Text And Exposition
TEXT AND EXPOSITION
1. OPENING SALUTATION AND GOOD WISHES (verses 1-2)
Verse 1 The elder unto Gaius the beloved, whom I love in truth.
The significance of the self-designation “the elder” has been discussed in the note on 2 John 1. Gaius was a common name in the Roman world, for it was one of the eighteen names from which Roman parents could choose a praenomen for one of their sons. Elsewhere in the New Testament we meet Gaius of Corinth, Paul’s host (Romans 16:23; 1 Corinthians 1:14), and Gaius of Derbe or (according to the Western text) Doberus, Paul’s travelling companion (Acts 19:29; 20:4). There is no ground for associating the Gaius of 3 John with any other bearer of the name. The adjective clause, “whom I love in truth,” is practically identical with the wording of 2 John 1 ().
Verse 2 Beloved, I pray that in all things thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.
The convention of wishing one’s reader good health at the outset of a letter (“Hoping this finds you well, as it leaves me at present”) is one of great antiquity. So regular was this sort of thing in Latin letters that it was customarily expressed by the use of initials, S V B E E V (si uales, bene est; ego ualeo, “if you are well, that is good; I am well”). The elder adapts such conventional good wishes in a manner all his own. He knows from Gaius’s way of life that his soul is in a healthy condition, and he prays that his bodily health and general prosperity may match the prosperity of his soul. The late Professor A. Rendle Short remarked that at one time it occurred to him that 3 John 2 would be a suitable text to inscribe over his name in his friends’ autograph albums, until he reflected that, so far as some of them were concerned, a prayer that their general health might match their spiritual prosperity could be interpreted as a prayer that they might require his professional attendance. But if the elder’s prayer for Gaius were answered, health and prosperity would be his in abundance.
2. OCCASION OF REJOICING (verses 3-4)
Verse 3 For I rejoiced greatly, when brethren came and bare witness* unto thy truth, even as thou walkest in truth.
* Or, rejoice greatly, when brethren come and bear witness.
John’s conviction about Gaius’s spiritual health is based on the news about Gaius brought to him by “brethren”—probably those whom (according to verses 5-8) Gaius had entertained hospitably. These men, on their return, told John about Gaius’s “truth”—that is, the loyalty to Christ and the gospel by which his life was marked. Like those children of “the elect lady” mentioned in 2 John 4, Gaius “walked”—conducted himself—“in truth.” John knows that the report about Gaius corresponds to the reality, and is filled with gladness on this account.251 (The conjunction “For” at the beginning of the sentence is not found in all authorities for the text,252 but its presence is apt, as it draws attention to the reason for John’s assurance that Gaius’s soul is in a prosperous condition.)
Verse 4 Greater joy* have I none than this, to hear** of my children walking in truth.
* Some ancient authorities read grace.
** Or, these things, that I may hear.
For “joy” (Greek charan) Codex Vaticanus and a few other witnesses have the less appropriate reading “grace” (charin). (The same variation occurs in 2 Corinthians 1:15.) The infinitive “to hear” (so RV, RSV, NEB) represents Greek hina akouō. Although in classical Greek hina with the subjunctive mood expresses purpose, this is no longer invariably so in Hellenistic Greek, which provides sufficient examples like the present (cf. John 17:3) of the increasing tendency to use this construction as an equivalent of the infinitive—a tendency which led to the complete supersession of the original infinitive forms by this construction, as in modern Greek (where hina appears in the shortened form na). The elder reckons Gaius among his “children” (tekna). This might suggest that Gaius was a convert of his, but in view of his designation of all to whom 1 John was sent as “my little children,” he may mean no more than that Gaius is one of many younger fellow believers for whom he feels a fatherly concern and affection.
