The elder to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth.
This letter opens with no title of office and no church address. It is one older man writing to one friend he calls beloved. Two questions follow: why does John call himself only "the elder," and what does it mean to love someone "in truth"?
John had every right to open with apostolic authority. Instead he takes the lower place, and commentators see this as deliberate.
"The elder," says the apostle. So he steps down from the first place in the church of God, which he had every right to fill. But love takes the better way, and here the Holy Spirit inspired it for the special need... We need not doubt that there was a wise and worthy reason why the apostle John introduced himself as "elder" rather than as apostle, both to the elect lady and to the beloved Gaius.
The word points to age and relationship, not to a post:
John writes to those he stood among as an older man. He does not speak of his apostolic authority here. He wrote the letters as "the elder."
Several men named Gaius appear in the New Testament. One writer is careful not to claim more than can be known:
Gaius was one of the more common names in the Roman world of the first century. So it is best not to rush to identify the man this letter was sent to with the men of the same name in Acts 19:29, Acts 20:4 or 1 Corinthians 1:14. Paul describes the Gaius of Romans 16:23 as his host. John's well-loved friend certainly knew the privilege of showing Christian hospitality.
The letter says nothing about his gifts. It says a great deal about his character:
There is nothing to show that Gaius was gifted as a teacher or preacher. But he had those spiritual qualities, and without them gift counts for nothing... He comes before us as a humble, gracious and devoted believer. He loved the truth and walked in the truth. He acted in faithfulness and love, helped fellow believers on their journeys, welcomed them into the churches, and so helped to spread the truth. No wonder the Apostle calls him "the beloved Gaius". There was everything in Gaius to draw out the affection of God's people. Who would not want to be a Gaius?
John valued the generosity of Gaius. But that is not where he rests his love:
Whether it was the elect lady and her children, or the well-loved Gaius, it is all the same. It was not because of his hospitality, but "whom I love in the truth." No doubt the apostle valued his generosity and care very much. But even in matters completely different from those of his second letter, the mark that pressed on his soul was this: "whom I love in the truth."
One writer sees this as John's constant habit, and gives the reason for it:
It is striking that John, while he speaks of love, always guards it in the clearest way by what he calls "the truth." Real love is in God Himself. He is love, and wherever love is real, the truth as it is in Jesus must guard it, or it is not from God.
John writes to one man rather than to a church. The reason lies in what had happened where Gaius lived. A man named Diotrephes had taken the first place:
It is only here that the word "Church" appears in John's writings... But now he finds he can trust the Church no longer, and he finds relief in the personal grace of this "beloved Gaius." He had honoured the Church from a distance, but he was disappointed. "Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first," had got in, and John has to fall back on what can never fail: on "truth and love" in the "beloved Gaius."
John's second letter warned the elect lady about dangerous men. This letter adds the other side:
If we had only the Second letter, we might be in danger of becoming rigid, hard and suspicious. But the Third letter tells us whom we are to receive, and to receive with all our heart. If dangerous men go about trying to get in, we must not forget true men who are eager to spread the truth of Christ.
- Elder — John lays down the apostle's title and writes as an older man. Love takes the lower place.
- Beloved — Gaius earns no title either; he is loved not for his gifts or his generosity but "in truth."
- Guarded — the truth always guards real love. Where the two part, it is not from God.
- Personal — when the church failed under Diotrephes, John fell back on the truth and love he found in one man.
- Open-hearted — the second letter warns whom to refuse; this one says whom to receive with all your heart. Both keep a Christian from being hard or careless.
Beloved, I desire that in all things thou shouldest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospers.
John's short letter opens with a personal wish for Gaius, a believer he knew mostly by report. The wish is unusual: it measures his body and his circumstances by the state of his soul.
Older translations read "I wish above all things." Commentators say that goes too far. John is not saying that the soul is the only thing worth caring about.
He wishes that in all things he may prosper. "Above all things" goes too far. Some have taken up the extreme idea that it makes no difference how badly our affairs go, or how poor our health is — the only concern is that the soul should prosper. The apostle, writing by inspiration, does not support such fanaticism… He carefully gives first place to the soul's welfare. If that welfare is guarded and real, we can as a general rule count on the Lord's interest in what we undertake or in our business, and in our health. If the soul prospers, our gracious God takes pleasure in us and in everything that concerns us. The very hairs of our head are all numbered.
The wish only works as a compliment if the soul is already doing well. Most people would not want the comparison run in their direction.
In the second verse John testifies that Gaius's soul prospered so much that he could only wish his body might be as healthy as his soul… For most of us the health of the body is better than the health of the soul. We meet one another and ask, How are you? We take it for granted that the question is about the body, so we answer cheerfully (as a rule), Quite well, thank you. But if the question were, How is it with your soul? — what would we say?
The ESV says "in good health," where older translations say "be in health." That same word turns up elsewhere in the New Testament.
The word translated here "be in health" also appears in Luke 7:10 and 15:27, where the King James translation renders it "whole" and "safe and sound". When Paul wrote to the church in Thessalonica, he prayed that their whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thess. 5:23).
Gaius seems to have had a strong soul and a weak body. That pairing upsets a popular assumption.
