Text -- 3 John 1:9 (NET)

Diotrephes the Troublemaker

1:9 I wrote something to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not acknowledge us.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: 3Jo 1:9

I wrote somewhat unto the church ( egrapsa ti tēi ekklēsiāi ).

A few MSS. add an to indicate that he had not written (conclusion of second-class condition), clearly spurious. Not epistolary aorist nor a reference to 2 John as Findlay holds, but an allusion to a brief letter of commendation (Act 18:27; 2Co 3:1; Col 4:10) sent along with the brethren in 3Jo 1:5-7 or to some other itinerant brethren. Westcott wrongly thinks that ti is never used of anything important in the N.T. (Act 8:9; Gal 6:3), and hence that this lost letter was unimportant. It may have been brief and a mere introduction. Diotrephes (Dios and trephō , nourished by Zeus). This ambitious leader and sympathiser with the Gnostics would probably prevent the letter referred to being read to the church, whether it was 2 John condemning the Gnostics or another letter commending Demetrius and John’ s missionaries. Hence he sends Gaius this personal letter warning against Diotrephes.

Robertson: 3Jo 1:9

Who loveth to have the preeminence among them ( ho philoprōteuōn autōn ).

Present active articular participle of a late verb, so far found only here and in ecclesiastical writers (the example cited by Blass being an error, Deissmann, Light etc., p. 76), from philoprōtos , fond of being first (Plutarch), and made like philoponeō (papyri), to be fond of toil. This ambition of Diotrephes does not prove that he was a bishop over elders, as was true in the second century (as Ignatius shows). He may have been an elder (bishop) or deacon, but clearly desired to rule the whole church. Some forty years ago I wrote an article on Diotrephes for a denominational paper. The editor told me that twenty-five deacons stopped the paper to show their resentment against being personally attacked in the paper.

Robertson: 3Jo 1:9

Receiveth us not ( ouk epidechetai hēmās ).

Present active indicative of this old compound, in N.T. only here and 3Jo 1:10. Diotrephes refused to accept John’ s authority or those who sided with him, John’ s missionaries or delegates (cf. Mat 10:40).

Vincent: 3Jo 1:9

I wrote unto the Church

The best texts insert τι somewhat , which indicates that the apostle did not regard the communication as specially important.

Vincent: 3Jo 1:9

Diotrephes ( Διοτρεφὴς )

The name is from Δίος of Zeus (Jove), and τρέφω to nourish , and means Jove-nursed .

Vincent: 3Jo 1:9

Who loveth to have the pre-eminence ( ὁ φιλοπρωτεύων )

From the adjective φιλόπρωτος fond of being first . The word occurs here only.

Wesley: 3Jo 1:9

Probably that to which they came.

Wesley: 3Jo 1:9

Perhaps the pastor of it.

Wesley: 3Jo 1:9

To govern all things according to his own will.

Wesley: 3Jo 1:9

Neither them nor me. So did the mystery of iniquity already work!

JFB: 3Jo 1:9

The oldest manuscripts add "something": a communication, probably, on the subject of receiving the brethren with brotherly love (3Jo 1:8, 3Jo 1:10). That Epistle was not designed by the Spirit for the universal Church, or else it would have been preserved.

JFB: 3Jo 1:9

Of which Gaius is a member.

JFB: 3Jo 1:9

Through ambition. Evidently occupying a high place in the Church where Gaius was (3Jo 1:10).

JFB: 3Jo 1:9

Over the members of the Church.

JFB: 3Jo 1:9

Virtually, namely, by not receiving with love the brethren whom we recommended to be received (3Jo 1:8, 3Jo 1:10; compare Mat 10:40).

Clarke: 3Jo 1:9

I wrote unto the Church - The Church where Caius was; but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the pre-eminence, φιλοπρωτευων, who loves the presidency, or chief place in the Church. He was doubtless an officer in the Church, at least a deacon, probably a bishop; and, being one, he magnified himself in his office; he loved such eminence, and behaved himself haughtily in it

Clarke: 3Jo 1:9

Receiveth us not - Does not acknowledge the apostolical authority. As some MSS. supply αν after εγραψα, and several judicious critics believe it is implied, the translation will run thus: I would have written to the Church to receive these men kindly, but Diotrephes, who affects the presidency; and into whose hands, if I wrote to the Church, my letter must come, receiveth us not - would not acknowledge my authority to interfere with any of the matters of his Church; and therefore I have written unto thee, whose love to the brethren and general hospitality are well known, that thou wouldst receive those strangers and persecuted followers of our common Lord.

Defender: 3Jo 1:9

John had apparently written a previous letter to this church, but Diotrephes somehow intercepted it and refused to honor John's request to help and hear the itinerant Bible teachers, going so far as to excommunicate those who disagreed with him (3Jo 1:10).

Defender: 3Jo 1:9

"Diotrephes" means "Nourished by Zeus," and Diotrephes had chosen to keep his pagan name rather than to follow the custom of other Gentile converts and change it to a Christian name. He was evidently only half-converted from paganism and resisted any teaching from John or other God-called teachers. Nevertheless, he had somehow gotten himself elevated by the congregation to the highest position of power in the church. He loved his position of power and was intent on keeping it. John was hoping he might soon be able to come and deal with the situation personally (3Jo 1:10), though his health and age might not allow (3Jo 1:13 and 3Jo 1:14)."

TSK: 3Jo 1:9

who loveth : Ο φιλοπρωτευων ""who loveth the presidency,""or chief place, doubtless in the church, of which Diotrephes was most probably an officer; and being one, magnified himself in his office: he loved such pre-eminence, and behaved haughtily in it. Mat 20:20-28, Mat 23:4-8; Mar 9:34, Mar 10:35-45; Luk 22:24-27; Rom 12:10; Phi 2:3-5; Tit 1:7-16

receiveth : 3Jo 1:8; Mat 10:40-42; Mar 9:37; Luk 9:48

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: 3Jo 1:9

I wrote unto the church - That is on the former occasion when they went forth. At that time, John naturally commended them to the kind attentions of the church, not doubting but that aid would be rendered them in prosecuting their benevolent work among the Gentiles. The Epistle which was written on that occasion is now lost, and its contents cannot now be ascertained. It was, probably, however, a letter of mere commendation, perhaps stating the object which these brethren had in view, and soliciting the aid of the church. The Latin Vulgate renders this: "scripsissem forsan ecclesiae , "I would have written, perhaps, to the church, but Diotrephes,"etc. Macknight also renders this, "I would have written,"supposing the sense to be, that John would have commended them to the whole church rather than to a private member, if he had not been aware of the influence and opposition of Diotrephes. The Syriac version also adopts the same rendering. Several manuscripts also, of later date, introduced a particle, ( αν an ,) by which the same rendering would be demanded in the Greek, though that reading is not sustained by good authority. Against this mode of rendering the passage, the reasons seem to me to be clear.

(1)\caps1     a\caps0 s already remarked, the reading in the Greek which would require it is not sustained by good authority.

(2)\caps1     t\caps0 he fair and obvious interpretation of the Greek word used by the apostle, ( ἔγραψα egrapsa ,) without that particle, is, I "wrote"- implying that it had been already done.

(3)\caps1     i\caps0 t is more probable that John had written to the church on some former occasion, and that his recommendation had been rejected by the influence of Diotrephes, than that he would be deterred by the apprehension that his recommendation would be rejected.

It seems to me, therefore, that the fair interpretation of this passage is, that these brethren had gone forth on some former occasion, commended by John to the church, and had been rejected by the influence of Diotrephes, and that now he commends them to Gains, by whom they had been formerly entertained, and asks him to renew his hospitality to them.

But Diotrephes, who loveth to have the pre-eminence among them, receiveth us not - Does not admit our authority, or would not comply with any such recommendation. The idea is, that he rejected his interference in the matter, and was not disposed to acknowledge him in any way. Of Diotrephes, nothing more is known than is here specified. Compare the analysis of the Epistle. If he was an officer in the church - a pastor, a ruling elder, a deacon, a vestry-man, a warden, or a private individual - we have no means of ascertaining. The presumption, from the phrase "who loveth to have the pre-eminence,"would rather seem to be that he was an aspiring man, arrogating rights which he did not have, and assuming authority to which he was not entitled by virtue of any office. Still he might have held an office, and might have arrogated authority, as many have done, beyond what properly belonged to it.

The single word rendered "who loveth to have the pre-eminence," φιλοπρωτεύων philoprōteuōn , occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It means simply, "who loves to be first"- meaning that he loved to be at the head of all things, to rule, to lord it over others. It is clearly supposed here, that the church would have complied with the request of the writer if it had not been for this man. What were the alleged grounds for the course which he constrained the church to take, we are not informed; the real ground, the apostle says, was his desire to rule. There may have been at the bottom of it some secret dislike of John, or some private grudge; but the alleged ground may have been, that the church was independent, and that it should reject all foreign interference; or that the church was unable to support those men; or that the work in which they were engaged was one of doubtful propriety.

Whatever was the cause, the case furnishes an illustration of the bad influence of one ambitious and arrogant man in a church. It is often in the power of one such man to bring a whole church under his control, and effectually to embarrass all its movements, and to prevent all the good which it would otherwise accomplish. When it is said, "but Diotrephes receiveth us not,"the reference is doubtless to John, and the meaning is, either that he did not acknowledge him as an apostle, or that he did not recognize his right to interfere in the affairs of the church, or that he did not regard his recommendation of these brethren. The first of these suppositions is hardly probable; but, though he may have admitted that he was an apostle, there were perhaps some reasons operating in this particular case why he prevailed on the church to reject those who had been thus commended to their hospitality.

Poole: 3Jo 1:9-10

Ver. 9,10. I wrote unto the church this was probably some church of which Gaius was.

Diotrephes one who had received or usurped some office or authority in it, to so ill a purpose, as when he had no inclination to be hospitable himself to fellow Christians, prevented others from being so; and upon pretence of the little differences of these Jewish from the Gentile Christians, excluded them their communion.

