Deeper Commentary
3 John
:1 The elder to the beloved Gaius, whom I
love in truth- The "beloved" may refer to how Gaius was beloved by
the Father and Son, just as John has referred to himself in his Gospel as
the disciple whom the Lord loved. John says that God's love for Gaius is
his love for him; John loves Gaius "in truth", "in Christ" or "in the
spirit" [of truth], as Paul would put it, as a reflection of the love
which God had for Gaius. So John was practicing the theory he had taught
in 1 Jn. 4; that we are to love our brethren with the love of the Father
and Son for them. Gaius was John's convert, for he says he is the "elder"
of Gaius.
:2 Beloved, I pray that in all things you
may prosper and be in health, even as your soul prospers- Gaius was
John's convert (see on :1), and John believed that by praying for him he
could influence his spiritual progress; see on 1 Jn. 5:16. John's prayer
for the physical health of Gaius could imply he was sick- and at the very
time he needed brotherly support, he had been excluded from his local
church (see on :9,10).
:3 For I rejoiced greatly, when brothers
came and testified to the truth which is in you, even as you walk in truth-
The brothers appear to be a group of itinerant mission workers who went
forth from John's home church, and visited converts like Gaius, bringing
back reports to John as to how his converts were progressing. We see the
huge importance attached to the spiritual growth of converts, rather than
simply baptizing people and bragging about numbers. What was "within"
believers and what they walked in was "the spirit", here called "the
truth". The reference is to the Lord Jesus, "the truth", and more exactly
to "the spirit of truth", the spirit of Christ, His living, thinking and
breathing, which is given to all believers. The 'holding firm in the
truth' which was in view is therefore not a retaining of some set of
theologies; but rather continuing to allow "the spirit of truth", of the
Lord, to abide within them, and having this as the guide of daily
'walking' and thinking.
Daniel speaks of repentance and obeying God's
voice as being a result of 'having discernment in thy truth' (Dan. 9:13,14
RV). To grasp the endless depth and height of the fact we are in touch
with ultimate truth inevitably affects our lives. 3 Jn. 3 in the AV speaks
of "the truth that is in thee"; but the Greek can also mean, as in the RV,
"thy truth". There is to be a close personal identification between us and
the "spirit of truth", of the Lord Jesus personally. His spirit becomes
our spirit, His truth is our truth. The outcome elicited by this is
repentance, and our being truthful at the very least. Our contact with
God's truth results in our being truthful not only to others but to
ourselves, and this, as Daniel observed, gives rise to true repentance.
Paul can speak of “the word of the truth of
the gospel” (Col. 1:5) and again of “the truth of the gospel” (Gal. 2:5).
He refers to “the word of truth, the gospel of our salvation” (Eph. 1:13).
It’s quite Biblical that we refer to our faith as “the truth”. But truth
is clearly a way of describing or summing up the leading of the indwelling
Spirit in a way of life which the doctrines of the truth should elicit in
us. Thus “the new man... is created in righteousness and holiness of
truth” (Eph. 4:24). We obey the truth in unfeigned love of our brethren (1
Pet. 1:22), not just by intellectual assent at a baptismal interview; we
‘do the truth’ in loving our brother (1 Jn. 1:6); if the spirit of truth
is in us then we walk in it (3 Jn. 3).
:4 I have no greater joy than this, to
hear of my children walking in the truth- John’s greatest joy was
that his converts, and his convert's converts, ‘walked in truth’, they
‘walked after [the Father’s] commandments’ (2 Jn. 4,6). Paul likewise
speaks of how his converts are his "joy and crown". Joy in the Kingdom
will not be a selfish thing; our joy will be in seeing the results of our
labours for others in this brief life. We therefore need to give our all
to such labour, for it has eternal consequence like nothing else we may
put our hands to.