Gaius was probably weak in body. Even so, he clearly did not plead that as a reason to ease off in his service. Note too, since it touches a common error, that there is no necessary link between our spiritual condition and our bodily condition. Many now accept that all bodily weakness and disease are signs of a bad state of soul. But this inspired prayer for Gaius shows at once that such a claim is not scriptural.
Commentators put the emphasis differently here. Others note that God does sometimes use illness to win back a drifting believer. That was not the case with Gaius.
Sometimes, so that the soul may prosper, God dries up the thing we are too taken up with. If that is not enough, He disciplines us with bodily sickness… Sometimes He sets a keen worker aside so that he may learn that God can carry on His work without him. That man has been busy reaching and preaching to others, and has grown less watchful over his own communion with God. The Lord in His goodness and love corrects him, and turns a little sickness to much good. But here, since Gaius was prospering in soul, the apostle wishes him prosperity in everything else and in his body too.
John was writing from a distance. His confidence rested on something visible to others.
John did not learn of Gaius's spiritual prosperity by meeting him, for he was far away and writing to him by letter. Others told him. Some believers had arrived in John's area and spoke of Gaius. What they said showed that the truth was living in him, and that it came out in his life, for he walked in truth. What is in us comes out in what we do.
John's wish rested on how Gaius used what he had.
He wishes Gaius to prosper as well as to be in health. Gaius stood out, like some dear believers today, in every kind of Christian hospitality… John could then wish him full health and prosperity, because his prosperity served God's people.
- Prosper inwardly. John puts the soul's welfare first and asks for the rest alongside it — not instead of it.
- Prosper visibly. Visitors reported Gaius's inner health: what lives in a person comes out in how they live.
- Prosper bodily. John wishes Gaius plain physical health too — poor health is no proof of a poor soul.
- Prosper under discipline. When a believer drifts, God may use sickness or loss to win the soul back — though illness is never a verdict on the soul.
- Prosper for others. Gaius's means and strength served God's people, so John could wish him more without hesitation.
For I rejoiced exceedingly when [the] brethren came and bore testimony to thy [holding fast the] truth, even as *thou* walkest in truth.
John was far from Gaius, so what he knew of him came second-hand. Travelling believers arrived and gave a report. That report raises two questions. What does it mean for truth to be in a person? And how does anyone else come to know it?
So how could John be sure how Gaius was doing?
John's confidence about how Gaius was doing spiritually did not come from meeting him. He was far away and writing by letter. It came through the testimony of others. Some brothers had arrived in John's area and spoke about him. What they said showed that the truth was living in him. It also showed that this truth came out in his life, for he walked in truth. That which is in us comes out in our activities.
The report came from other people, not from Gaius. That is part of its weight.
It was a matter of plain testimony on the part of others. "The brothers came and testified to your truth [or, that is in you]." If Gaius had said it himself, it might have been open to question. Who has ever met a man with a steady, wholehearted love for the truth who was loud about his own faithfulness or service? The more a man loves and values truth, the more he judges his own shortcoming in his service and his daily life.
The visitors reported two things, not one. The first was tied to Gaius personally.
These brothers seem to be the ones Gaius had hosted while they were away serving. They brought joy to the aged apostle, for Gaius appears to have been one of his spiritual children. They testified to two things. First, to the truth that was in him — the words are "to your truth", meaning his firm hold on the truth. Second, to his walking in its power. What a testimony! The heart of this devoted man held the truth. The truth shaped him, then flowed out into his life and governed his walk.
The verse ends, "as indeed you are walking in the truth." That is not an extra compliment. It explains how the first half of the report was possible at all.
By the power of the Spirit the truth marked him out. It formed his character, so it governed his daily life — he walked in truth. This walking in truth showed the brothers that the truth was in him. That is how they could bear witness to it.
Later in the letter John praises Gaius for his hospitality, even to strangers. But he puts something else first.
The main point the apostle dwells on, in writing to Gaius, is that he was in the truth. It is remarkable in John that he speaks of love, yet always guards it in the clearest way by what he calls "the truth." Real love is in God Himself. He is love, and wherever love is real, the truth as it is in Jesus must guard it, or it is not from God. So before he commends Gaius for his love and hospitality to the brothers, he says, "I rejoiced greatly when the brothers came and testified to your truth, as indeed you are walking in the truth." This is the first thing he dwells on. Only then does he speak of what Gaius does for the brothers and for strangers.
The letter had just wished Gaius health and success. One writer weighs those against what the visitors actually praised.
Kindness to the brothers, thoughtfulness about others, doing well in his affairs and in bodily health — what were all these next to holding fast the truth, "your truth," and his own walking in truth? Gaius sought first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all else was added. There was no compromise of Christ, no treating truth as a secondary matter. He kept walking truthfully.
John's joy here is not a small thing. One writer sets it against the ruin of everything the Church once was.
This kept John's heart so much at ease; this told him of his special joy. Paul's joy was at seeing the Church walking in order. That might now be gone. But here it is: "I have no greater joy than to see my children walking in the truth." We may be troubled at seeing the lampstand ruined. Yet there is a deeper joy — seeing the children "walking in the truth," and getting a good report of them when the brothers come.