Haydock: 3Jo 1:9-10

Diotrephes....doth not receive us, nor those we recommend, but prattles and talks against me. We know no more of this man, nor of Demetrius, of whom St. John gives so favourable a character. (Witham) ---

It seemeth, saith Ven. Bede, that he was an arch heretic, or proud sect master ---

Greek: upomneso. I will rebuke them, and make them know to be wicked. (Ven. Bede)

Gill: 3Jo 1:9

I wrote unto the church,.... Where Gaius was a member: those who take Gaius to be the same with Paul's host, and whom he baptized at Corinth, think the church at Corinth is here meant; but it seems rather to be meant of some church in Asia nearer Ephesus; nor is it likely that John's first epistle should be here intended, which makes no mention of relieving the brethren, the ministers of the Gospel, that came from Judea: and that this epistle should not be preserved, need not seem strange; for it cannot be thought that everything that was written by him to particular persons, or churches, should be continued. The Alexandrian copy and one of Stephens's read, "I wrote something to the church"; upon this head, concerning receiving and supporting ministers of the Gospel, and so prevents an objection that Gaius might make, why did he not write to the church about it? The Vulgate Latin version reads, "I should", or "would have wrote": and the Syriac version, "I desired", or "wished to have wrote"; suggesting, that though he had not wrote, yet it was much upon his mind, he had a great desire to it:

but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them,

receiveth us not; which hindered him from writing, or was the reason why he wrote now to Gaius since Diotrephes gave no heed to what he had wrote, suppressed his letter, and would not suffer it to be read to the brethren. This Diotrephes, by his name, which signifies one "nourished", or "brought up by Jupiter", was a Gentile; there was one of this name, who was one of the kings of Athens ^a; and what may confirm this is, his slighting and rejecting the brethren that came from Judea: it is very likely he was more than a private member in the church, and that he was an officer, and it may be the pastor; and though there is a preeminence, which of right belongs to such an officer, as to preside over the church, to govern, guide, and direct, according to the laws of Christ, he being set over the church, as a ruler, governor, and guide; yet this may be carried too far, as it was by this man, who coveted more than was his due, and lorded it over God's heritage, ruled the flock with force and cruelty, and usurped a tyrannical power over them; whereas every thing in a church ought to be done, by pastor and people, in love, meekness, and with mutual consent. And it may be also, that he sought to have the preeminence over the rest of the elders of the church, for in those large churches there were oftentimes more elders and pastors than one; see Act 20:17. This ambitious spirit prevailed and obtained among the false teachers, who set up themselves at the head of parties, and above the apostles of Christ, and paved the way for antichrist, who assumed the title of universal bishop, which has introduced all the errors and impieties of the Romish church. Now this man such an ambitious, lordly, and governing spirit, received not the Apostle John, and those that were with him; meaning not their persons, for as yet he and they were not in person where he was; but his letter, his orders, and instructions; these he paid no regard to, concealed them from the church, and would not admit them to be read: or else the apostle's sense is, that he received not the brethren that came from him, and were recommended by him, and whom he affectionately loved, and who were near and dear to him as himself; and therefore not receiving them is interpreted by him as not receiving himself.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: 3Jo 1:9

¹ sn The church mentioned here, which the author says he may visit (3 John 10) is not the same as the one mentioned in 3 John 6, to which the author apparently belongs (or of which he is in charge). But what is the relationship of this church in v. 9 to Gaius, to whom the letter is addressed? It is sometimes suggested that Gaius belongs to this church, but that seems unlikely, because the author uses a third-person pronoun to refer to the other members of the church (among them). If Gaius were one of these it would have been much more natural to use a second-person pronoun: “Diotrephes, who loves to be first among you.” Thus it seems probable that Gaius belongs to (or is in charge of) one local church while Diotrephes is in another, a church known to Gaius but to which he does not belong.

² sn Diotrephes appears to be an influential person (perhaps the leader) in a local church known to Gaius, but to which Gaius himself does not belong. The description of Diotrephes as one who loves to be first suggests he is arrogant, and his behavior displays this: He refuses to acknowledge the written communication mentioned by the author at the beginning of v. 9 (and thus did not recognize the author’s apostolic authority), and furthermore (v. 10) refuses to show any hospitality to the traveling missionaries (welcome the brothers) already mentioned by the author. It has been suggested that the description “loves to be first” only indicates that Diotrephes sought prominence or position in this church, and had not yet attained any real authority. But his actions here suggest otherwise: He is able to refuse or ignore the author’s previous written instructions (v. 9), and he is able to have other people put out of the church for showing hospitality to the traveling missionaries (v. 10).

³ tn Since the verb ἐπιδέχομαι (epidecomai) can mean “receive into one’s presence” (BDAG 370 s.v. 1; it is used with this meaning in the next verse) it has been suggested that the author himself attempted a previous visit to Diotrephes’ church but was turned away. There is nothing in the context to suggest an unsuccessful prior visit by the author, however; in 3 John 9 he explicitly indicates a prior written communication which Diotrephes apparently ignored or suppressed. The verb ἐπιδέχομαι can also mean “accept” in the sense of “acknowledge someone’s authority” (BDAG 370 s.v. 2) and such a meaning better fits the context here: Diotrephes has not accepted but instead rejected the authority of the author to intervene in the situation of the traveling missionaries (perhaps because Diotrephes believed the author had no local jurisdiction in the matter).

Geneva Bible: 3Jo 1:9

^{( 2 )} I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.

^{( 2 )} Ambition and covetousness, two pestilent sins (especially in those who have any church responsibilities) are condemned in Diotrephes.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: 3 John

1 He commends Gaius for his piety,

5 and hospitality,

7 to true preachers;

9 complaining of the unkind dealing of ambitious Diotrephes on the contrary side;

11 whose evil example is not to be followed;

12 and gives special testimony to the good report of Demetrius.

MHCC: 3Jo 1:9-12

Both the heart and mouth must be watched. The temper and spirit of Diotrephes was full of pride and ambition. It is bad not to do good ourselves; but it is worse to hinder those who would do good. Those cautions and counsels are most likely to be accepted, which are seasoned with love. Follow that which is good, for he that doeth good, as delighting therein, is born of God. Evil-workers vainly pretend or boast acquaintance with God. Let us not follow that which is proud, selfish, and of bad design, though the example may be given by persons of rank and power; but let us be followers of God, and walk in love, after the example of our Lord.

Matthew Henry: 3Jo 1:9-11

I. Here is a very different example and character, an officer, a minister in the church, less generous, catholic, and communicative than the private Christians. Ministers may sometimes be out-shone, out-done. In reference to this minister, we see,

1. His name - a Gentile name: Diotrephes, attended with an unchristian spirit.

2. His temper and spirit - full of pride and ambition: He loves to have the pre-eminence. This ferment sprang and wrought betimes. It is an ill unbeseeming character of Christ's ministers to love pre-eminence, to affect presidency in the church of God.

3. His contempt of the apostle's authority, and letter, and friends. (1.) Of his authority: The deeds which he doeth contrary to our appointment, prating against us with malicious words. Strange that the contempt should run so high! But ambition will breed malice against those who oppose it. Malice and ill-will in the heart will be apt to vent themselves by the lips. The heart and mouth are both to be watched. (2.) Of his letter: " I wrote to the church (3Jo 1:9), namely, in recommendation of such and such brethren. But Diotrephes receiveth us not, admits not our letter and testimony therein."This seems to be the church of which Gaius was a member. A gospel church seems to be such a society as to which a letter may be written and communicated. Gospel churches may well expect and be allowed credentials with the strangers who desire to be admitted among them. The apostle seems to write by and with these brethren. To an ambitious aspiring spirit apostolical authority or epistle signifies but little. (3.) Of his friends, the brethren he recommended: Neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth those that would, and casteth them out of the church, 3Jo 1:10. There might be some differences or different customs between the Jewish and Gentile Christians. Pastors should seriously consider what differences are tolerable. The pastor is not at absolute liberty, nor lord over God's heritage. It is bad to do no good ourselves; but it is worse to hinder those who would. Church-power and church-censures are often abused. Many are cast out of the church who should be received there with satisfaction and welcome. But woe to those who cast out the brethren whom the Lord Christ will take into his own communion and kingdom!

4. The apostle's menace of this proud domineerer: Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth (3Jo 1:10), will remember to censure them. This seems to intimate apostolical authority. But the apostle seems not to hold an episcopal court, to which Diotrephes must be summoned; but he will come to take cognizance of this affair in the church to which it belongs. Acts of ecclesiastical domination and tyranny ought to be animadverted upon. May it be better agreed to whom that power belongs!

II. Here is counsel upon that different character, dissuasion from copying such a pattern, and indeed any evil at all: Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good, 3Jo 1:11. Imitate not such unchristian pernicious evil; but pursue the contrary good, in wisdom, purity, peace, and love. Caution and counsel are not needless to those who are good already. Those cautions and counsels are most likely to be accepted that are seasoned with love. Beloved, follow not that which is evil. To this caution and counsel a reason is respectively subjoined. 1. To the counsel: Follow that which is good; for he that doeth good (naturally and genuinely doeth good, as delighting therein) is of God, is born of God. The practice of goodness is the evidence of our filial happy relation to God. 2. To the caution: Follow not that which is evil, for he that doeth evil (with bent of mind pursues it) hath not seen God, is not duly sensible of his holy nature and will. Evil-workers vainly pretend or boast an acquaintance with God.

Barclay: 3Jo 1:9-14

Here we come to the reason why this letter was written and are introduced to two of the main characters in the story.

There is Diotrephes. In the introduction we have already seen the situation in which John and Diotrephes and Demetrius are all involved. In the early church there was a double ministry. There were the apostles and the prophets whose sphere was not confined to any one congregation and whose authority extended all over the church. There were also the elders; they were the permanent settled ministry of the local congregations and their very backbone.

In the early days this presented no problem, for the local congregations were still very much infants who had not yet learned to walk by themselves and to handle their own affairs. But as time went on there came a tension between the two kinds of ministry. As the local churches became stronger and more conscious of their identity, they inevitably became less and less willing to submit to remote control or to the invasion of itinerant strangers.

The problem is still to some extent with us. There is the itinerant evangelist who may well have a theology and work with methods and in an atmosphere very different from that of the settled local congregation. In the younger churches there is the question of how long the missionaries should remain in control and of when the time has come for them to withdraw and allow the indigenous churches to rule their own affairs.

In this letter Diotrephes is the representative of the local congregation. He will not accept the authority of John, the apostolic man and he will not receive the itinerant missionaries. He is so determined to see that the local congregation manages its own affairs that he will even eject those who are still prepared to accept the authority of John and to receive the wandering preachers. What exactly Diotrephes is we cannot tell. He certainly is not a bishop in anything like the modern sense of the word. He may be a very strong-minded elder. Or he may even be an aggressive member of the congregation who by the force of his personality is sweeping all before him. Certainly he emerges as a strong and dominant character.