:5 Beloved, you do a faithful work in whatever you do toward those
that are brothers and especially to strangers- As noted on :3,
"the brothers" refer to the messengers of John's church who went around
visiting his converts and spreading his gospel record, now found in the
Gospel of John. The idea may be that he did well in entertaining
the brothers, especially because they were strangers, unknown to him; or
perhaps Gaius was a Jew and these visiting brethren were "strangers",
Gentiles, and yet he still had them under his roof. This [as we learn from
Acts 10] was quite contrary to Jewish culture. Gaius had materially supported them; and Diotrephes
disfellowshipped those who did this (:10). So, Gaius was excommunicated
for showing support to missionary workers from an individual [John] with
whom Diotrephes had an issue. Such absurd behaviour is not unknown today.
It is the power of the deadly evil of 'guilt by association'. "Especially
to strangers" could mean 'bearing in mind that these brethren are
strangers to you'; or it could refer to the fact that Gaius was generous
and hospitable to strangers generally, including 'strangers' in the sense
of Gentiles. Showing hospitality to Gentiles was not much done in Judaism,
and it may have been another reason why Diotrephes so hated Gaius. No good
work goes unpunished, that is the lesson; and when we experience it, we
are not alone. There is likely an allusion to Mt. 25:35, where the Lord
taught that He was manifest in the "stranger" (s.w.) and to assist them
was to assist Him. The Lord was manifest in these brethren; and likewise
the way Diotrephes refused to assist them and excommunicated those who did
was to be the ground of his condemnation at the last day. For he had not
'known' the Lord, and the Lord would tell him this at the last day. Our
attitude to our brethren is our attitude to Him; and that truth must
radically affect our positions, even if it involves being sanctioned
because of them.
:6 Who testify of your love before the
church. You will do well to set them forward on their journey in a manner
worthy of God- "The brothers", the mission workers sent forth by John
to see his converts such as Gaius, had returned and testified to John and
his home church of the love which Gaius had shown them, materially
supporting them when Diotrephes and the former home church of Gaius had
refused to do so, and had not fellowshipped them (:10). Setting someone
forward on their journey suggests provision of material help towards them,
which resulted in Diotrephes disfellowshipping those who did (:10). But
Gaius is encouraged that he 'does well' in so doing, regardless of the
position of Diotrephes. "A manner worthy of God" supports the suggestion
on :5 that attitudes to these brethren was attitude to the Father and Son.
:7- see on 1 Pet. 4:14.
Because for the sake of the Name they
went forth, taking nothing from the Gentiles-
The brothers sent forth by John in pastoral and missionary work were
obeying the great commission, to which this language clearly alludes; for
that commission was a being sent forth to preach in the Lord's Name (Lk.
24:47). This is yet further evidence that the great commission applied not
only to the eleven disciples. For the excellence of knowing His Name they
went forth in witness, and moreover were generous spirited, not taking
material help from unbelievers to enable this. The itinerant Judaist false
teachers did take such support. The knowledge of the Name of itself should
inspire to active service: for the sake of the Lord’s Name the Ephesians
laboured (Rev. 2:3).
:8 We therefore ought to welcome such,
that we may be fellow-workers for the truth- 'Welcoming' implies
material support, in the context here. I have suggested that "the truth"
in John is a reference to the Lord Jesus and His "spirit of truth". The
gift of the Comforter / Holy Spirit was particularly to empower the
spreading of the Gospel. And yet the Spirit does not as it were zap people
against their will. There needs to be an exercise of the human volition;
we work together with the Spirit, and with the Lord Jesus who gives it. We
are labourers together with Him (1 Cor. 3:9).
:9 I wrote somewhat to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have
the pre-eminence among them, does not welcome us- The picture is of
Gaius being a member of a church which had shunned Gaius because of the
evil influence of Diotrephes. Gaius welcomed "the brothers" from John
(:5,8), and so therefore would have been excommunicated for doing so
(:10). It is the Lord who is presented in the New Testament as having "the
pre-eminence". It is a lack of focus upon Him and His greatness which
leads to the human tendency toward personal pre-eminence.