- Truth held. The report was to "your truth" — Gaius kept his grip on it, and it shaped his heart.
- Truth walked. What is inside comes out in what you do; his daily life was the proof that the truth had lodged in him.
- Truth reported. Others, not Gaius, gave the account — those who love truth most are least loud about their own faithfulness.
- Truth guarding love. John praises the truth in Gaius before his hospitality. Truth keeps real love safe, or the love is not from God.
- Truth rejoicing. Even when everything around him lies in ruins, one child walking in truth is still John's deepest joy.
I have no greater joy than these things that I hear of my children walking in the truth.
Near the end of his life, John writes to a friend named Gaius. He tells him what he values more than any other news. Two questions follow. Who are these "children"? And why does their walk outrank every other joy?
Elsewhere John writes of a lady's children. Here the children are his own. They are not family by birth. They came to faith through his work, and he watches how they go on.
It is no longer the lady's children or "the children of the elect sister." Here we read of "my children" — those related to the apostle in a spiritual way. Gaius was one of them, and dear to the apostle for that reason. Gaius had not only begun well, but was going on well in the face of evil.
One writer notes that no list of John's converts survives.
He clearly had converts. Gaius, the man he wrote to (3 John), was one. And not the only one, since John writes to him, "I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth." So he had joy in the fruits of personal labour. We may be sure he carried that work on very quietly, keeping no record that counted his converts or told interesting details of his work.
Walking is the plainest picture of a life in motion. To walk in truth is not to hold an opinion but to have every movement shaped by it.
We may speak of walking as the simplest and most basic activity of the human race. So it naturally stands for activity. To walk in truth is to have all one's activities — thinking, speaking, going, doing, every movement of mind or body — governed by one whole world of reality, and in keeping with it. That reality finds its centre in God Himself revealed in the Lord Jesus. Its outer edge is the furthest reach of His will and word.
No one can manufacture such a walk. It grows out of having the truth in the first place.
Walking in truth is the result of having the truth. The truth produces truthfulness. The man who has not got the truth cannot possibly walk in truth, and will not long wear the appearance of it.
John's joys were many. Against all of them he sets one.
The Christian's joys are many and great. Yet the words "I have no greater joy" show plainly how important walking in truth was in his view. When his children walked that way, his joy overflowed.
John was not there to watch Gaius live. The joy reached him through others who had seen it.
He not only had the truth, but he gave evidence of it by walking in the truth. His practical life was consistent with the truth he professed. What greater joy can a servant have than to know this: the people blessed through the truth he taught are walking by it! This joy the Apostle had as he heard through others of Gaius, his child in the faith.
By the time John wrote, much that once marked the church had already failed. One writer sets that loss beside this joy.
Paul's joy was at seeing the church walking in order. That might now be gone. But this joy is still here. It may trouble us to see the lampstand ruined. Yet there is a deeper joy — seeing the children walking in the truth, and getting a good report of them when brothers come... But where does the Spirit lead us? To this unfailing joy, to see the children walking in the truth.
And this joy is not the apostle's alone.
And this is not only the aged apostle's joy, but it is the joy of the Lord. How He must rejoice when His beloved children in whom He dwells walk in truth!
- Children. "My children" means people related to John in a spiritual way. They came to faith through quiet work that kept no record of numbers or details.
- Truth first. Having the truth comes before walking in it. The truth produces truthfulness. Without the reality, no one keeps up the appearance for long.
- Walk. Walking stands for activity: thinking, speaking, going, doing. All of it is governed by what God has revealed in the Lord Jesus.
- Joy. A man rich in joys says he has no greater one. That shows the weight he gave to a life governed by truth.
- Shared. The joy reaches the servant by the report of others. It survives the ruin of what the church once was. And it belongs to the Lord Himself, not to His servant alone.
Beloved, thou doest faithfully [in] whatever thou mayest have wrought towards the brethren and that strangers,
John has praised Gaius for walking in the truth. Now he praises what Gaius does: he opens his home to Christian workers he has never met.
John praises what Gaius believes before he praises what Gaius gives. One writer sees a fixed pattern in this.
It is remarkable in John that, while he speaks of love, he always guards it in the most definite way by what he calls "the truth." Real love is in God Himself. He is love, and wherever love is real, it must be guarded by the truth as it is in Jesus, or it is not of God. So before he commends Gaius for his love and hospitality to the brothers, he says, "I rejoiced greatly when the brothers came and testified to your truth, as indeed you are walking in the truth." This is the first thing he dwells on, before he even speaks of what Gaius does for the brothers and for strangers.
At first glance the verse names two sets of people: brothers, and then strangers. But that reading is disputed, and the better-attested one changes the force of the word "faithfully."
The end of verse 5 might lead us to suppose that there were two classes in question: (1) the brothers, and (2) strangers. The better attested reading, however, appears to be, "the brothers, and that strangers." It was right to serve the brothers who were well known to him. But to serve brothers who were complete strangers, just because they served the same Master — that was indeed to act "faithfully." The truth is that the saints are one. The Name of the Lord Jesus binds together all who serve in that Name, and love is the cementing power in the Christian circle. To this truth Gaius was faithful. It was in him, and he walked in it.