Demetrius is most likely the leader of the wandering preachers and probably the actual bearer of this letter. John goes out of his way to give him a testimonial as to character and ability, and it may well be that there are certain circumstances attaching to him which give Diotrephes a handle for his opposition.

Demetrius is by no means an uncommon name. Attempts have been made to identify him with two New Testament characters. He has been identified with Demetrius, the silversmith of Ephesus and the leader of the opposition to Paul (Act 19:21.). It may be that he afterwards became a Christian and that his early opposition was still a black mark against him. He has been identified with Demas (a shortened form of Demetrius), who had once been one of Paul's fellow-labourers but who had forsaken him because he loved this present world (Col 4:14; Phm 1:24; 2Ti 4:10). It may be that Demas came back to the faith and that his desertion of Paul was always held against him.

Into this situation comes John, whose authority is being flouted; and Gaius, a kindly soul but probably not so strong a character as the aggressive Diotrephes, whom John is seeking to align with himself, for Gaius, left on his own, might well succumb to Diotrephes.

There is our situation. We may have a good deal of sympathy with Diotrephes; we may well think that he was taking a stand which sooner or later had to be taken. But for all his strength of character he had one fault--he was lacking in charity. As C. H. Dodd has put it: "There is no real religious experience which does not express itself in charity." That is why, for all his powers of leadership and for all his dominance of character, Diotrephes was not a real Christian, as John saw it. The true Christian leader must always remember that strength and gentleness must go together and that leading and loving must go hand in hand. Diotrephes was like so many leaders in the church. He may well have been right, but he took the wrong way to achieve his end, for no amount of strength of mind can take the place of love of heart.

What the issue of all this was we do not know. But John comes to the end in love. Soon he will come and talk, when his presence will do what no letter can ever do; and for the present he sends his greetings and his blessing. And we may well believe that the "Peace be to you" of the aged Elder indeed brought calm to the troubled church to which he wrote.

Constable: 2Jo 1:7--3Jo 1:10

B. Protecting the Truth vv. 7-11

Next John moved on to his second purpose. He wrote to encourage his readers to resist the false teachers who were distorting the truth and deceiving some of the believers.

"The presbyter's attention now moves from the existence of true belief inside the Johannine community, which gives him great joy (v 4), to the dangers presented to it through the espousal of false belief by deceivers who have defected into the world.' Earlier, the writer has spoken of Christian truth and love; in the remainder of 2 John the emphasis inevitably falls on the need for truth in contrast to error. But the two sections interlock. Departure from the truth results in a failure of love. Thus the dark description of heretical secession and its consequences (vv 7-11) forms the basis of John's warm appeal for love and unity (vv 4-6)."¹¹

v. 7 This verse gives the reason for the exhortation in verse 6 and links what follows with verses 4-6. Erroneous teaching had already begun to proliferate in the early church (e.g., Gnosticism, Docetism, Cerinthianism, etc.; cf. 1 John 2:18, 22-23, 27; 4:1-3). The common error was Christological. The false teachers regarded Jesus as something other than God's Anointed One who had come in the flesh (cf. 1 John 5:1). "Coming" in the flesh means having come and continuing in flesh. This is the true view of the Incarnation. Jesus was and continues to be fully God and fully man.

"The incarnation was more than a mere incident, and more than a temporary and partial connection between the Logos and human nature. It was the permanent guarantee of the possibility of fellowship, and the chief means by which it is brought about."¹²

This type of false teacher is a deceiver as well as opposed to Christ. John did not mean that such a person was the end-time Antichrist. The use of the definite article in Greek, translated "the," used with an unnamed individual as here, sometimes translates better with the English indefinite article "a" or "an." That understanding of this statement is preferable here in view of other Scriptures that indicate the end-time Antichrist has yet to appear (e.g., Dan. 11; 2 Thess. 2).

"The elder says that anybody who denies the truth is a very antichrist, just as we might speak of a supremely evil person as the very devil.'"¹³

v. 8 Compromise with the false teachers could lead to a loss of reward (cf. the warning passages in Hebrews).¹⁴ Moreover loss for John's readers would involve loss for him as well since he had a share in their lives. This loss would only be partial, however. They would still receive some reward (cf. 1 Cor. 3:11-15).¹⁵ Loss of salvation is not in view at all.

v. 9 The picture in John's mind seems to have been that of a Christian who, the false teachers said, did not have the whole truth. It is common even today for false teachers to claim that those who do not agree with them are still in an infantile intellectual condition. However, John regarded that "infantile" position as proper for the Christian. If his readers advanced beyond it, they would really step out of the truth into error. John warned his readers of the danger of apostasy, namely, forsaking truth to embrace error (cf. 1 John 2:23-24).

John's use of "abide" indicates that he spoke of a vital personal relationship with God that comes with adherence to the truth, not just dead doctrinal orthodoxy (cf. John 8:31; 14:21-23; 15:1-7).

vv. 10-11 In the culture of John's day philosophers and teachers relied on the people to whom they spoke for lodging and financial assistance (e.g., Acts 18:2-3; 21:7). John instructed his readers to refuse to help the false teachers in these ways. Beyond this they were not even to give verbal encouragement to these apostates (cf. Acts 15:23; 23:26; 1 Cor. 10:20; 1 Tim. 5:22; James 1:1; 1 Pet. 4:13).¹⁶ John did not advocate the persecution of heretics here, but he strongly counselled his readers to give them no aid or encouragement in their destructive ministry. I believe he would have approved his readers' efforts to correct the false teachers in private and to lead them into a true appreciation of the person and work of Christ. In dealing with such persons ourselves we must also relate to their ministry in one way and to themselves in another. We must not approve or encourage their work but must show concern for their personal relationship with Christ.¹⁷

"Admittedly great care should be exercised before applying such a radical withholding of hospitality from anyone. For the elder it was applied only to antichristians who were committed to destroying the faith of the community. The issue involved more than disagreements in interpretation or personal misunderstandings among members of the body of Christ. It was radical and clearly defined unbelief, and it involved active and aggressive promotion of perversions of truth and practice that struck at the heart of Christianity.

"The responsibility of parents may furnish an analogy. Parents must discriminate as to whom even among their relatives they entertain in their home. Some relatives might be of such questionable character as to menace the moral, spiritual, and physical welfare of the children. Such relatives must be excluded. Parents must balance their concern for their relatives with their responsibility for their children. Notice that John does not suggest that the elect lady and her children deal with the false teachers in hatred or retaliate against them. Instead, he counsels that the false teachers be kept at a distance lest their heresy destroy the young church."¹⁸

Constable: 3 John

C. Demetrius' Opportunity for Love v. 12

John urged Gaius to show hospitable love to Demetrius to give Gaius an opportunity to practice love and thereby reprove Diotrephes' lack of love. Demetrius may have carried this letter from John to Gaius,¹⁹ or he may have visited Gaius later.

John gave three recommendations (witnesses) of this brother's worth. He had a good reputation among all who knew him, his character and conduct were in harmony with the truth, and John personally knew him and vouched for him.

"Like Gaius, Demetrius is walking in the truth.' His life matches his confession. In Pauline terms, he manifests the fruit of the Spirit. In Johannine terms, he lives the life of love."²⁰

It will be interesting to get to heaven and see if this Demetrius is the same man who gave Paul so much trouble in Ephesus (Acts 19:24). Several commentators have concluded that he was.²¹ The odds are against this possibility since there were undoubtedly many men named Demetrius (lit. belonging to Demeter [the goddess of agriculture]) living in that area then. Furthermore Paul ministered in Ephesus in the early 50s whereas John probably wrote this epistle in the early 90s.

Constable: 3Jo 1:5--Jud 1:7

A. Gaius' Love vv. 5-8

John commended Gaius for his love of the brethren to encourage him to continue practicing this virtue.

v. 5 John loved Gaius as Gaius loved the brethren to whom he had extended hospitality.

"The early Christian community's deep interest in hospitality is inherited from both its Jewish roots and the Greco-Roman culture of its day."⁶

John's affection for Gaius is obvious in his repeated use of the word "beloved" (cf. v. 2). Gaius acted faithfully in the sense that his behavior was consistent with God's truth (cf. 2 John 1-2).

It is possible that Gaius had shown love "for the brethren and for strangers" as some Greek texts read. On the other hand, perhaps the NASB translation is correct: he showed love to the brethren and even to those brethren who were strangers to him. Probably Gaius had demonstrated love to all these varieties of people (cf. Heb. 13:2).

v. 6 The church in view was John's church, probably in Ephesus. "You will do well" is an idiom that we could translate "Please." John urged Gaius to continue his commendable treatment of visitors. He could do so during their stay with him and when they departed by sending them on their way with adequate provisions (cf. Acts 15:3; 20:38; 2:15; Rom. 15:24; 1 Cor. 16:6; Titus 3:13).

"The point is still relevant. Christian ministers and missionaries live in the faith that God will encourage his people to provide for their needs; it is better that such provision err on the side of generosity than stinginess."⁷

"Always and everywhere that man is to be highly esteemed in the Church, who combines firm convictions with a generous heart."⁸

v. 7 The brethren in view in this whole situation were traveling preachers. To go out in the name of Christ was a great honor because of that name.⁹

"This Name' is in essence the sum of the Christian Creed (comp. I Cor. xii. 3; Rom. x. 9)."¹⁰

Early Christian preachers normally received material support from other believers (cf. Acts 20:35; 1 Cor. 9:14; 1 Thess. 3:7-9) or they supported themselves. They did not solicit funds from unbelievers (cf. Matt. 10:8; 2 Cor. 12:14; 1 Thess. 2:9). "Gentiles" was a general term for unbelievers. Most of the Gentiles were pagans.

"There were numerous peripatetic streetpreachers from religious and philosophical cults who avariciously solicited funds from their audiences."¹¹

"Even in the present day, there is something unseemly in a preacher of the gospel soliciting funds from people to whom he offers God's free salvation."¹²

v. 8 Giving financial and hospitable aid makes the giver a partner with the receiver in his work (cf. 2 John 10-11). Since pagans did not support Christian preachers and teachers, the duty of Christians to support them was even greater. Note John's emphasis on the truth again. Preaching the gospel is proclaiming the truth.