"Whoever wishes to be first shall be last of all" (Mt. 20:28) is
surely in view. We should wish to be last of all, that we might be exalted
in due time. Diotrephes, the conservative elder who had enough power to
excommunicate whole blocks of people from his church, is being presented
as at the very bottom of the scale of spirituality. We need to recognize
such brethren as such, and seek to treat them as the littlest of the
little ones. "Welcome us" is parallel with welcoming the brethren sent from John (:10).
Attitudes to brethren in Christ are our attitudes not only to Him but to
all other brethren. Hence in writing to Philemon, Paul argues that to
receive Onesimus was to receive him personally (Philemon 12).
:10 Therefore, if I come- A visit to
Gaius would mean John could also visit Diotrephes; they lived nearby to
each other, which makes sense when we realize that Diotrephes had
disfellowshipped Gaius from his local church.
I will bring to remembrance his works
which he does, prating against us with wicked words, and not content
therewith, neither does he welcome the brothers; and those that would, he
forbids and throws them out of the church-
Bringing to remembrance could imply some exercise of Spirit judgment
against Diotrephes which required John's personal presence. Or it could
just imply that he would confront Diotrephes over his behaviour.
John has just commended Gaius for receiving
"the brothers", the mission workers from John's home church (:3). But the
local church which had expelled Gaius would not receive those same
"brothers", and in turn excommunicated any who would fellowship and
support them. Neither would that church "welcome" John himself (:9). It
was all the picture of daisy chain fellowship; if Diotrephes was against
John, he was against the "brothers" from his church, so he was against
Gaius who supported them, cast him out of the church, and then drove out
any others who supported their missionary work. It was guilt by
association; and it is all called "evil" in :11.
His "malicious words" were poneros,
evil, the same term used in speaking of the Judaist system of opposition
to Christianity as "the evil one" (see on 1 Jn. 2:13,14; 3:12; 5:18).
Diotrephes was therefore likewise also a Judaist. He was "not
content"; and it is only the grace of Jesus which makes man "content"
[s.w. 2 Cor. 12:9 "my grace is sufficient for you"].
"Forbidding" is likewise
a word associated with how the Judaists sought to "forbid" preaching to
the Gentiles (1 Thess. 2:16), and the legalistic forbidding of littles
ones to come to the Lord (Mt. 19:14; Lk. 11:52; Acts 8:36; 10:47; 11:17).
To 'cast out' of the church was to reflect in Christian terms how the Jews
cast out from the synagogue those who accepted the Lord as Messiah (Jn.
9:22,34,35), just as they "cast out" the Lord Jesus from the vineyard of
Israel (Mt. 21:39 s.w.). Diotrephes had the mentality of Judaism and was
seeking to turn the Lord's church into a Judaist dominated synagogue.
Casting the Lord's brother out of the church is to cast Him out; this
should act as a sober warning to those well-respected church leaders who
act in this way to this day. The same word is used about the 'casting out'
to condemnation in the last day (Mt. 8:12; 22:13; 25:30). No matter how
much nice speak is used, to cast a brother out of the church is to condemn
him. It is God's intention that "there should be no schism in the body" (1
Cor. 12:25). If we refuse to break bread with validly baptized, good
living brethren- then we are working against God. And if we then go on to
disfellowship anyone who will not agree with our opinion on a brother, we
are doing just what Diotrephes is condemned for doing.
"Throws them out..." is a term often used in contemporary literature about the exclusion of individuals from the clubs and societies which were common in Roman cities. Diotrephes was treating the church as if it were his personal club; and he was acting as if it were just a secular organization. This is at the root of so much dysfunction within churches; they are treated by their elders as if they are human societies. When the whole nature of the body of Christ is so different and unique in human experience. The contemporary literature repeatedly uses the term "throws them out" in the context of commenting that this is necessary for unity. John is taking the term and deconstructing it; for he has taught that unity is not uniformity, and is predicated upon the Lord's death and the presence of the Spirit in individual hearts. Not upon excluding those who differ in policy about things like missionary work and supporting missionaries.