If these men were unknown to Gaius, then affection and acquaintance cannot explain why he took them in. Something else qualified them at his door.
Gaius did not receive and help these stranger-brothers because he knew them and liked them. He helped them because they were devoted to the Name of Christ, because they were separate from the world and took no help from it, and because they were publishing the truth.
The verse speaks of whatever Gaius does — his hospitality is treated as labour. It is also written to a man whose local situation was turning hostile, as the following verses about Diotrephes show.
Gaius had not only begun well, but was going on well in the face of evil. Still there was the need of cheering him on. Kindly, thoughtfully, generously or lovingly — these would have been the words most Christian men might have used. With Gaius it was first of all a matter of faith before God. Faith always brings in God in one way, as love does in another. Faith brings in the word of truth; love is the energy of the divine nature in gracious affection.
The people Gaius helped could report what his love was like. One writer traces the words behind such love.
His work was the fruit of his faith. Hebrews 13:1 speaks of "brotherly love," philadelphia, and 13:2 of not neglecting to "show hospitality to strangers." Those two words translate one Greek word — philoxenia, which literally means "love of strangers." Here in verses 5 and 6 we find love working in a similar way. The strangers were brothers so far unknown. The people Gaius had served could only witness to his love. Gaius did not live for himself, but was a brother who proved his kindness by caring for and serving others.
The same practice still decides whether a church is fed or goes without.
We know towns where hospitality is not available, or at least hard to arrange. There the assemblies of God's people suffer through lack of ministry. On the other hand, we know towns where believers compete with each other in showing hospitality. There this happy service shows itself in ministry that is plentiful and helpful among the saints. A servant of the Lord receives hospitality, and his ministry builds up and strengthens the saints. Then everyone owes a debt to the home that gave that gracious welcome.
- Truth first. John praises Gaius's walk in the truth before he mentions his kindness. Love that is not guarded by truth is not of God.
- Then love. Once truth is settled, love takes practical shape. John calls the work "faithful" because it springs from faith before God.
- Reaching strangers. The better reading joins the two terms. These were brothers Gaius had never met, and serving them proves that the saints are one.
- For the Name. They came with no introduction. What opened Gaius's door was devotion to the Name of Christ and the truth they carried.
- Result today. Where homes open, ministry is plentiful and all gain. Where they stay shut, the church goes hungry.
(who have witnessed of thy love before [the] assembly,) in setting forward whom on their journey worthily of God, thou wilt do well;
Gaius had opened his home to travelling preachers he had never met, and they went back and reported his love to the church. John now writes to tell him to keep going — and to set the measure for sending them on: God Himself.
The men who spoke up in the church were the travellers Gaius had helped. What John approves is his love for believers he did not know:
Many saints are drawn out in love for workers whom they know and admire, but they hold back from brothers they have never heard of. The love of Gaius for those unknown brothers had the apostle's marked approval. Before the church they "bore witness of your love."
Why does welcoming a stranger count for so much? Because of what ties believers together:
It was right to serve the brothers who were well known to him; but to serve brothers who were complete strangers, just because they served the same Master, was really to act "faithfully." The truth is that the saints are one. The Name of the Lord Jesus binds together all who serve in that Name, and love is the cementing power in the Christian circle.
Some older versions soften this phrase to "after a godly sort." Commentators hold to the stronger wording:
Even if the love of Gaius had been taken advantage of, the apostle would not expect any pause. The word is, "send them on their journey in a manner worthy of God." The weaker phrase "after a godly sort" waters that force down. Undeniably "after a godly sort" is much and excellent in itself; but it is always safer and more reverent to hold to the actual words used by the Spirit of God. And nothing can be clearer than setting them forward, not by a man's idea of godliness, but "in a manner worthy of God." For God is love, and love is of God. It may be about a small thing here below; but it connects the soul in faith and love with what is unseen and eternal, with God who blesses for all eternity.
John asks for more than a warm welcome:
He would have Gaius not just receive them, but set them forward on their journey in a manner worthy of God, who loves such men and such ways.
In practice, this meant covering what the travellers needed for the road:
It is right that those who have gone out for "His Name's sake" should be supported and helped on. Paul expressed his confidence in the believers at Rome that they would send him 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.
In John's letters, love never stands on its own:
It is remarkable that in John, while he speaks of love, he always guards it in the most definite way by what he calls "the truth." Real love is in God Himself. He is love, and wherever love is real it must be guarded by the truth as it is in Jesus, or it is not of God.
The open door still comes with a condition:
This letter encourages the believer to practise hospitality, both towards brothers he knows and towards strangers. It encourages every kind of generous care in helping them on their way when they leave. The condition is that they come with the truth and for the truth's sake, without salary or provision.
The verse asks a lot, yet the wording stays gentle:
Yet the apostle, in suggesting it, says no more than "you will do well." This careful language of the Holy Spirit is simplicity as to Christ. It avoids anything like pressure or overstatement, though the matter was close to the apostle's heart. Something like it appears in Hebrews 13, where the apostle speaks of two kinds of sacrifice. One is "a sacrifice of praise to God." The other is to "do good and to share what you have." The first is of incomparable weight and value. The lower one is doing good and sharing here below, yet it flows from the same faith and love, "for such sacrifices are pleasing to God."
