Third Epistle of John

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A series of articles on
"John" in the Bible
Johannine literature Gospel of John First Epistle of John Second Epistle of John Third Epistle of John Revelation Authorship of literature
Names John the Apostle Disciple whom Jesus loved John the Presbyter John the Evangelist John of Patmos
Communities Twelve Apostles The Early Church
Related Literature Homosexual Reading Apocryphon of John Egerton Gospel Signs Gospel Logos This box: view • talk • edit

New Testament
Matthew Mark Luke John Acts Romans 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians 1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews James 1 Peter 2 Peter 1 John 2 John 3 John Jude Revelation This box: view • talk • edit

The New Testament Third Epistle of John (often referred to as 3 John) is the 64th book of the Bible. It is the second-shortest book in the Christian Bible by number of verses, and the shortest in regard to number of words (according to the KJV).

It is written by a man who identifies himself only as "the presbyteros" and is addressed to Caius (or Gaius). Easton's Dictionary finds it uncertain whether the Christian Caius in Macedonia (Acts 19:29), the Caius in Corinth (Romans 16:23) or the Caius in Derbe (Acts 20:4) is intended. The letter has indications that it is a genuine private letter, written for the purpose of commending to Gaius a party of Christians led by Demetrius, who were strangers to the place where he lived, and who had gone on a mission to preach the gospel (verse 7). The purpose of the letter is to encourage and strengthen Caius, and to warn him against the party headed by Diotrephes, who refuses to cooperate with the presbyteros who is writing.

Edgar Goodspeed saw this and 2 John as cover letters for 1 John, as the only likely reason for their preservation. The language of this epistle is remarkably similar to 2 John, and it is the scholarly consensus that the same man wrote both of these letters, although it has been debated whether or not this man also wrote the Gospel of John, 1 John, or Revelation, and the Authorship of the Johannine works is generally agreed by modern scholars to have been by multiple people (all known as John) rather than just one. Even in ancient times it was argued that this John the Presbyter was different to the John who wrote 1 John, and this was affirmed by an official church ruling at the Council of Rome, where it was ordered that the author of 1 John should be known as John the Evangelist while the author of 2&3 John should be known as John the Presbyter.

The earliest possible attestations for 3 John come from Tertullian and Origen. Tertullian, "On Monogamy" ch.vi quotes a brief phrase—"follow the better things"— from 3 John i.11 "Beloved, imitate not that which is evil, but that which is good", a phrase that might also have been adapted from the Septuagint Psalm xxxvi. 27 (xxxvii in the Hebrew Bible) or from the First Epistle of Peter iii.11 [1]. Origen's Commentary on Matthew book xi says "But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh", which has been offered as a parallel showing the use of logos in 3 John i.7. [2]. Irenaeus in Adversus Haereses iii. 16. 7 (written ca 175), quotes 2 John. 7 and 8, and in the next sentence I John 4:1, 2, as from "the Letter of John."; he does not quote from 3 John. The Muratorian Canon accepts two letters of John only.

The Epistle of Third John was likely written between A. D. 90 and A. D. 110.

[edit] Simple Exposition

The Third Epistle of John

Verse 1 John again takes up his pen to write a brief letter to the well beloved Gaius. Like the previous epistle to the elect lady, this is brief enough to have been sent out on a single leaf of papyrus. Again, an urgent matter had arisen in John’s pastoral sphere that required prompt attention. He expected to visit Gaius soon. Since Gaius was among the more common names in the first century Roman world, it is perhaps best not to rush into attempting to identify the recipient of this epistle with those of the same name in Acts 19:29, Acts 20:4 or 1 Corinthians 1:14. The Gaius of Romans 16:23 is described by Paul as ‘mine host’. John’s well beloved friend certainly knew something of the privilege of exercising Christian hospitality. John’s affection for him was sincere. The truth was the sphere in which their mutual affection flourished.

Verse 2 There was apparently no need to pray for Gaius’s spiritual prosperity, for John knew that his soul prospered. Gaius seems to have been an exemplary believer. John nevertheless expressed his desire regarding Gaius’s material well being. The word translated here ‘be in health’ is found in Luke 7: 10 and 15: 27 where, in the King James translation, it is rendered ‘whole’ and ‘safe and sound’. When Paul wrote to the assembly in Thessalonica, he prayed that their whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thess. 5:23).

Verses 3-4 The fidelity of Gaius’s conduct was a source of great joy to the apostle (even an apostle needed encouragement). Here he was refreshed by good news from visiting brethren. John’s soul was thrilled to hear about one of his children1. The testimony Gaius had is one that ought to characterise us in these last days. Is our walk in the path of truth or are we conducting our lives on some fondly cherished prejudice which we vainly think is Christianity?

Verses 5-6 Again, the elder addresses Gaius with the affectionate term ‘beloved’. His work was the fruit of his faith. Hebrews 13:1 speaks of ‘brotherly love’, philadelphia, and in 13: 2 of being not forgetful to ‘entertain strangers.’ The two words ‘entertain strangers’ have been used to translate one Greek word — philoxenia, which literally means ‘love of strangers’. Here in verses 5 and 6 we find love operating in a similar way. The strangers were brethren hitherto unknown. The truth is emphasised before John takes up practical love. Mr. William Kelly writes, ‘One must have the truth intact before we can speak of love or exercise it: else we may be helping Satan against Christ under the name of charity’2. Those who had been ministered to by Gaius could only witness to his love. Gaius did not live for himself, but was a brother who proved his kindness in caring for and serving others.

‘If thou bring forward’ (verse 6) John desired to encourage Gaius to go on in his excellent work. His chief delight was to care for those who had gone out into full time service for the Lord. He set them forward in a manner worthy of God, not just after a godly sort — see the marginal note in the King James translation. It is right that those who have gone forth for ‘His Name’s sake’ should be supported and helped on. Paul expressed his confidence in his brethren at Rome that by them he would be brought on his way to Spain (Rom. 15:24. See also 1 Cor. 16:6; 2 Cor. 1:16 and Titus 3:13). The phrase ‘bring forward on their journey’ suggests that the financial needs of the Lord’s servants would be met by the saints. With the sacrifices Gaius would make, God would be well pleased. Had not the Hebrews been instructed: ‘to do good, and to communicate, (share) forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased’ (Heb. 13:16). This service was most comely. While 1 Corinthians 16 teaches us that much of what is given is into the assembly collection, it is evident that further resources should also be devoted to the Lord’s interests of an assembly character. 1The phrase, ‘my children’, seems akin to Paul’s, ‘mine own son’, and suggests John’s part in the conversion of Gaius (Titus 1:4). 2Brief hints on the Epistles of John by W. Kelly, 1903.

Verse 7 ‘For His Name’s sake’ can also be rendered ‘for the sake of the Name’. Only one Name matters, the Name of Christ. The travellers were not tourists, but had a mission. They were in the Lord’s service and the Lord’s people were to take account of this fact. They went forth without any desire to profit from the world. They might be needy but they would not stoop to ask for support from the world. Rather, these emissaries of Christ sought the good of the Gentiles — to bring them the truth as it is in Jesus. They maintained their dignity as being His servants and He would supply their needs, albeit through the saints. How unlike this primitive state is so much that passes in Christendom today. Fund raising and soliciting monetary donations are so prominent a feature of Christendom now that not to be asking for money seems strange to some. Paul condemns the many pedlars who were making gain by corrupting the Word of God (2 Cor. 2:17). He refused to be chargeable to those to whom he preached the gospel of God (1 Thess. 2:1-9; 2 Thess. 3:8).