Constable: 3Jo 1:9--Jud 1:10

B. Diotrephes' Lack of Love vv. 9-11

Gaius' good example stands out more clearly beside Diotrephes' bad example. Diotrephes is a rare name and means "nourished by Zeus."¹³ John brought Diotrephes into the picture to clarify the responsibility of Gaius and all other readers of this epistle and to give instructions concerning this erring brother.

v. 9 The letter to the church of which both Gaius and Diotrephes were a part is not extant. "Them" refers to the believers in that church. John exposed Diotrephes' motivation as pride. Diotrephes had persistently (present tense in Greek) put John down to exalt himself. John did not say or imply that Diotrephes held false doctrine. He only blamed his ambition.¹⁴

"The temptation to use a role in the Christian assembly as a means of self-gratification remains a real one that all servants of God need to resist."¹⁵

v. 10 John promised and warned that whenever he might visit that congregation he would point out Diotrephes' sinful behavior, assuming it continued. Specifically Diotrephes was charging John falsely to elevate himself. Worse than that he was not giving hospitality to visiting brethren, as Gaius was, perhaps because he perceived them as a threat to himself. Third, he intimidated others in the church and forced them to stop welcoming these men.

"Diotrephes was condemned not because he violated sound teaching regarding the person and nature of Jesus Christ but because his life' was a contradiction to the truth of the gospel."¹⁶

"The verb ekballei, in the present tense again (literally, he throws out'), need not imply formal excommunication from the Church, as this became known later. Cf. Matt 18:17; Luke 6:22; John 9:34-35; 1 Cor 5:2. On the other hand, it seems as if Diotrephes had already arrogated to himself the task of expulsion,' and was actually driving people out of the congregation (as he had refused to welcome the brothers) rather than merely desiring to do so . . ."¹⁷

Obviously Gaius did not bow to his wishes showing that he had strength of character and probably influence in the church. With this epistle John threw his support behind Gaius and against Diotrephes.

v. 11 John's encouragement doubtless strengthened Gaius' resolve to resist Diotrephes. "Of God" and "seen God" are terms John used in his first epistle (cf. 1 John 3:6, 10; 4:1-4, 6-7). God's children do good works because God is their Father and they share His nature (1 John 3:9). The person who does evil may be a Christian, but he is behaving like Satan when he does evil. John was not accusing Diotrephes of being unsaved but of behaving as if he were unsaved. One who knows God intimately (abides in Him) does not do evil (1 John 3:6).

"The expression he is of God' in this context does not mean he is a Christian.' Rather, it means, he is a godly person, or he is a man of God.' In this context it is a fellowship expression."¹⁸

College: 3 John

3 JOHN

¹ The elder, To my dear friend Gaius, whom I love in the truth.

² Dear friend, I pray that you may enjoy good health and that all may go well with you, even as your soul is getting along well. ³ It gave me great joy to have some brothers come and tell about your faithfulness to the truth and how you continue to walk in the truth. ⁴ I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth.

⁵ Dear friend, you are faithful in what you are doing for the brothers, even though they are strangers to you. ⁶ They have told the church about your love. You will do well to send them on their way in a manner worthy of God. ⁷ It was for the sake of the Name that they went out, receiving no help from the pagans. ⁸ We ought therefore to show hospitality to such men so that we may work together for the truth.

⁹ I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us. ¹⁰ So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us. Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.

¹¹ Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God. ¹² Demetrius is well spoken of by everyone ^- and even by the truth itself. We also speak well of him, and you know that our testimony is true.

¹³ I have much to write you, but I do not want to do so with pen and ink.

¹⁴ I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face.

Peace to you. The friends here send their greetings. Greet the friends there by name.

I. GREETING (1)

The shortest book in the New Testament is a very special, personal letter. Four major characters play roles in the book: John, Gaius, Diotrephes, and Demetrius. Although the names of "Jesus" and "Christ" do not appear in 3 John, the "Name" in verse 7 likely stands in substitution for the Lord Jesus.

v. 1 The elder,

One of the evidences that John did indeed write 3 John is the use of the same address as in 2 John 1, the elder (see earlier comments). The brevity of both 2 and 3 John argue for the possibility that the material only warranted the use of one papyrus sheet. He was being practical yet succinct with his messages.

To my dear friend Gaius, whom I love in the truth.

Friend is used four times in this letter (9 times in John's writings). It translates ajgaphtov" (agapçtos) in which we can see the word for love (agapç) and why some versions use "beloved." The NIV has chosen to interpret John's sentiment with the word dear .

Who is Gaius? The name was as common as John's in New Testament times. The Gaius addressed here should not be confused with others by the same name in Acts 19:29 (the riot at Ephesus); 20:4 (the collection for Jerusalem saints); Romans 16:23 (housed Paul in Corinth); or 1 Corinthians 1:14 (perhaps the same as the one in Romans whom Paul had immersed into Christ). It would be speculative to identify Gaius as anyone other than a prominent leader in the church who received a personal letter from his friend John.

II. GAIUS ADMONISHED (2-8)

A. WALKING IN THE TRUTH (2-4)

v. 2 Dear friend, I pray that you may enjoy good health and that all may go well with you, even as your soul is getting along well.

John demonstrates his concern for both the physical and spiritual health of Gaius by praying personally for his total wellbeing. This is not a prooftext for the health-wealth gospel. As J.W. Roberts points out, "In Timothy the verb [uJgiaivnein, hygiainein ] used here (be in health) always has a figurative sense of doctrine that is 'healthy' or 'sound'."

v. 3 It gave me great joy to have some brothers come and tell about your faithfulness to the truth and how you continue to walk in the truth.

In a similar manner as Paul discovered news from the churches (1 Cor 1:11; Phil 4:18), John has heard from other brothers regarding Gaius. Again, the NIV does not translate gaÉr ( gar , for) as a purposeful transition into verse 3. John has the same type of joy for Gaius as he had in 2 John for those who would remain faithful.

v. 4 I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth.

One would not expect to read of such great joy knowing what John writes about Diotrephes later in the same letter. He had heard about the faith of his children because they were walking in the truth . They were putting John's teaching into practice despite any of Satan's attacks. They had gone beyond hearing the truth to actually living it. "It was from truth, believed and obeyed by his children, that he derived his greatest joy." As James 1:24 teaches, "You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone." We would do well to learn the lesson that the need to nurture new Christians on to maturity is as important as bringing them to spiritual birth.

B. FAITHFUL IN WORKING TOGETHER (5-8)

1. Faithful Actions with Brothers (5-6)

v. 5 Dear friend, you are faithful in what you are doing for the brothers, even though they are strangers to you.

John praises his friend for having practiced the kind of hospitality to strangers described in Hebrews 13:2. It was meeting a need for unknown individuals who may never have a way to repay the favor. Some have commented that 3 John is not centered on "doctrine." Yet a proper understanding of the doctrine of Christian hospitality is vital to the life of the church! These brothers were likely traveling missionaries who preached the gospel. (These strangers might have informed John of Gaius' faith.) Jesus experienced hospitality on several occasions. Jesus also taught his disciples what to expect in their travels. Matthew 10:10 teaches that a true and genuine "worker is worthy of his keep." Just as those who are hospitable to false teachers share in their wickedness, so those who take care of Christian family members share in the truth.

v. 6 They have told the church about your love.

By Gaius' act of hospitality, he expressed the love of Christ. The strangers publicly acknowledged to their own congregation the love and care given to them. This is the only instance where John uses the term for church (ejkklhsiva, ekklçsia or "called out ones," see vv. 9 and 10). The act of giving can cause others to give. Paul provokes the Corinthians to give as the Macedonian churches had done sacrificially (2 Cor 8:1-7). We could learn to urge one another to love and good deeds (Heb 10:24).

You will do well to send them on their way in a manner worthy of God.

F.F. Bruce claims that the expression "you will do well" is idiomatic for either making a polite request "or expressing thanks in advance." One of the ways we can hear the "well done" from the Master is to support those who propagate the gospel. We will be doing what pleases God. In a manner worthy of God can mean "as if you were sending God himself on the journey"(see Matt 10:40). Christ's body has many members with many gifts. Some can serve as missionaries and others are "called out" to support the evangelists.

2. Proper Hospitality (7-8)

v. 7 It was for the sake of the Name that they went out, receiving no help from the pagans.

John explains why the strangers had gone out. They went out for Jesus' sake, in his Name . The apostles had been warned by the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem not to preach "in the name of Jesus" (Acts 5:40). The same verb is used for the false teachers as "they went out." The obvious difference is motive: one group went out in the name of the devil, the other, in the Name of the Creator and Lord of the Universe! The missionaries had gone out without the help from the pagans . It appears that one congregation or group of congregations had supported the missionaries so that they need not charge the pagans (or anyone else) for preaching.

v. 8 We ought therefore to show hospitality to such men so that we may work together for the truth.

These are the ones to welcome. Avoid false teachers who deny that Jesus came in the flesh, but show hospitality to the Lord's laborers! We ought to do so in order that or with the result that we will work together for the truth . Such giving comes out of gratitude and not out of a legalistic obligation. The Lord's work is mutually benefited by our selflessness. Moffatt reads, "allies for the Truth."

III. DIOTREPHES CONDEMNED (9-10)

v. 9 I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us.

While Gaius is a good example, Diotrephes is a bad example for church leadership. I wonder what John had written to the church that caused him to have nothing to do with him? Diotrephes exhibits an arrogance that enthroned himself as a "ruling elder" or at least a self-proclaimed leader. We do not know what position or function Diotrephes held in the local congregation. He may have been a teacher, an evangelist, or other leader. The missing letter from John to the church may have revealed who he was and what he did.

Who loves to be first is analyzed by Westcott to mean that ambition was his main fault and not necessarily any other false teaching. (The following verse shows what an evil root of self-love can produce.) He loved the wrong person first. Besides, Diotrephes had the audacity to reject an apostle of the Lord! John had learned from the Master himself, that to be first you have to be willing to be last. The greatest is the servant. We do not know if Diotrephes is later salvageable through additional efforts by John himself or others. We can speculate that since we have no other written confirmation to the contrary, Diotrephes' story ends in this letter.

v. 10 So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us.

Will Diotrephes continue to have nothing to do with John once they meet face to face? Gaius is reading an advanced warning that probably reached Diotrephes. It would have caught the attention of most people and prompted repentance.

Romans 1:29 and 1 Timothy 5:13 speak of "gossips." The classic definition of gossip has been the sharing of information about someone else when you are neither part of the problem nor part of the solution. The malicious gossiping described by John raises out of envy for apostolic authority and brazen defiance of the Lord. It is the type of tongue set on fire by hell itself (Jas 3:6). Literally, his "nonsense" will expose him for who he really is and Gaius need not concern himself with a direct challenge of Diotrephes.

Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers.

The undermining tactic used by Diotrephes is compounded with his blatant refusal to welcome the brothers . He has hospitality reversed. The ones he should welcome, he refuses. One can conclude that he welcomes the likes of false teachers with whom he shares common motives. He shares in their wicked deeds and finds fellowship (koinônia) with the deceivers.

He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.

As if refusing the brothers was not enough, Diotrephes keeps others from giving and excommunicates them! Envy is evidenced by his actions. This fleshly emotion operates from the philosophy "if I cannot have something, I will see that no one else can either." The Lord did not appoint this man to leadership in the church. He had no authority to put anyone out of the church (perhaps applying Paul's example in 1 Cor 5:5, but apart from divine revelation or inspiration). He is doing the exact opposite of what John has encouraged Gaius to do. Second John 9 applied to Diotrephes would categorize him along with the gentiles who are without hope and "without God in the world" (Eph 2:12). Jesus prophesied that we would know people by their fruit, good or bad (Matt 7:16, 20) - this leads us into the next verse.

IV. DEMETRIUS COMMENDED (11-12)

v. 11 Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good.

Gaius is addressed personally to regain his attention for instruction. John has described what is evil , now he will define what is good . Do not mimic (mhÉ mimou', mç mimou - do not imitate ) the evil, but do imitate the good. The apostle may not have intended to limit the example of evil to Diotrephes and the good to Demetrius. The reader naturally draws that conclusion from the context simply because the contrasts are immediately obvious.

Anyone who does what is good is from God.

The lifestyle of doing good or right is from God (or of God: 1 John 3:10; 4:4, 6; 5:19). Anyone doing good (oJ ajgaqopoiw'n, ho agathopoiôn) means a life full of the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3) and recognizable by the fruit (Gal 5:22, 23). If you want to know how to discern a person's motives, observe his or her fruit.

Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God.

John 14:9, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" and 1 John 3:6, "No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him." Anyone who does what is evil is outside of the fellowship. Evil-doers are experiencing the effects of "excommunication" without being excommunicated! Neither will they see God in the future should they continue to sin without repentance and restoration.

v. 12 Demetrius is well spoken of by everyone ^- and even by the truth itself. We also speak well of him,

Who is Demetrius? Some have speculated that he was Demas named in Colossians 4:14; Philemon 24 and 2 Timothy 4:10. Although it is not defensible to identify this Demetrius with the one in Acts 19:21, Luke records the incident (in Ephesus) of a Demetrius who opposed Paul. Could the Demetrius in Acts 19 have become a Christian by the time John wrote 3 John? Since the name is as common perhaps as either John or Gaius, this Demetrius probably is a unique individual possibly a leader among the missionaries. Roberts suggests that he may have been the courier for this letter. John used three witnesses in 1 John 5:7-8 and repeats the pattern here by giving testimony to the character of Demetrius. He is:

1) Well spoken by everyone - possibly by Christians and outsiders alike

2) Even by the truth itself - by the facts or by the Lord himself (John 14:6)

3) We speak well of him - John and those in Ephesus who knew him.

and you know that our testimony is true.

The last part of verse 12 should be associated directly with the testimony of John and those with him. They knew John personally and could take his word and that of the sister church for Demetrius.

V. DESIRE TO SPEAK IN PERSON (13-14)

v. 13 I have much to write you, but I do not want to do so with pen and ink.

Verse 13 parallels 2 John 12. There is only a slight variation, with the one letter being directed to a congregation, the latter, to an individual. Here John uses pen and ink - mevlano" kaiÉ kalavmou ( melanos kai kalamou ) while he uses "paper and ink" - cavrtou kaiÉ mevlano" ( chartou kai melanos ). This similarity between the epistles argues for John's authorship. He could have written much more than would fit onto one sheet of papyrus! His not wanting to write is not a sign of laziness but rather a testament to his personal concern to communicate in person.

v. 14 I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face.

John's hope is to actually see Gaius face to face (literally mouth to mouth - stovma proÉ" stovma, stoma pros stoma ). Soon (eujqevw", eutheôs) is elsewhere translated "immediately" 32 times in the New Testament (80 times all together with similar connotations). If the crisis caused by Diotrephes is as critical as indicated above, a personal visit is warranted very soon to set things in order.

Peace to you. The friends here send their greetings. Greet the friends there by name.

Shalom! The common Hebrew greeting had been adopted by many early Christians since many of the first converts came directly out of Judaism. Peace (eijrhvnh, eirçnç) was promised to his followers by Jesus. (See John 14:27; 16:33; 20:19, 21, 26; 1 Pet 5:14.) Diotrephes had been offering the opposite to the church. Christians experience a mutual peace with God (Rom 5:1) and are commanded to "make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification" (Rom 14:19).

The friends here are from John's congregation (especially if 2 and 3 John were written at the same time). It speaks well of their fellowship and common cause to be named as friends, a tie that indeed binds Christians together. Individuals are important to John and to God (John 10:3; Rev 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; 21:27). John is saying, "Do not miss anyone in sending our greetings" - Greet the friends there by name !

QUESTIONS ON THIRD JOHN

Consider These as You Read 3 John

1. Why did John write to Gaius?

2. Is there any gnostic influence here as in 1 and 2 John?

3. What part does Diotrephes play in the problem?

4. Why is Demetrius mentioned?

Questions for Review of 3 John

1. What significance do you attach to John's repeated referral to Gaius as "friend?"

2. What position did Gaius probably hold in his home congregation?

3. What is the problem about which John writes Gaius (vv. 10,11)?

4. Contrast the personality of Gaius with that of Diotrephes.

5. What treatment does John ask of Gaius for the visiting ministers?

6. What is the significance of the term "send them on their way?"

7. Why on a mission field might it be wise not to take money from those to whom the gospel is preached?

8. What is the reward promised by John to those who support the preachers of the gospel?

9. What wrong had Diotrephes done?

10. What damage is possible to the church when an elder accuses a minister "by gossiping maliciously?"

11. How do genuine Christians often imitate evil men such as Diotrephes?

12. What are two possible identifications for Demetrius?

13. What three witnesses to the genuineness of Demetrius does John name?

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

Commentary -- Other

Evidence: 3Jo 1:9

Loving to have preeminence is not a fruit of godliness. Those who want it will manifest their unregenerate hearts with malicious words. They will divide the Body of Christ for their own ends, as did Diotrephes.

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: 3 John (Book Introduction)

THIRD JOHN

ABOUT a.d. 85 TO 90

By Way of Introduction

Certainly 3 John is addressed to an individual, not to a church, though which Gaius we do not know. There are three friends of Paul with this name; Gaius of Corinth (1Co_1:14), Gaius of Macedonia (Act_19:29), Gaius of Derbe (Act_20:4), but it is unlikely that this Gaius of Pergamum (Findlay would call him) is either of these, though the Apostolical Constitutions does identify him with Gaius of Derbe. It is possible that in 3Jo_1:9 there is an allusion to 2 John and, if so, then both letters went to individuals in the same church (one a loyal woman, the other a loyal man). Three persons are sharply sketched in 3 John (Gaius, Diotrephes, Demetrius). Gaius is the dependable layman in the church, Diotrephes the dominating official, Demetrius the kindly messenger from Ephesus with the letter, a vivid picture of early church life and missionary work. John is at Ephesus, the last of the apostles, and with an eagle’s eye surveys the work in Asia Minor. The same Gnostic deceivers are at work as in the other Johannine Epistles. Pergamum is described in Rev_2:13 as the place " where Satan’s throne is."

JFB: 3 John (Book Introduction)

AUTHENTICITY.--That these two Epistles were written by the same author appears from their similarity of tone, style, and sentiments. That John, the beloved disciple, was the author of the Second and Third Epistles, as of the First Epistle, appears from IRENÆUS [Against Heresies, 1.16.3], who quotes 2Jo 1:10-11; and in [3.16.8], he quotes 2Jo 1:7, mistaking it, however, as if occurring in First John. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (A.D. 192) [Miscellanies, 2.66], implies his knowledge of other Epistles of John besides the First Epistle; and in fragments of his Adumbrations [p. 1011], he says, "John's Second Epistle which was written to the virgins (Greek, "parthenous"; perhaps Parthos is what was meant) is the simplest; but it was written to a certain Babylonian named the Elect lady." DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA (in EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 7.25]) observes that John never names himself in his Epistles, "not even in the Second and Third Epistles, although they are short Epistles, but simply calls himself the presbyter, a confutation of those who think John the apostle distinct from John the presbyter. ALEXANDER OF ALEXANDRIA cites 2Jo 1:10-11, as John's [SOCRATES, Ecclesiastical History, 1.6]. CYPRIAN [Concerning the Baptism of Heretics], in referring to the bishops at the Council of Carthage, says, "John the apostle, in His Epistle, has said, if any come to you" (2Jo 1:10); so that this Epistle, and therefore its twin sister, Third John, was recognized as apostolic in the North African Church. The MURATORI fragment is ambiguous. The Second and Third Epistles were not in the Peschito or old Syriac version; and COSMAS INDICOPLEUSTES in the sixth century says that in his time the Syriac Church only acknowledged three of the Catholic Epistles, First Peter, First John, and James. But EPHREM THE SYRIAN quotes the Second Epistle of John. EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History,] reckons both Epistles among the Antilegomena or controverted Scriptures, as distinguished from the Homologoumena or universally acknowledged from the first. Still his own opinion was that the two minor Epistles were genuine, remarking, as he does in Demonstration of the Gospel [3.5], that in John's "Epistles" he does not mention his own name, nor call himself an apostle or evangelist, but an "elder" (2Jo 1:1; 3Jo 1:1). ORIGEN (in EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 6.25]) mentions the Second and Third Epistles, but adds, "not all admit (implying that most authorities do) their genuineness." JEROME [On Illustrious Men, 9] mentions the two latter Epistles as attributed to John the presbyter, whose sepulcher was shown among the Ephesians in his day. But the designation "elder" was used of the apostles by others (for example, PAPIAS, in EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 3.39]), and is used by Peter, an apostle, of himself (1Pe 5:1). Why, then, should not John also use this designation of himself, in consonance with the humility which leads him not to name himself or his apostleship even in the First Epistle? The Antilegomena were generally recognized as canonical soon after the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325). Thus CYRIL OF JERUSALEM, A.D. 349, enumerates fourteen Epistles of Paul, and seven Catholic Epistles. So GREGORY NAZIANZEN, in A.D. 389. The Councils of Hippo, 393, and Carthage, 397, adopted a catalogue of New Testament books exactly agreeing with our canon. So our oldest extant Greek manuscripts. The Second and Third Epistles of John, from their brevity (which ORIGEN notices), and the private nature of their contents, were less generally read in the earliest Christian assemblies and were also less quoted by the Fathers; hence arose their non-universal recognition at the first. Their private nature makes them the less likely to be spurious, for there seems no purpose in their forgery. The style and coloring too accord with the style of the First Epistle.