It could be that there is a chronological
progression here. Prating against John personally, i.e. gossiping about
and slandering him, left Diotrephes not content until he had done
something worse; and so he refused to welcome or materially support "the
brothers" who were mission workers for and with John (:3,5,7); and then he
forbad [Gk. 'hindered'] others in his church from supporting them; and
finally he threw out of the church those like Gaius for doing the good
work of giving support to missionary workers. This is where the mania
about disfellowship leads. And it happens so often to this day. It should
not be presented in respectable spiritual terms as merely a case of being
overzealous for God's truth. John calls such behaviour "evil", and it is.
And the final absurdities, of disfellowshipping sincere believers for
materially supporting the sincere missionary workers of a sincere apostle,
all come about from a psychological and spiritual slide downhill. Hatred
is as a darkness which blinds the eyes of such men, so that they cannot
see where they are going (1 Jn. 2:11).
A fair case can be made that he received the
Apocalypse early, well before AD70, and wrote his gospel and
letters afterwards. In this case, the similarity of wording would
partly be explained by the fact that the language of his Lord rubbed off
almost unconsciously [as well as consciously] upon John's style of
thinking, speaking and writing. Thus "If I come, I will bring up the
things he is doing" (3 Jn. 10) reflects the Lord's style: "If you do not
repent, I will come to you" (Rev. 2:5). There are many other examples-
finding them is good homework for the enthusiast. Now the practical point
is surely that we are living the essence of the Kingdom life now; we ‘have
eternal life’ in the sense that we are experiencing the nature and quality
of the spiritual life which by grace we will eternally live. And that life
is the life of the Lord Jesus; in His life on earth we see a picture of
the nature of the eternal life which we hope to life for evermore.
Therefore understanding Him personally is to understand the good news of
the future Kingdom of God.
:11 Beloved, do not imitate such evil, but imitate that which is good. He that does good is of God. He that does evil has not seen God- The "evil" in view was the guilt by association disfellowshipping of brethren and sincere missionary workers noted on :10. In the light of 1 Jn. 3:6, we could say that we see God insofar as we see the Lord Jesus, and live in His love. The doing of evil arose from not 'seeing God' which in turn meant that Diotrephes was not Christ-centered. He had not 'seen' the Lord Jesus, possibly connected with his Judaist leanings. We may well ask why Gaius would need to be warned not to "imitate such evil", when he had himself suffered from it. It is simply so, that the abused tend to abuse. This is a fact of observed human experience; and John urges Gaius not to practice the evil excommunication policy that he had suffered from. It is so easy to treat others as we have been. Instead of copying Diotrephes, who had "not seen God", Gaius was to imitate the "good", the One who "does good", who is '[born] of God', and who has "seen God". For we are to imitate or mimic [s.w.] the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 11:1). That One to be followed / imitated is primarily the Lord Jesus. Instead of psychologically being dominated by our abusers, we are to look not to them as role models, but to the Lord Jesus. Many of us were taught implicitly and explicitly that the harder line taken on matters of disfellowship, the more likely we were to be close to God. But here such behaviour is called "evil". And it is. Those who do these things have not seen God, Paul says.
But perhaps Demetrius is the one in
view. Exhortation to imitate good spiritual examples is quite common:
Heb. 13:7 "Remember those who led you, who spoke
the word of God to you; and... imitate their faith"; 1 Cor. 4:16 "Be
imitators of me"; 1 Thess. 1:6 "You also became imitators of us and of the
Lord"; 1 Thess. 2:14 "For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches
of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea"; Heb. 6:12 "that you may not be
sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit
the promises".
This helps us understand 3 John- it is a letter about three men, Gaius, Diotrephes and Demetrius. And Gaius is bidden follow Demetrius and not imitate Diotrephes. "Gaius" was one of the commonest names in the Roman empire, and there are three believers of this name mentioned in the NT; but it's quite possible we are simply intended to see him as a 'common John', every man in Christ who wants to do the right thing.