- Truth first. Love is real only when truth guards it. John praises the truth in Gaius first, then his hospitality.
- Strangers count. Helping workers he knew was good. Helping brothers he had never met, because they served the same Master, is what John calls faithful.
- Two actions. John asks Gaius to receive the travellers and then to send them off. The sending includes meeting their needs for the road.
- One standard. Not "after a godly sort," but in a manner worthy of God. The measure is God's own character, not human ideas of kindness.
- Quiet reward. John applies no pressure. He says only, "You will do well" — the doing good and sharing that pleases God.
for for the name have they gone forth, taking nothing of those of the nations.
John is explaining why a group of travelling preachers deserved a welcome. Two questions sit inside the verse: what sends a servant out, and who may pay for the work?
No human authority had sent these men out. One writer notes that opinions about that differed sharply.
This was their merit, not in the eyes of Diotrephes, who insisted on human authority, but in the eyes of the apostle. The Holy Spirit recorded it so for our learning. They "came," they were not "sent" — except by God.
What did that Name mean to the men who went out? One writer spells it out.
Now we understand why these devoted strangers "went forth." They had come under the spell of that name. It meant, first, their complete salvation. They were bought at a price beyond counting — His own precious blood. They were slaves no more; they were Christ's free men and servants. He was their Lord and Master, their leader and commander, their treasurer and source of supply.
Why would needy men turn down money from outsiders? One writer explains what their refusal protected.
Here is what especially endeared these labourers to the apostle. They kept themselves totally free from profiting by the resources of the world. They might be needy, but they kept the heavenly dignity of the gospel. They proved that they wanted the best for the Gentiles, not their own interests. What more degrades the gospel than to let its ministers or the church become beggars from the world? What so openly denies faith in the Lord's care for His work?
One writer sets those early days beside church practice now. An outsider noticed the difference at once.
How unlike this early state is so much that passes in Christendom today. Fund raising and asking for money are now such a large part of Christendom. Not asking for money seems strange to some. An unconverted friend visited our meeting room and searched in vain for a box to put his offering in. He was truly puzzled. "How does your church work?" he asked.
If they refused one source of support, they leaned on another. One writer finds the same pattern in the brothers Joseph sent out in his service.
Joseph's brothers set out on their path of service, and Joseph's provision sustained them until the day they returned. The people they were going to did not provide for them. The person they had come from did.
So what won these men a welcome in a strange place? One writer answers that, and adds a clue about who they were.
These preachers took nothing from the Gentiles when they went out. They left it to God to have them received by those who had the truth at heart. The truth was their only passport among Christians. It seems they were of the Jewish race. He says "receiving nothing of the Gentiles," and by this the apostle makes the distinction. I note this because, if it is so, the phrase "and not for ours only" (1 John 2:2) becomes simple and clear. Not everyone finds it so. Like Paul, the apostle marks the difference of us, Jews, though we are one in Christ.
One writer blames the worst damage done to Christianity on dropping this practice. He then recalls a question the Lord asked His first disciples.
Nothing has so corrupted Christianity as accepting the world's help to further its aims. Before He was crucified, the Lord said to His disciples: "When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?" They said, "Nothing." Is He less tender in His care over His servants now that He is glorified at the right hand of God? A great army of devoted servants all over the world will gladly testify that they too have lacked nothing. They have no guaranteed support from man, and they refuse help from the world.
- The Name sends. These men went out under no human commission — they came, they were not sent, except by God.
- The Name motivates. It stood for their salvation, bought with Christ's blood. It made Him their Master, commander and treasurer at once.
- The Name is guarded. Refusing the world's money kept the dignity of the gospel. It proved they wanted their hearers' good, not their goods.
- The Name provides. Like Joseph's brothers, a servant lives on supplies from the One who sent him, not from the people he goes to.
- The Name still tests us. Nothing has corrupted Christianity more than taking the world's help to do God's work. And the Lord's care for His servants has not grown colder.
*We* therefore ought to receive such, that we may be fellow-workers with the truth.
These travelling preachers went out for the sake of the Name, and they took no money from unbelievers. So verse 8 draws its conclusion: welcome them — and that welcome makes the host a partner in the work itself.
The verse does not offer a suggestion. One writer weighs the single word "ought" and finds a duty in it, owed to one sort of visitor only. (The writers quote an older wording, "receive such," where the ESV has "support people like these.")
Scripture keeps the example of Gaius before us not merely so that we may admire it, but so that we may follow it. It is something we must do if we would be walking in the truth. Note that in verse 8 the word "ought" is used. It is not, "We therefore may receive such," but, "We therefore OUGHT to receive such." The word "ought" expresses obligation, not a choice. It is "such" that we ought to receive — that is, those who truly come in His Name.
These men had one clear mark: they took no money from the Gentiles, the non-Jewish people they preached to. One writer says this is what won John's heart.