TO WHOM ADDRESSED.--The Third Epistle is directed to Gaius or Caius; whether Gaius of Macedonia (Act 19:20), or Gaius of Corinth (Rom 16:23; 1Co 1:14), or Gaius of Derbe (Act 20:4), it is hard to decide. MILL believes Gaius, bishop of Pergamos [Apostolic Constitutions, 7.40], to be the person addressed in 3Jo 1:1.

The address of the Second Epistle is more disputed. It opens, "The elder unto the Elect lady" (2Jo 1:1). And it closes, "The children of thy elect sister greet thee" (2Jo 1:13). Now, 1Pe 1:1-2, addresses the elect in Asia, &c., and closes (1Pe 5:13), "The Church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you." Putting together these facts, with the quotations (above) from CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, and the fact that the word "Church" comes from a Greek word (kyriake) cognate to the Greek for "lady" (kyria; "belonging to the Lord," kyrios); WORDSWORTH'S view is probable. As Peter in Babylon had sent the salutations of the elect Church in the then Parthian (see above on CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA) Babylon to her elect sister in Asia, so John, the metropolitan president of the elect Church in Asia, writes to the elect lady, that is, Church, in Babylon. NEANDER, ALFORD, and others, think the Greek "kyria" not to mean "lady," but to be her proper name; and that she had a "sister, a Christian matron," then with John.

DATE AND PLACE OF WRITING.--EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 3.25] relates that John, after the death of Domitian, returned from his exile in Patmos to Ephesus, and went on missionary tours into the heathen regions around, and also made visitations of the churches around, and ordained bishops and clergy. Such journeys are mentioned, 2Jo 1:12; 3Jo 1:10, 3Jo 1:14. If EUSEBIUS be right, both Epistles must have been written after the Apocalypse, in his old age, which harmonizes with the tone of the Epistles, and in or near Ephesus. It was on one of his visitation tours that he designed to rebuke Diotrephes (3Jo 1:9-10).

TSK: 3 John 1 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

3Jo 1:1, He commends Gaius for his piety, 3Jo 1:5, and hospitality, 3Jo 1:7, to true preachers; 3Jo 1:9, complaining of the unkind dealing of ambitious Diotrephes on the contrary side; 3Jo 1:11, whose evil example is not to be followed; 3Jo 1:12, and gives special testimony to the good report of Demetrius.

Poole: 3 John 1 (Chapter Introduction)

JOHN CHAPTER 1

MHCC: 3 John (Book Introduction)

This epistle is addressed to a converted Gentile. The scope is to commend his stedfastness in the faith, and his hospitality, especially to the ministers of Christ.

The apostle commends Gaius for piety and hospitality. (2Jo 1:1-8) Cautions him against siding with Diotrephes, who was a turbulent spirit; but recommends Demetrius as a man of excellent character. (2Jo 1:9-12) He hopes soon to see Gaius. (2Jo 1:13, 2Jo 1:1:14)

Matthew Henry: 3 John (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Third Epistle of John

Christian communion is exerted and cherished by letter. Christians are to be commended in the practical proof of their professed subjection to the gospel of Christ. The animating and countenancing of generous and public-spirited persons is doing good to many - to this end the apostle sends this encouraging epistle to his friend Gaius, in which also he complains of the quite opposite spirit and practice of a certain minister, and confirms the good report concerning another more worthy to be imitated.

Matthew Henry: 3 John 1 (Chapter Introduction)

In this epistle the apostle congratulates Gaius upon the prosperity of his soul (3Jo 1:1, 3Jo 1:2), upon the fame he had among good Christians (3Jo 1:3, 3Jo 1:4), and upon his charity and hospitality to the servants of Christ (3Jo 1:5, 3Jo 1:6). He complains of contemptuous treatment by an ambitious Diotrephes (3Jo 1:9, 3Jo 1:10), recommends Demetrius (3Jo 1:12), and expresses his hope of visiting Gaius shortly (3Jo 1:13, 3Jo 1:14).

Barclay: 3 John (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND AND THIRD LETTERS OF JOHN

The very shortness of these two letters is the best guarantee of their genuineness. They are so brief and so comparatively unimportant that no one would have gone to the trouble of inventing them and of attaching them to the name of John. A standard papyrus sheet measured ten by eight inches and the length of these letters is to be explained by the fact that they would each take up almost exactly one sheet.

The Elder

Each of them is said to come from "The elder." Second John begins: "The elder to the elect lady and her children." Third John begins: "The elder to the beloved Gaius." It is in the last degree unlikely that The elder is an official or ecclesiastical title. Elders were officials attached to one congregation whose jurisdiction did not extend outside that congregation, whereas the writer of these letters certainly assumes that he has the right to speak and that his word will carry weight in congregations where he is not actually present. He speaks as one whose authority goes out to the Church at large. The word is presbuteros (G4245), which originally meant an elder, not in the official but in the natural sense of the term. We would be better to translate it "The ancient", or "The aged", for it is not from an ecclesiastical position but from his age and personal qualities that the writer of these letters draws his authority.

In fact we know that in Ephesus there was an aged John who held a very special position. In the days of the early church there was a churchman called Papias who lived from A.D. 70 to 146. He had a passion for collecting all the information he could lay hands on about the early days of the church. He was not a great scholar, Eusebius dismisses him as "a man of very limited intelligence"; but he does transmit to us some most interesting information. He became Bishop of Hierapolis but he had a close connection with Ephesus, and he tells us of his own methods of acquiring information. He frequently uses elder in the sense of one of the fathers of the Church, and he mentions a particularly distinguished elder whose name was John. "I shall not hesitate," he writes, "to put down for you, along with my own interpretations, whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders, and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth; not in those who relate strange commandments, but in those who deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and springing from the truth itself. If, then, anyone came who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders--what Andrew, or what Peter, had said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord; and what things Aristion, or the Elder John say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice." Clearly the Elder John, John the aged, was a notable figure in Ephesus, although he is clearly distinguished from John the apostle.

It must be this John who wrote these two little letters. By this time he was an old man, one of the last surviving links with Jesus and his disciples. He was a man who had the authority of a bishop in Ephesus and in the places around it; and when he saw that a church was threatened with trouble and heresy, he wrote with gracious and loving correction to his people. Here are the letters of an aged saint, one of the last of the first generation of Christians, a man whom all loved and respected.

Common Authorship

That the two letters are from the one hand there is no doubt. Short as they are, they have much in common. Second John begins: "The elder to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth." Third John begins: "The elder to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth." Second John goes on: "I rejoiced greatly to find some of your children following the truth" (2Jo_1:4 ); and Third John goes on: "No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth." Second John comes to an end: "Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete" (2Jo_1:12 ). Third John comes to an end: "I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink; I hope to see you soon, and we will talk together face to face" (3Jo_1:13-14 ). There is the closest possible similarity between the two letters.

There is further the closest possible connection between the situation of these letters and that in First John. In 1Jo_4:3 we read: "Every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of Antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already." In 2Jo_1:7 we read: "Many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is a deceiver and the Antichrist."

It is clear that Second and Third John are closely connected with each other; and that both are closely connected with First John. They are dealing with the same situation, the same dangers and the same people.

The Problem Of The Second Letter

These two little letters confront us with few serious problems. The only real one is to decide whether the Second Letter was sent to an individual or to a church. It begins: "The elder to the elect lady and her children." The problem centres on this phrase the elect lady. The Greek is eklekte (G1588) kuria (G2959) and there are three possible ways of taking it.

(i) It is just barely possible, though not really likely, that Eklekte is a proper name and that kuria (G2959) is a quite usual affectionate address. Kurios (G2962) (the masculine form) has many meanings. It very commonly means sir; it means master of slaves and owner of possessions; on a much higher level it means lord and is the word so often used as a title for Jesus. In letters kurios (G2962) has a special use. It is practically the equivalent of the English phrase My Dear. So a soldier writes home saying, Kurie (G2962) mou (G3450) pater (G3962), My Dear Father. In letters kurios is an address combining affection and respect. So it is just possible that this letter is addressed to My Dear Eklekte. Rendel Harris, indeed, went the length of saying that Second John is nothing other than a Christian love letter. This is unlikely, as we shall see, for more than one reason. But one thing is decisive against it. Second John ends: "The children of your elect sister greet you." The Greek is again eklekte (G1588); and, if it is a proper name at the beginning of the letter, it must also be a proper name at the end. This would mean that there were two sisters both called by the very unusual name of Eklekte--which is simply unbelievable.

(ii) It is possible to take Kuria (G2959) as a proper name, for there are examples of this usage. We would then take eklekte (G1588) in its normal New Testament sense; and the letter would be written to the elect Kuria (G2959). The objections are threefold. (a) It seems unlikely that any single individual could be spoken of as loved by all those who have known the truth (2Jo_1:1 ). (b) 2Jo_1:4 says that John rejoiced when he found some of her children walking in the truth; the implication is that others did not so walk. This would seem to imply a number greater than one womanfamily could contain. (c) The decisive objection is that throughout the letter the eklekte (G1588) kuria (G2959) is addressed sometimes in the singular and sometimes in the plural. The singular occurs in verses 2Jo_1:4-5 and 2Jo_1:13 ; and the plural occurs in 2Jo_1:6 ,2Jo_1:8 ,2Jo_1:10 ,2Jo_1:12 . It would be almost impossible that an individual would be so addressed.

(iii) So, then, we must come to the conclusion that the elect lady means a church. There is, in fact, good evidence that the expression was so used. First Peter, in the King James Version, ends with greetings from "the church that is at Babylon elected together with you" (1Pe_5:13 ). In the King James Version the words church that is are in italics; that, of course, means that they are not in the Greek and have been supplied in translation to fill out the sense. The Greek literally reads: "The Elect One at Babylon" and The Elect One is feminine. Few have ever doubted that the phrase means The church which is at Babylon, and that is how we must take it in Johnletter also. No doubt The Elect Lady goes back to the idea of the church as the Bride of Christ. We can be certain that Second John is written, not to an individual but to a church.