If we see / know God in the experiential
sense, we will do no evil (3 Jn. 11). To have the true knowledge of Jesus
Christ means we will not be barren [Gk. 'idle'] nor unfruitful (2 Pet.
1:8). When Zacharias wanted to have grounds for faith, he was simply told:
"I am Gabriel...", the man like God (Lk. 1:19). The declaration of God's
Name in Ex. 34:6,7 doesn't include statements like 'Trust in God! He'll
help you!'. Instead we read of the grace, mercy, justice and inevitable
judgment of God. Knowing and experiencing these more abstract things will
lead us to a practical faith in God. Because David remembered God's Name,
therefore He kept His law (Ps. 119:55 RSV). This is why the Bible
uses the idea of 'knowing' God in the sense of knowing Him by experience,
not just 'knowing' the right theory. Likewise John uses 'the truth' in the
sense of not just correct knowledge but the way of life it brings forth.
:12 Demetrius has the witness of all and of the truth itself- As discussed on :11, Demetrius is set up as a parade example of who should be imitated, as opposed to Diotrephes. There is a strong tradition that John wrote from Ephesus; he says he is going to visit them, so this was clearly before his exile on Patmos. Irenaeus writes of "the church of Ephesus, founded by Paul, with John continuing with them until the times of Trajan". There has always been a grave memorial to John in a village near Ephesus. Patmos, to where John was exiled (Rev. 1:9), is just off the coast of Ephesus. We must therefore give full weight to the fact that the only other Demetrius mentioned in the NT is the chief silversmith at Ephesus (Acts 19:24). It could be that he repented and that is why he is set up as such a parade example; and why he "has the witness of all [men]". This makes sense if he was the silversmith, once so opposed to the Gospel, who openly repented. "And of the truth itself" is a strange phrase; unless we understand it to mean that the 'spirit of truth', or the Lord Jesus personally, made some special statement or witness to show that the conversion of Demetrius was indeed sincere. That to me is the only interpretation that makes any sense of this reference to a special witness to Demetrius "of the Truth it[him]self". Change is possible.
Yes, we also testify, and you know that our witness
is true- This language of testimony being confirmed recalls how John
has spoken and written at Jn. 19:35-37 and elsewhere. "The truth" refers
to the spirit of truth, the Lord Jesus who is "the truth". "All" the
Spirit filled brethren with John, and he himself, could testify that
Demetrius was indeed genuine. This may have been thanks to a specific
statement from the Spirit; but it likely refers to the way that there is
an intuitive sense of another's sincerity when the spirit of Christ is in
that person and also in those whom he or she meets. Presumably Gaius was
unsure about Demetrius, and he is being assured that he does indeed have
the spirit of Christ.
:13 I had many things to write to you, but I am unwilling to write
them to you with ink and pen- The context of :12 speaks of the
fellowship between persons created by them each having the same spirit of
truth, that of the Lord Jesus. Written communication was one thing, but
the synergy and nexus achieved by the meeting of spirit-filled persons was
far superior to that. And that after all is why we still have the concept
of church meetings and personal fellowship in our age, despite all the
electronic possibilities of 'virtual' communication we now have. See on 2
Jn. 12.
:14 But I hope shortly to see you, and we shall speak face to face-
John planned to visit Gaius, at which time he intended to confront
Diotrephes (:10). See on :13 for the power of face to face meeting.
John's desire for this rather than simply written communication is a
powerful challenge and is strangely relevant in our age of digital
communication.
:15 Peace be to you. The friends salute
you. Salute the friends by name- The wish of "peace" is a desire for
the peace enabled by the Comforter, the gift of the Spirit possessed in
the hearts of both John and Gaius (Jn. 14:27; 16:33; 20:19-22). John
records how the Lord called those who would receive His spirit His friends
(Jn. 15:5), and it is John who uses this title in addressing his brethren
(3 Jn. 14). He reflected how the Lord saw him as his friend. And
John realised that this was how he should see his brethren; and so must
we.
Previous Chapter
Next Chapter 