"For they went out for the sake of the Name, taking nothing of the Gentiles." Here is what especially endeared these labourers to the apostle. They kept themselves completely free from profiting by the resources of the world. They may have been in need, yet they kept the heavenly dignity of the gospel. They proved that they wanted the best for the Gentiles, and not their own gain. What more degrades the gospel than to let its ministers or the church become beggars from the world? What so openly denies faith in the Lord's care for His work?
John had just told another reader to shut the door on certain visitors. Commentators read these two letters as one rule applied in opposite directions.
This is the reverse of the instruction contained in the second Epistle. There, the believer must not let the man who does not bring the truth into his house, and must have no part with him at all. Here the brother is to be welcomed, even though he is a stranger, because he is diligently carrying the truth for the sake of the Name. We are glad to be identified with him because of the truth he brings. In either case the truth is the test, and personal feelings do not come into it.
The verse does not say we become fellow workers with the men. It names the truth, and that changes what the help aims at.
By doing this, notice, we become "fellow-helpers to the truth." We look not at the men we may help, but at the truth they carry and so far represent. Gaius may indeed be a fellow-helper to them, and this was good. But he helped them because they stood for the truth, and he aimed at helping that forward.
This honour can sound like something for gifted workers only. One writer answers with two plain questions any believer can act on.
He goes so far as to say, "That we may be fellow-workers with the truth." What an honour! Here the truth is spoken of as a person, hated by the devil and by the world. Through the world he works in a thousand ways to thwart Christ and all who stand with the witness to Him. ... It is open and right for all Christians to be fellow-workers with the truth. Some cannot preach; but we may and ought truly and practically to sympathise with those who do the work. Do we pray for them regularly? Do we watch for any way to serve them? If so, "we are fellow-helpers," not merely to them but "with the truth." ... All can help acceptably to the Lord in some way, which makes them by His grace fellow-helpers with the truth.
Partnership is not only a title for today. The host who opens his door has a stake in what the work yields later.
Those who receive these men and help them on their journey, as Gaius did, are fellow helpers to the truth. They are going to share in that coming day in the fruit of their labours. This is the true fellowship in the truth.
- Truth goes out. Men left home for the sake of the Name and refused money from the world. That kept the dignity of the gospel and proved their trust in the Lord's care.
- Truth needs a home. Receiving such men is a duty. "Ought" means obligation, not permission, and turning them away is a failure to walk in the truth.
- Truth is the test. The second letter bars the man who does not bring the truth; the third opens the door to the man who does. The same standard, applied both ways, rules out personal likes and dislikes.
- Truth makes partners. The help aims at the message, not the messenger. Gaius helped these men because they stood for the truth, and so he helped the truth forward.
- Truth pays out. Prayer and practical service put any believer into this partnership. Those who receive the workers share in the fruit of their labour in the coming day.
I wrote something to the assembly; but Diotrephes, who loves to have the first place among them, receives us not.
John has been praising Gaius. Now he turns to trouble in the church itself. A man named Diotrephes had put himself between the apostle and the assembly. Two questions follow: what became of John's letter, and why would a man refuse an apostle?
John mentions a letter to the church, yet no such letter is in the Bible. Why not?
There is no difficulty then in understanding why we have not the letter that John wrote. It seems that Diotrephes showed his bad spirit by keeping this letter from the church, and that this was how he did not receive the apostle.
One Greek word describes Diotrephes. It has a striking counterpart elsewhere in Scripture:
The Holy Spirit describes this Diotrephes with one word — Philoproteuon. It means Lover of the pre-eminence, or Lover of the first place. Like the word that tells of the pre-eminence of Christ, the Spirit of Truth uses it only this once. This man, and everyone of his type, set his heart on the place that belongs to our Lord Jesus Christ alone. He is a solemn warning to anyone who seeks personal control in the assembly, whatever the stated motive.
Scripture never tells us the reasons Diotrephes gave for his stand. It tells us something more useful:
We are not told why he took so strong a stand. He set himself against these brothers who came as strangers, against others who received them, and even against John himself. It may have been the rise of clericalism, or too much zeal for imagined points of teaching or procedure, or something of that sort. But we do know what lay underneath his high-handed ways. What was really the matter with the man? He loved to have the pre-eminence among the saints. That great and important "I" was to the fore. He was out to establish a dominating position for himself.
What did his refusal look like in practice? Older translations put "does not acknowledge our authority" as "receives us not":
The apostle had written not to Diotrephes, but to the assembly, to announce an intended visit; but John says of this usurper of authority, he "receives us not." The next verse tells us more. He talked against the apostle with malicious words. He pushed his tyranny further still: he would not receive the brothers himself, he forbade those who would, and he even put them out of the assembly. He held his place by lording it over the saints, as if they were his own possession. He asserted himself where all authority belongs to Christ, and where anyone who holds authority must use it only in His name.
One writer reads Diotrephes not as a lone troublemaker but as the pattern for a type:
Diotrephes is the example Scripture gives of the clerical class, in contrast to the ministry of Christ. There is no service, because there is no love. He represents the spirit that opposes the free action of the Holy Spirit. It sets itself even against apostolic authority, to gain or keep his own personal pre-eminence. Self-importance. Jealousy of those over us. Impatience with others just as truly called to serve. Scorn of the assembly, yet sometimes humouring the least worthy for its own ends. These are the marks of clericalism.