3. APPRECIATION OF HELP GIVEN TO TRAVELLING TEACHERS (verses 5-8)
Verse 5 Beloved, thou doest a faithful work in whatsoever thou doest toward them that are brethren and strangers withal;
The ministry of travelling teachers (sometimes called “apostles” or “prophets”), as has been mentioned in the notes on 2 John, was a well-known feature of church life in Western Asia at the end of the first and beginning of the second century. It was a Christian duty—“a faithful (or loyal) work”—to show such visitors hospitality, and this duty was nonetheless to be discharged faithfully because the opportunity to profit by it was seized by some charlatans. The Didache, in its pedestrian way, underlines the importance of receiving as the Lord Himself “everyone who comes in the name of the Lord.” Every true prophet or teacher is “worthy of his food”253 (cf. Matthew 10:10). One group of such teachers evidently went out with the commendation of the elder and his associates, and it was some of them who spoke so well of Gaius. They were “strangers,” and he took them in, treating them as his guests (the same word xenos does duty in both senses).
Verse 6 who bare witness to thy love before the church: whom thou wilt do well to set forward on their journey worthily of God:
In Gaius’s case “walking in truth” was synonymous with “walking in love.” He showed his visitors Christian love, and when they spoke of his reception of them in their report of their journey to the church from which presumably they had set out (perhaps the same church as is called “your elect sister” in 2 John 13), Gaius’s hospitality became a matter of widespread renown. He did not show hospitality in order to gain this renown—indeed, the renown probably meant that demands on his hospitality greatly increased—but thanks to their appreciative report of his kindness his example has been an encouragement to many others. His kindness was worthy of the God whom he and they alike served; it was a reflection of God’s own kindness (cf. 2 Samuel 9:3, “the kindness of God”). The words “thou wilt do well” are an idiomatic form of conveying a request (cf. NEB: “Please help them on their journey”) or expressing thanks in advance (cf. a similar expression in the past tense in Acts 10:33, where “you have done well to come” means “thank you for coming”).
Verse 7 because that for the sake of the Name they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles.
If the Old Testament contains one or two books which do not mention the name of God, the New Testament contains one which does not mention Christ by name—our present epistle. But if Christ is not mentioned by name here, He is referred to in other ways. For example, “the Name” on behalf of which these brethren “went forth” was the name of Christ, and it was in Christ’s name that Gaius had received them (cf. Mark 9:37). As in Jewish parlance “The Name” is a surrogate for YHWH, so here “The Name” is a synonym for Christ. It was for His sake that these men went forth on their teaching journeys, as it is for His sake that all true Christian service is done. And when it is known to others that it is done for His sake, His name is honored.
It was good on one occasion to hear a Hindu resident in East Africa tell what a blessing the sisters in a neighboring mission hospital were to the area in which they worked, and better still to hear him add, “and they do it all for Jesus Christ.” Since these teachers went out on their journeys for Christ’s sake, it was fitting that they should be supported by Christ’s people. Had they accepted hospitality from “the Gentiles,” it might have given the impression that their own people did not support them adequately. The word rendered “Gentiles” here is ethnikoi, Gentile individuals (as in Matthew 5:47; 6:7; 18:17), not the commoner ethnē, Gentile nations. It has been pointed out that there is in 3 John “precisely the same contrast between the ekklēsia and the ethnikoi as in Matthew 18:17: ‘If he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you an ethnikos.’”254
Verse 8 We therefore ought to welcome such, that we may be fellow workers with the truth.
The pronoun “we” is emphatic. Since these men refused to seek help or hospitality from Gentiles, “we Christians (hēmeis) ought to receive them into our homes and entertain them” (Greek hypolambanō). If, as 2 John 10 f. says, to harbor a false teacher is to have fellowship with his “wicked works,” correspondingly to show hospitality to those who maintain the truth of the gospel is to cooperate “with the truth,” and to enjoy the fulfillment of our Lord’s promise that “he who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward” (Matthew 10:41).
4. DIOTREPHES’S UNBROTHERLY CONDUCT (verses 9-10)
Verse 9 I wrote somewhat unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.