The Problem In The Early Church

Second and Third John throw vivid light on a problem which sooner or later had to arise within the organization of the early church. Let us see if we can reconstruct the situation which lies behind them. It is clear that John the aged regards himself as having a right to act as guide and counsellor and to administer warning and rebuke in the churches whose members are his children. In Second John he writes of those who are doing well (2Jo_1:4 ), and by implication infers that there are others who are not so satisfactory. He further makes it clear that there are itinerant teachers in the district, some of whom are preaching false and dangerous doctrine, and he gives orders that such teachers are not to be accepted and not to be given hospitality (2Jo_1:7-11 ). Here, then, John is exercising what is to him an unquestioned right to issue orders to his churches and is seeking to guard against a situation in which itinerant teachers of falsehood may arrive at any moment.

The situation behind Third John is somewhat more complicated. The letter is written to one called Gaius, whose character and actions John most thoroughly approves (3Jo_1:3-5 ). Wandering missionaries have come to the church, men who are fellow-helpers of the truth, and Gaius has given them true Christian hospitality (3Jo_1:6-8 ). In the same church is another man called Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence (3Jo_1:9 ). Diotrephes is depicted as a dictatorial character who will brook no rival to his authority. Diotrephes has refused to receive the wandering teachers of the truth and has actually tried to drive out of the church those who did receive them. He will have nothing to do with wandering teachers even when they are true preachers of the word (3Jo_1:10 ).Then into the picture comes a man called Demetrius, to whom John gives a personal testimonial as a good man and one to be hospitably welcomed (3Jo_1:12 ). The simplest explanation of Demetrius is that he must be the leader of a wandering band of teachers who are on their way to the church to which John is writing. Diotrephes will certainly refuse to have anything to do with them and will try to eject those who do receive them; and John is writing to urge Gaius to receive the wandering teachers and not to be intimidated by the domineering Diotrephes, whom he (John) will deal with when he visits the church in question (3Jo_1:10 ). The whole situation turns on the reception of the wandering teachers. Gaius has received such teachers before, and John urges him to receive them and their leader Demetrius again. Diotrephes has shut the door on them and defied the authority of John the aged.

The Threefold Ministry

All this looks like a very unhappy situation, and indeed it was. None the less, it was one which was bound to arise. In the nature of things a problem of ministry was bound to emerge within the church. In its earliest days the church had three different kinds of ministries.

(i) Unique, and above all others, stood the apostles, those who had companied with Jesus and been witnesses of the resurrection. They were the undisputed leaders of the church. Their writ ran throughout the whole church; in any country and in any congregation their ministry was supreme.

(ii) There were the prophets. They were not attached to any one congregation. They were wandering preachers, going where the Spirit moved them and giving to men the message which the Spirit of God gave to them. They had given up home and occupation and the comfort and security of settled life to be the wandering messengers of God. They, too, had a very special place in the church. The Didache, or, to give it its English name, The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, is the earliest book of church order. In it the unique position of the prophets is made clear. The order of service for the Eucharist is laid down and the prayers are given; the service ends with the prayer of thanksgiving which is given in full; and then comes the sentence: "But suffer the prophets to give thanks as much as they will" (Didache 10:7). The prophets were not to be brought under the rules and regulations which governed ordinary people. So, then, the church had two sets of people whose authority was not confined to any one congregation and who had right of entry to every congregation.

(iii) There were the elders. During their first missionary journey part of the work of Paul and Barnabas was to ordain elders in all the local churches which they founded (Act_14:23 ). The elders were the officials of the settled community; their work was within their congregation and they did not move outside it. It is clear that they were the backbone of the organization of the early church; on them the routine work and the solidity of the individual congregations depended.

The Problem Of The Wandering Preachers

The position of the apostles presented no real problem; they were unique and their position could never really be disputed. But the wandering prophets did present a problem. Their position was one which was singularly liable to abuse. They had an enormous prestige; and it was possible for the most undesirable characters to enter into a way of life in which they moved from place to place, living in very considerable comfort at the expense of the local congregations. A clever rogue could make a very comfortable living as an itinerant prophet. Even the pagan satirists saw this. Lucian, the Greek writer, in his work called the Peregrinus, draws the picture of a man who had found the easiest possible way of making a living without working. He was an itinerant charlatan who lived on the fat of the land by travelling round the various communities of the Christians, settling down wherever he liked and living luxuriously at their expense. The Didache clearly saw this danger and laid down definite regulations to meet it. The regulations are long but so vivid a light do they throw on the life of the early church that they are worth quoting in full (Didache 11 and 12).

Whosoever, therefore, shall come and teach you all these things

aforesaid, receive him. But if the teacher himself turn and teach

another doctrine to pervert, hear him not. But unto the increase

of righteousness and knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the

Lord. And as touching the apostles and prophets, according to the

decree of the gospel, so do ye. But let every apostle that cometh

unto you be received as the Lord. And he shall stay one day, and,

if need be, the next also, but, if he stay three, he is a false

prophet. And, when the apostle goeth forth, let him take nothing

save bread, till he reach his lodging, but, if he ask money, he is

a false prophet. And every prophet that speaketh in the Spirit ye

shall not try nor judge: for every sin shall be forgiven, but this

sin shall not be forgiven. But not everyone that speaketh in the

Spirit is a prophet, but if he has the manners of the Lord. By

their manners, therefore, shall the prophet and the false prophet

be known. And no prophet who ordereth a table in the Spirit shall

eat of it, else he is a false prophet. And every prophet that

teacheth the truth, if he doeth not what he teacheth, is a false

prophet.... Whosoever shall say in the Spirit: Give me money, or

any other thing, ye shall not hearken to him: but, if he bid you

give for others who are in need, let no man judge him.

Let everyone that cometh in the name of the Lord be received,

and then, when ye have proved him, ye shall know, for ye shall

have understanding to distinguish between the right hand and the

left. If he that cometh is a passer-by, succour him as far as ye

can; but he shall not stay with you longer than two or three days,

unless there be necessity. But, if he be minded to settle among

you, and be a craftsman, let him work and eat. But, if he hath no

trade, according to your understanding, provide that he shall not

live idle among you, being a Christian. But, if he will not do

this, he is a Christmonger: of such men beware.

The Didache even invents the word Christmonger, trafficker in Christ, Christemporos, to describe this kind of person.

John was entirely justified in warning his people that the wrong kind of wandering prophets might come claiming hospitality and in saying that they must on no account be received. There is no doubt that in the early church these wandering prophets became a problem. Some of them were heretical teachers, even if they were sincerely convinced of their own teaching. Some were nothing better than plausible rogues who had found an easy way to make a comfortable living. That is the picture which lies behind Second John.

The Clash Of Ministries

But the situation behind Third John is in some ways even more serious. The problem figure is Diotrephes. He is the man who will have nothing to do with wandering teachers and who seeks to eject anyone who dares to give them a welcome. He is the man who will not accept the authority of John and whom John brands as a domineering character. There is much more behind this than meets the eye. This was no storm in a tea-cup; it was a fundamental cleavage between the local and the itinerant ministry.

Obviously the whole structure of the church depended on a strong settled ministry. That is to say, its very existence depended on a strong and authoritative eldership. As time went on the settled ministry was bound to chafe under the remote control of even one so famous as John the aged; and to resent the possibly upsetting invasions of wandering prophets and evangelists. It was by no means impossible that, however well-intentioned they were, these itinerants could do far more harm than good.

Here is the situation behind Third John. John represents the old apostolic remote control; Demetrius and his band of missionaries represent the wandering prophets and preachers; Diotrephes represents the settled ministry of the local elders, who wish to run their own congregation and regard the wandering preachers as dangerous intruders; Gaius represents the good, well-meaning man who is torn in two and cannot make up his mind.

What happened in this case, we do not know. But the end of the matter in the church was that the wandering preachers faded from the scene and the apostles in the nature of things passed from this earth, and the settled ministry became the ministry of the church. In a sense even in the modern church the problem of the itinerant evangelist and the settled ministry is not fully solved; but these two little letters are of the most fascinating interest because they show the organization of the church in a transition stage, when the clash between the itinerant and the settled ministry was beginning to emerge and--who knows?--Diotrephes may not have been as bad as he is painted nor altogether wrong.

FURTHER READING

John

J. N. S. Alexander, The Epistles of John (Tch; E)

A. E. Brooke, The Johannine Epistles (ICC; G)

C. H. Dodd, The Johannine Epistles (MC; E)

Abbreviations

ICC: International Critical Commentary

MC: Moffatt Commentary

Tch: Torch Commentary

E: English Text

G: Greek Text

Barclay: 3 John 1 (Chapter Introduction)

The Teacher's Joy (3Jo_1:1-4)

Christian Hospitality (3Jo_1:5-8)

The Christian Adventurers (3Jo_1:5-8 Continued)

Love's Appeal (3Jo_1:9-15)

Constable: 3 John (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Historical background

Third John is probably the most personal letter in the New Testament. Most of the epistles originally went, of course, to churches or groups of Christians. First and 2 John are both of this type. The Pastoral Epistles, while sent to specific individuals, namely, Timothy and Titus, were obviously written with a wide circulation in mind as well. Philemon, too, gives evidence that Paul intended its recipient to share it with the church that met in his house. Third John also has universal value, and the early Christians recognized that it would benefit the whole Christian church. However the content of this letter is very personal.

". . . 3 John shows independence from epistolary conventions found elsewhere in the NT (including 2 John), and conforms most closely to the secular pattern of letter-writing in the first century A.D. . . . In 3 John this includes a greeting with a health-wish; and expression of joy at news of the addressee's welfare; the body of the letter, containing the promise of another epistle; and, at the close, greetings to and from mutual friends (cf. the papyri)."¹

The author was evidently the Apostle John who identified himself as "the elder" here (v. 1) as he did in 2 John. The striking similarity in content, style, and terminology in these two epistles confirms the ancient tradition that John wrote both of them.

Since there is no internal evidence concerning where Gaius lived most interpreters have placed him in the Roman province of Asia, the most probable destination of 1 and 2 John. His name was a common one in the Greek world.

The process of establishing a date for the writing of 3 John has been deductive as well. Probably John wrote this epistle about the same time he wrote 1 and 2 John, A.D. 90-95, and from Ephesus.

Message²

Third John and 2 John deal with two sides of the same issue, namely the relationship of the truth and Christian love. In 2 John the writer stressed the importance of the truth. In 3 John he stressed the importance of love. Second John is more general in that it deals with ideas. Third John is more personal and deals with specific cases.