The same writer draws out the principle:
If you claim a title from Christ for yourself, you must uphold Christ's authority in another. Anyone who does this honestly and truly could never claim an exclusive title. This was precisely what Diotrephes did, and it is the distinctive point of the clerical system.
John had honoured the church. Now he could not trust it:
It is only here that the word "Church" appears in John's writings. And we find that he had honoured the Church in the place that belonged to her, by commending Demetrius and his companions in the ministry of the gospel to the hospitality and fellowship of the Church. But now he finds he can trust the Church no longer. He finds his relief instead in the personal, individual grace of this "beloved Gaius."
So what should the faithful man in that church do?
3 John is one of the most important letters on what an individual should do when things in the assembly are not in order, because some brother is taking a place that is not his. John did not say, "Gaius, you leave that assembly." Instead he commended him for doing what was right, and told him to keep doing it. And John, the last of the apostles, was going to come himself and face this man.
- The cause. The reasons he gave may have been teaching or procedure. What Scripture names is his love of the first place.
- The theft. The first place belongs to Christ alone; a man who takes it is disputing what is His.
- The blockade. Love of first place made him refuse the letter, refuse the brothers, and put out those who welcomed them.
- The principle. No one can claim a title from Christ for himself while denying Christ's authority in another.
- The remedy. John did not tell Gaius to leave. He told him to keep doing right, and he was coming himself to face the man.
For this reason, if I come, I will bring to remembrance his works which he does, babbling against us with wicked words; and not content with these, neither does he himself receive the brethren; and those who would he prevents, and casts [them] out of the assembly.
Third John names a man in one assembly who refused John's letter, turned away travelling preachers, and threw out anyone who welcomed them. John's answer is not a threat; he promises only to bring up those deeds when he comes.
The apostle does not spell out any punishment. One writer contrasts this restraint with Paul's handling of sin at Corinth:
It is worth noticing how John deals with the evil. About Diotrephes, he is content to say that if he comes, he will bring up what the man is doing. John had apostolic authority. Yet unlike Paul, he does not announce that he will use it and press church discipline (1 Cor. 5). In truth John's mission was of another kind. Still, when he was there, he would remember Diotrephes' evil deeds. He does not say how. But what he does say is enough to be a solemn warning for Diotrephes.
One writer looks closely at the word John uses:
I do not believe that 3 John 10 means "When I come I will show him what he has done." The word upomneso means instead: I will remember what he has done, or I will make him remember what he has done. It does not state exactly what the apostle planned to do once he had come.
The first charge is about words. Older translations render the phrase "prating against us with malicious words." The term points to empty chatter, not to reasoned objection:
If John should come, he would be present in apostolic power and would certainly bring the matter up. The word "prating" carries the idea of nonsensical talk. Diotrephes opposed John's position and tried to undermine it with baseless and spiteful slander. He clearly laid claim to church authority. He was more concerned about his own name than the Name to which the humble preachers had devoted themselves.
The tactic outlives the man, and it is at its ugliest among people who claim to care about truth:
We solemnly believe that this "prating against" the servants of the Lord "with malicious words" is a very sore evil today. To blacken a man's character because you cannot answer his arguments is a well-known trick in controversy. It is doubly despicable among people who have to contend for the truth.
Talk was only the start. He refused the travelling brothers, stopped others, and expelled them. One writer points out who he was shutting out:
In John's third letter, Diotrephes "cast out" the brothers. The people he treated this way were the best saints. He could only cast them out of the assembly where he had taken for himself the first place that belongs to Christ… Strikingly, the only mention of the assembly in John's writings comes with this evil Diotrephes-like conduct.
Verse 9 supplies the motive that verse 10 acts out: Diotrephes "likes to put himself first," which older translations render "loves to have the pre-eminence." Commentators see in this a whole system, not just one bad temper:
Diotrephes is the Scripture example of the clerical type, as distinct from the ministry of Christ. There is no service, because there is no love. He represents the spirit that opposes the free action of the Holy Spirit. It sets itself even against apostolic authority, to gain or keep its own personal pre-eminence. These are the marks of clericalism: self-importance, jealousy of those over us, impatience with others equally called to serve, scorn of the assembly, yet sometimes pleasing the least worthy for its own ends.
Few people defend such conduct in those terms. It usually arrives dressed as care for order:
Why did Diotrephes act in this way? His excuse was probably this: these travelling brothers were unauthorised men, and he was standing for what was orderly and official. But the words "who loves to have the pre-eminence" unmask the real motive behind his attitude and action. The work of these men was in some way a challenge to the place Diotrephes held, and loved to hold.
John records the case so that readers watch themselves, not only him:
We may well take warning from Diotrephes, for the flesh is in us, and by nature we are all self-important. If we do not judge it, it will lead us to ignore the Lord's glory completely, along with the good of His people and the advance of the truth. Blinded by vanity we have not judged, we can forget everything that suits a Christian. Then we act as people did long ago, in jealousy, giving way to malicious words and violent acts.