The most reliable authorities for the text have “I wrote somewhat” (Greek ti, “something”); other readings are “I would have written to the church,”255 “I would have written something to the church,”256 “I wrote to the church herself”257 and “I wrote unto the church” (so KJV, following the Received Text). Of these variants, “I would have written to the church” is the second best attested reading; if it were accepted, the implication would be that John is writing to Gaius instead of the church, because he knows that, thanks to the influence of Diotrephes, a letter to the church would be fruitless. But if we read (as certainly we should) “I wrote somewhat,” the question arises what he wrote and to which church. The suggestion has been made that here is a reference to 2 John—that, the elect lady herself being unresponsive, John had now to write to one of her children, Gaius.258 But this is unlikely. The natural inference to draw from John’s words here is that he had written earlier to Gaius’s home church commending his travelling teachers. But this is not the subject of 2 John. On the other hand, the false teaching about which the writer is concerned in 2 John does not figure here. It is better to conclude that the letter to the church, to which reference is made in the present passage, is lost, although its tenor may be surmised.
However that may be, the letter failed of its intended effect because Diotrephes, a dominant personality in that church, forbade his brethren to comply with the Elder’s request. Diotrephes is described as ho philoprōteuōn autōn, which RSV renders (quite literally) “who likes to put himself first” and NEB (more freely) “their would-be leader.” The language suggests a self-promoted demagogue rather than a constitutional presbyteros or episkopos. It is conceivable, of course, that even a constitutional leader might have been regarded by the Elder as no better than a trumped-up dictator if he behaved in the way described here. The question has been repeatedly raised of the relation which this reference bears to the monarchical episcopate, which we find beginning to emerge in the churches of Western Asia early in the second century, exemplified in such saints and martyrs as Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna.
C. H. Dodd sums up the alternatives thus: “It may be (i) that Diotrephes is in fact the first ‘monarchical bishop’ known to history in the province of Asia;259…it may be (ii) that Diotrephes is a symptom of the disease which the quasi-apostolic ministry of monarchical bishops was designed to relieve.”260 On the whole, the second is more probable. The first monarchical bishops of whom we know were concerned, just as the Elder himself was, to maintain the apostolic teaching in their churches and to exclude whatever conflicted with it. Diotrephes is not charged with heresy,261 and his exclusive behavior may have been due entirely to his determination to allow no teaching or leadership in the church but his own.
Twenty centuries of church history have witnessed many of his successors. The lust for power, from whatever form of inner insecurity it may spring, is always a curse, and preeminently so in the realm of religion. It is, however, possible that his conduct arose in some degree from his disapproval of the teaching that John and his friends maintained; we cannot be sure. He does not receive us, says John. That is to say, he neither recognized John’s authority nor admitted his messengers to the church. The former sense comes to the fore in RSV: “does not acknowledge my authority” (NEB, more generally, says “will have nothing to do with us”).
Verse 10 Therefore, if I come, I will bring to remembrance his works which he doeth, prating against us with wicked words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and them that would he forbiddeth, and casteth them out of the church.
Diotrephes, however, will have to answer for his behavior. The Elder is no private individual, but one who is capable of speaking authoritatively to Diotrephes and to the church which he dominates. How far he could be sure of asserting his authority successfully cannot be determined, but presumably if Diotrephes could carry the church with him against the Elder, their fellowship with the churches which did acknowledge the Elder’s authority would be endangered. C. H. Dodd suggests that the preservation of this letter is an argument of some weight in favor of the view that the Elder’s appeal was successful.262 The charges which Diotrephes brought up against the Elder and his associates amounted to sheer nonsense (the verb phlyareō, here rendered “prate,” means “talk nonsense”), but they were malicious nevertheless, and accompanied by malicious actions, for he backed up his own refusal to receive the messengers by forbidding others to welcome them, and excommunicating263 them if they did. The same verb epidechomai is used for “receive” in verse 10 as in verse 9; RSV varies its rendering of the word by translating it “welcome” in this verse.264 If 3 John were indeed written to a member of the congregation addressed in 2 John, we should certainly have a piquant situation, for the Elder urges the church not to accept visitors who do not bring “the teaching of Christ” with them, but the visitors who are actually turned away are the Elder’s own delegates!265 It is improbable, however, that the same church is in question; even so, the boycott was an ecclesiastical weapon which could be used by more than one party to a dispute.
5. EXHORTATION (verse 11)
Verse 11 Beloved, imitate not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: he that doeth evil hath not seen God.
Diotrephes and persons like him are no fit examples for Gaius or anyone else to follow. Happily, there are better examples—those who do good and not evil, and show thus that they belong to the family of God (cf. 1 John 3:10). The contrast between the two types is summed up in a characteristic Johannine antithesis, on the same lines as those laid down in 1 John 3:4-10 (especially verse 6). It is in Christ that God is seen, and to see Christ is to become like Him (John 12:45; 14:9; 1 John 3:2).
6. RECOMMENDATION OF DEMETRIUS (verse 12)
Verse 12 Demetrius hath the witness of all men, and of the truth itself: yea, we also bear witness; and thou knowest that our witness is true.
If Diotrephes provides an example to be avoided, here is one whose example can be safely followed. Demetrius is apparently the bearer of this letter, and the letter incorporates the Elder’s commendation of him. In the circumstances it was useless to give him a letter commending him to the church in that place, for Diotrephes would see to it that the letter and its bearer were alike refused. But John is persuaded that Gaius will live up to his reputation for hospitality and give Demetrius a welcome. Those referred to as “all,” from whom Demetrius receives a good report, may be the generality of Christians in the region where he is known, but we cannot exclude the probability that, in terms of the qualifications for a “bishop” specified in 1 Timothy 3:7, he was “well thought of by outsiders.” The statement that Demetrius in addition received a good report from “the truth itself” may mean that, apart from any human voice, the facts themselves testified in his favor, but it is more probable that “the truth” is here personal, denoting our Lord (cf. John 14:6) and that we should translate as “the Truth Himself.” Similar language is used by Papias of Hierapolis, a member of the same school a generation or so later, who tells how he sought out those who had been in touch with companions and eyewitnesses of Jesus, so that he might ascertain and record the commandments “given to faith by the Lord and proceeding from the Truth Himself”266 (the same phrase as here).
The Elder adds his personal testimony, based on first-hand knowledge of Demetrius, and Gaius knows that the Elder’s testimony is trustworthy. The words “thou knowest that our witness is true” are remarkably similar to those appended as a postscript in John 21:24, presumably by those associates of the Beloved Disciple who were responsible for publishing the Fourth Gospel: “we know that his witness is true.”267
7. PERSONAL NOTES (verses 13-14)
Verse 13 I had many things to write unto thee, but I am unwilling to write them to thee with ink and pen: Verse 14 but I hope shortly to see thee, and we shall speak face to face.
This note is very similar to that at the end of the previous letter (2 John 12). The imperfect tense “I had” may be epistolary, in which case it should be rendered “I have,” but this is not necessarily so. There were no doubt delicate personal and ecclesiastical questions which could more conveniently be discussed orally than in a letter. The phrase “with ink and pen” takes the place of “with paper and ink” in 2 John 12. The “pen” is a reed pen (Greek kalamos, “reed”). John’s intention to see Gaius “shortly” or “immediately” (Greek eutheōs) may best be taken to mean very soon after the arrival of his letter. The letter prepares Gaius for his visit (perhaps he was about to set out on a circuit of the churches in his sphere of interest, including also the church addressed in 2 John). The phrase “speak face to face” (literally “mouth to mouth”) is repeated from 2 John 12 and is discussed briefly in the .
8. FINAL GREETING (verse 15)
Verse 15 Peace be unto thee. The friends salute thee. Salute the friends by name.