I would summarize the message of this epistle as follows. Brotherly love is the product of abiding in the truth. Let me explain.

John gave two concrete examples to clarify how Christian love that is the product of abiding in the truth (walking in the light) behaves.

The first example is positive and involves Gaius' commendable behavior. Gaius put the needs of others before his own needs and desires. This is how Christian love should behave. It is how Jesus Christ behaved, and it is how He instructed us to behave (Phil. 2:7).

Gaius provided hospitality and financial support for the gospel preachers who visited his town (v. 5).

John approved this practice for three reasons.

1. Such behavior is worthy of God (v. 6). That is, it is in harmony with God's behavior. God provides for those who put His interests before their own (Matt. 6:33).

2. Such behavior is necessary because these men would not get help from unbelievers (v. 7). We should not expect the unsaved to support God's work. If they don't believe the gospel, why would they want to support its propagation?

3. Such behavior makes the supporter a partner with the preacher (v. 8). We really have a share in the work that others do by supporting them materially.

The second example is negative and involves Diotrephes' contemptible behavior. Diotrephes put his personal desires and needs before the needs of others. This is how Christian love should not behave.

The root problem with Diotrephes' behavior was pride, self-centeredness (v. 9). This is the opposite of how Jesus Christ behaved and how He taught us to act.

The fruit product of this attitude was three-fold (v. 10).

1. His words were lies. He was making false accusations against others to elevate himself.

2. His actions were selfish. He was withholding hospitality and support because these acts threatened his own security.

3. His actions toward others were oppressive. He used intimidation to force others to conform to his will rather than submitting to them. He went so far as to exclude others from the fellowship of the church meetings rather than fostering unity among the brethren.

John also gave an exhortation to behave in harmony with the truth (v. 11). He gave two reasons for obeying this exhortation.

First, it is the nature of God's children to do good works (cf. 1 John 3:9; 5:18).

Second, the person who does evil gives evidence that he has not seen God. He is in darkness either as an unbeliever or as a believer (cf. 1 John 1:6).

Finally John gave an opportunity to behave in harmony with the truth (v. 12). This verse underlines the importance of putting love into practice in concrete situations, not just discussing it theoretically.

This brief letter has an important message for the church in our day.

First, we are not really abiding in the truth if we fail to demonstrate love for our brethren in physical, financial ways. We may know the truth intellectually without knowing it experientially. We must not only have it in our grip, but it must also have us in its grip.

Second, our activities reveal our true attitudes. We can see if our attitude is loving or selfish, not by examining our emotions, but by examining our actions. Do our actions demonstrate love or selfishness? This is a very practical and helpful test we should use on ourselves regularly.

Constable: 3 John (Outline)

Outline

I. Introduction vv. 1-4

II. The importance of love vv. 5-12

A. Gaius' love vv. 5-8

B. Diotrephes' lack of love vv. 9-11

C. Demetrius' opportunity for love v. 12

III. Conclusion vv. 13-14

Constable: 3 John

3 John

Bibliography

Alexander, W. "The Third Epistle of John." In The Speaker's Commentary: New Testament. Edited by F. C. Cook. London: John Murray, 1881.

Bailey, Mark L., and Thomas L. Constable. The New Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing Co., 1999.

Barclay, William. The Letters of John and Jude. Daily Study Bible series. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1960.

Barker, Glenn W. "3 John." In Hebrews-Revelation. Vol. 12 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

Baxter, J. Sidlow. Explore the Book. 6 vols. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1965.

Blair, J. Allen. The Epistles of John. Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1982.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistles of John. London: Pickering & Inglis Ltd., 1970; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1986.

Constable, Thomas L. "Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament." Paper submitted for course 686 Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament. Dallas Theological Seminary, January 1968.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 vols. Revised ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Dictionary of the Apostolic Church. Edited by James Hastings. 1915 ed. S.v. "John, Epistles of," by A. E. Brooke.

Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 1910 ed. S.v. "John, Epistles of," by S. D. F. Salmond.

Dodd, C. H. The Johanine Epistles. New York: Harper and Row, 1946.

Findlay, George G. Fellowship in the Life Eternal. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1909.

Fraser, Donald. Synoptical Lectures on the Books of Holy Scripture, Romans-Revelation. New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1876.

Funk, Robert W. "The Form and Structure of II and III John." Journal of Biblical Literature 86 (1967):424-30.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Annotated Bible. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, and New York: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1970.

Graystone, Kenneth. The Johanine Epistles. New Century Bible Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1984.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L. Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. 3 vols. 2nd ed. London: Tyndale Press, 1966.

Harris, W. Hall. "A Theology of John's Writings." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 167-242. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. "Studies in 3 John." Bibliotheca Sacra 144:573 (January-March 1987):53-65; 574 (April-June 1987):194-207; 575 (July-September 1987):293-304.

Hodges, Zane C. "3 John." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 911-15. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by James Orr. 1957 ed. S.v. "John, The Epistles of," by R. Law.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Commentary on the Holy Scripture. 12 vols. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol 12: James-Revelation, by J. P. Lange, J. J. Van Osterzee, G. T. C. Fronmuller, and Karl Braune. Enlarged and edited by E. R. Craven. Translated by J. Isidor Mombert and Evelina Moore.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude. Reprint ed. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961.

Leonhard, Barbara. "Hospitality in Third John." The Bible Today 25:1 (January 1987):11-18.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Epistles of John. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984.

McNeile, A. H. An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament. 2nd ed. Revised by C. S. C. Williams. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965.

Mitchell, John G. Fellowship. Portland: Multnomah Press, 1974.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Motyer, Stephen. "The Third Epistle of John: The Cost of Walking in the Truth." Evangel 5:4 (Winter 1987):6-9.

Moulton, James Hope, and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources. 1930; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.

Ogilvie, Lloyd John. When God First Thought of You. Waco: Word Books, 1978.

Robertson, Archibald Thomas. Word Pictures in the New Testatment. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931.

Ryrie, Charles C. "The Third Epistle of John." In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 1483-85. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Smalley, Stephen S. 1, 2, 3 John. Word Biblical Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1984.

Stott, John R. W. The Epistle of John. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964.

Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Epistles of St. John. 1883. Reprint ed. England: Marcham Manor Press, 1966.

Wilkin, Robert N. "He Who Does Good Is of God (3 John 11)." Grace Evangelical Society News 5:9 (September 1990):2.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: 3 John (Book Introduction)

THE

THIRD EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN,

THE APOSTLE.

INTRODUCTION.

St. John commends Gaius for his faith, charity, and hospitality towards strangers and the ministers of the gospel, to whom he would have every one to give a kind reception, and such charitable assistance as they can afford, and which others want. (Witham) --- Gaius, to whom this epistle is addressed, is apparently one of the two disciples of St. Paul, who bore this name. The best known is that of Corinth, with whom St. Paul lodged, and who had been converted and baptized by St. Paul. Others, with greater probability, suppose it was Gaius, of Derbe, mentioned in Acts xx. 4. All that we know for certain of this Gaius is, that he was a great friend of St. John, that he exercised hospitality with great zeal and generosity, notwithstanding the harshness and severity of Diotrephes, who appears to have been his bishop, and who was not willing that hospitality should be shewn to the brethren converted from Judaism. St. John promises to visit Gaius, and to reprimand Diotrephes. There is great probability that this letter was carried by the converted Jews, who travelled to diffuse the gospel, and who made a religious point not to enter among the Gentiles, and not to receive any thing from them. It may then be considered as a recommendatory letter in favour of these apostolic men. It appears that great pains were taken to remove the antipathy that existed between these two parties, even after their conversion. The same seeds of division are discernible in St. Paul's epistles between the Jews and the converted Gentiles: and one of the earliest concerns of this apostle was, to suppress in the Jews all sentiments of vanity and self-sufficiency, which made them prefer themselves to the Gentiles; and in Gentiles a different kind of pride, which caused them to despise the Jews. In the first part of this letter St. John congratulates Gaius on his good works, and recommends to him certain evangelical preachers, who were to deliver him this letter as they called upon him. (ver. 1, 8.) In the second part he complains of Diotrephes, who affected independence, and proposes to Gaius the example of Demetrius, the faithful servant of Jesus Christ, ver. 9. ad finem [to the end].

====================

Gill: 3 John (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO 3 JOHN

This epistle was written by the Apostle John, who calls himself an "elder", as in the preceding, and is inscribed to a friend of his, whom he mentions by name, and expresses a very great affection for, on account of his steady adherence to the truths of the Gospel, 3Jo 1:1; he wishes him bodily health equal to that prosperity of soul he was indulged with, 3Jo 1:2; congratulates him upon the testimony the brethren that came from him gave him of the truth being in him, and of his walking in it, and upon hearing that his children also trod in the same path, 3Jo 1:3; commends him for his hospitality and charity, of which testimonies were given before the church; and encourages him to go on doing the same acts of beneficence, since it was to such persons that went forth for the sake of Christ, and preaching in his name, and had nothing of the Gentiles for so doing; wherefore they ought to be received, and entertained by those of ability, that they might be fellow helpers to the truth with them, 3Jo 1:5. He complains of Diotrephes as a proud, haughty, and overbearing man in the church, where Gaius was a member, who would neither receive the letters the apostle sent, nor the brethren that came with them; nay, forbid them that would, and cast them out of the church for it, and prated against them with malicious words, whom he threatens to remember when he himself should come thither, 3Jo 1:9; wherefore he exhorts Gaius not to follow such an ill example, but that which is good in any person; since he that does good appears to be of God, and he that does evil, it looks as if he had never known him, 3Jo 1:11. And particularly he recommends Demetrius, who had a good report of all men, and of the truth itself, and had a testimony from the apostle, and those that were with him, which was known to be a true one, 3Jo 1:12. But though he had many things to say, both of one, and of the other, he determines to write no more at present, hoping he should shortly see him, and personally converse together; and closes the epistle with his own good wish, and with mutual salutations of friends, 3Jo 1:13.

College: 3 John (Outline)

OUTLINE

I. GREETING - 1

II. GAIUS ADMONISHED - 2-8

A. Walking in the Truth - 2-4

B. Faithful in Working Together - 5-8

1. Faithful Actions with Brothers - 5-6

2. Proper Hospitality - 7-8

III. DIOTREPHES CONDEMNED - 9-10

IV. DEMETRIUS COMMENDED - 11-12

V. DESIRE TO SPEAK IN PERSON - 13-14

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV