…
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Discussion