“Peace to you” is a common Hebraic and Semitic greeting (Hebrew shalom ‘alekha; Arabic salaam ‘alaika). The “friends” who send their greetings are those with whom the Elder found himself at the time of writing—perhaps the members of the church referred to as “the children of your elect sister” in 2 John 13, if both letters were written at the same time. Correspondingly, the “friends” to whom greetings are sent—“by name,” that is individually—are those who were with Gaius at the time, probably members of his church who, despite Diotrephes, were well-disposed towards John and his messengers.268
251 For the tense “I rejoiced” or “I rejoice” (Greek echarēn) cf. commentary on . Here KJV, RSV and NEB agree with RV text in the use of the past tense.
252 Its omission in Codex Sinaiticus and a few other authorities may be due to the analogy of 2 John 4.
253 Didache 12.1; 13.1 (see pp. f.).
254 J. A. T. Robinson, “The Destination and Purpose of the Johannine Epistles,” Twelve NT Studies (London, 1962), p. 132.
255 So the third corrector of Codex Sinaiticus with several other Greek witnesses and the Latin and Syriac versions. This depicting of the letter in question as one which he would have written but did not actually write may have been intended to get rid of the disturbing thought that an apostolic letter was lost.
256 So a corrector of minuscule 424.
257 So a corrector of minuscule 326, reading autē tē ekklēsia for ti tē ekklēsia.
258 Cf. R. Eisler, The Enigma of the Fourth Gospel (London, 1938), pp. 172 f., for the view that 1 and 2 John were “dedicatory” or covering letters commending to the readers’ acceptance copies of the Gospel of John, which accompanied them; and that it was this Gospel that Diotrephes refused to accept, excommunicating those who did accept it. Diotrephes is characterized by Eisler as “the first of the Alogoi”—a disparaging designation given to a group of people towards the end of the second century who rejected the Fourth Gospel (disparaging because it could mean not only “devoid of the logos” in the sense of John 1:1-14 but also “devoid of logos” in the sense of “reason,” like the “irrational animals” of Jude 10; 2 Peter 2:12). Eisler’s theories were invariably brilliant, but almost invariably unconvincing.
259 So A. Harnack, Über den dritten Johannesbrief = TU 15, 3 (Leipzig, 1897), pp. 21 ff., followed by R. Bultmann, The Johannine Epistles (Philadelphia, 1973, p. 101), according to whom the conflict was between the new episcopate under which local churches asserted their autonomy and the old province wide missionary organization which was at this time under the leadership of the Elder.
260 The Johannine Epistles (London, 1946), p. 164.
261 As against W. Bauer, Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum2 (Tübingen, 1963), p. 97, who calls Diotrephes a heresiarch. Conversely, R. Bultmann (The Johannine Epistles, p. 101) agrees with E. Käsemann (“Ketzer und Zeuge,” ZTK 48, 1951, pp. 292 ff.) that Diotrephes represents an inchoate orthodoxy suspicious of the supposed gnostic tendencies of Johannine theology, but dismisses as fantastic his view that Diotrephes actually excommunicated the Elder.
262 The Johannine Epistles, p. 165.
263 The same verb (ekballō) is used in John 9:34 f. for what appears to be expulsion from the synagogue.
264 Similarly NEB varies the rendering and translates here, “he refuses to receive our friends.”
265 Cf. A. Ehrhardt, The Framework of the New Testament Stories (Manchester, 1964), pp. 169 f.; he thinks that Diotrephes refused the Elder and his associates because, in his eyes, they did not bring the “teaching of Christ” and suggests that the judgment “prating against us with wicked words” would have been phrased “very differently had there been an authoritative ‘Apostles’ Creed’ to pinpoint Diotrephes’s heretical views.”
266 Quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 39. 3. Cf. p. .
267 Cf. what is said in reference to the effusion of blood and water from the pierced side of Jesus on the cross: “he who saw it has borne witness—his witness is true” (John 19:35).
268 As at the end of the first and second letters, a few later manuscripts add the liturgical “Amen,” but it is absent from the Received Text, and therefore from KJV. (In many editions what is here given as verse 15 appears as the continuation of verse 14).