Another thing to note is that these faithful itinerant preachers, who were without any visible means of support, were also outside any formal missionary society or committee. Para-church organisations were not known in apostolic times3. Neither did the church send them forth. Doubtless they had the confidence and fellowship of their brethren locally and where they served, but there is no mention of any man made structure or committee involved in their calling or support. We need to maintain this Scriptural order and not resort to man’s carnal devices, which usurp the place of Christ, and have many pitfalls. 3The reader might ‘Even So Send I You’, by Cor Bruins, (Chapter Two, London) helpful on this point.

‘We ... ought’ (verse 8) This verse opens with a statement of our obligation. Of course the assembly delights to acknowledge and support those sent out by the Lord. It is evident that we Christians must support Christian enterprises. It was not to be the privilege of Gaius alone: the apostle writes, ‘we’, and joined himself with all who should support and receive the zealous servants of Christ. They would receive nothing from the Gentiles, but we should receive them, thereby being co workers and so playing our part in spreading the truth.

Verse 9 We now come to a name which still festers with disgrace. Down through the centuries this dark blot stands recorded against a man who loved to usurp Christ’s place (See Col. 1:18). John had written some letter, not in the canon of the New Testament, which had provoked Diotrephes’ pride. The apostles of old were, and their writings still are, the highest authority on earth in the assembly. When apostles wrote they expected obedience (2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Cor. 14:37). There was to be no apostolic succession. Diotrephes was evidently the thin end of the wedge. Monarchial bishops were functioning by AD 120 (See ‘The Rise of Clergy in Early Christianity’ by G H Kramer, Chapter Two, London 2006).

Verse 10 If John should come, he would be present in apostolic power and would certainly bring up the matter. The word ‘prating’ conveys the idea of nonsensical talk. Diotrephes was opposed to John’s position and sought to undermine it with baseless and spiteful slander. He clearly had pretensions to ecclesiastical authority. He was more concerned about his own name than the Name to which the humble preachers had addicted themselves.

Verse 11 John turned then to give a word of personal counsel to his beloved Gaius. He was to imitate that which is good. John obliquely questioned whether Diotrephes was a believer at all: ‘but he that doeth evil hath not seen God’. The true Christian is ‘of God’ (1 John 4:4, 6; 1 John 3:6).

Verse 12 The truth which Demetrius professed was embodied in him4. His life closely resembled it and was in conformity to the truth. Gaius could therefore have confidence in Demetrius, a man honoured of God. It is a good thing in an evil day to look for others who are like minded and in sympathy with the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship. John’s approval of Demetrius would carry weight with Gaius. He need not be alone, for the Lord would provide others with whom he could have true fellowship. 4Mr. H A Ironside suggests that Demetrius was ‘the servant who had been so ruthlessly barred out by this self elected leader’, Diotrephes.

Verses 13-14 John ‘had many things to write’: much more than could be contained on a single sheet of papyrus. However, the epistle shows that the urgent need was to warn and encourage Gaius. He would soon enjoy refreshing fellowship with the elder. Undoubtedly he would contribute with moral influence what was needed to help in the strife-ridden situation.

‘Peace be to thee’ is a greeting familiar to Jews but here so appropriate in view of the pressure of Diotrephes’ maliciousness.

The designation ‘Friends’ is unique in the epistles. The Lord called his disciples ‘My friends’ (John 15:14). Their privilege to be such was conditional upon obedience. Gaius was to greet the friends by name. They did not form an amalgam of nameless ones whose individuality and personality did not matter. Gaius was not to greet in a vague way, but everyone, individually, by name. The assembly should be a closely-knit community where all know each other personally and are able to greet one another by name.

Conclusions:

The truth as to Christ was the passport among Christians.
Hospitality and support were encouraged to be exercised to all believers who were in the Lord’s service.
In spite of dark blots in the testimony, we may take encouragement from faithful men such as Gaius and Demetrius.
Spiritual resources are available in turbulent times to those who obey Christ’s commandments.