- Root. One appetite drives the whole verse — the love of the first place, named in verse 9. It sets itself against the free action of the Spirit to keep personal pre-eminence.
- Words. The appetite speaks first. The talk is empty and spiteful, aimed at a man it cannot answer with arguments.
- Deeds. Then it acts. It refuses the Lord's servants, stops others, and throws the best saints out of the assembly — the only assembly John's writings ever mention.
- Cover. It hides its motive. It claims to stand for order and proper authority.
- Answer. John names no penalty. He will simply bring up the deeds when he comes. That was warning enough for Diotrephes, and it is warning enough for us, since the same self-importance sits in every heart.
Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. He that does good is of God. He that does evil has not seen God.
John has just described Diotrephes — a man who loved the first place, refused the apostle, and threw out those who welcomed travelling workers. From that example he draws a short, tender rule for his friend Gaius, and two tests lie behind it: what a person does, and whether he has ever seen God.
John aims the warning at a real man's conduct, and at its pull on everyone watching.
"Beloved," as the solemn wording goes, "do not imitate what is evil but what is good." Diotrephes was clearly doing what was evil. Gaius must steer clear of copying it, for evil is infectious. Let him hold to the good.
Another writer weighs John's gentle tone, and why the warning was needed:
There is a beauty beyond words in this simple and tender appeal. And remember: when someone like Diotrephes has influence and position, the temptation to "imitate" what is evil in his conduct is great. So John warns believers not to be blind to the evil, whatever attractive company it keeps.
"Good" here means more than avoiding wrong. It takes its measure from what God Himself does.
We have seen the truth first, and then grace to the brethren and to others in general. If you do good, you are from God. It is not a question of mere evil; but "whoever does good is from God." It is the active service of love. God does not do evil — that is clear; but He does good.
John speaks in absolutes. What does "whoever does evil" mean for a believer who has failed?
John makes these very simple, absolute statements: "Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil [as a practice, as a way of life] has not seen God" (v. 11). This does not speak of the person who slips and falls at some time. Good is always of God, evil is never of God. We must obey the Lord regardless of what any human leader says.
Even so, John stops short of naming Diotrephes as the man described. Kelly keeps it open: "We cannot say that Diotrephes fully answered to this terrible description. But he gave serious ground for fearing it."
God is invisible. So how can anyone have seen Him? One writer points to the Son:
"Whoever does evil has not seen God." Notice those words — "SEEN GOD." How has anyone seen God? In the Son, who came down close to us in love beyond measure! In the eternal Son — in "the Son of the Father's love," named "The image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15). The invisible God is made visible in the Son. So He said, "I and the Father are one," and "Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father."
The other half of the verse steadies the reader. Kelly puts it this way: "How comforting is the other side! The one who does good is from God. To see God leaves its mark on your soul for ever. One cannot have seen God and be a doer of evil."
The evil John warns against wore the clothes of church order.
In him three things outweighed the grace, patience, meekness, and lowliness that should mark a servant of Christ: a cold, stern, hard official manner; a rigid devotion to church rules; and a kind of tyranny combined with fierce zeal... In his gentle style he writes: "Beloved, do not imitate what is evil [do not copy the high-handed, merciless, thoughtless ways of such a man] but what is good" (kind, profitable, helpful).
The verse sets a double duty: refuse and receive.
We are called to reject the evil and receive the good. We must strictly exclude from our fellowship all who do not bring the doctrine of Christ. We must faithfully include the believers and strangers who go out in His name bearing His testimony, depending on God and independent of the world... We must show the warmest sympathy, in a way "worthy of God," with those who are working to carry the word forward and to build up the saints in it.
- Imitation. The danger is not Diotrephes' sin but Gaius catching it. "Evil is infectious," and the pull is strongest when the wrongdoer holds influence and position.
- Good. Doing good is more than avoiding harm. It is "the active service of love" — what God Himself does, worked out as kindness that helps people.
- Source. Good has one origin. The person who does good "is from God," because good always comes from God and evil never does.
- Sight. We see God in the Son, "the image of the invisible God." A settled life of evil proves a person has never seen Him.
- Practice. The test lands in church life. Refuse high-handed ways that shut people out. Welcome those who go out for His name.
Demetrius has witness borne to him by all, and by the truth itself; and *we* also bear witness, and thou knowest that our witness is true.
After the sad account of Diotrephes, John turns to a man he can praise. Three witnesses stand behind Demetrius: all the saints, the truth itself, and the apostle. How can "the truth" bear witness to a man?
Older translations say "good report," which softens the wording. One writer explains the force of the verb, who "all" covers, and how little else we know:
First, he has "good report," better, "is testified to," or, "has witness borne to him" by all, not by all men, but by all the saints... We would have liked to know more about such a blameless servant, a man of such good name. But this is all we are told. Still, it is a singular honour to have such a record in the pages of the word of God.
A good report from everyone also tells us what Demetrius was not, and why the apostles could vouch for him:
He had three marks that every labouring servant may well covet. First, he had a "good report of all." Clearly, then, he was not a vain, self-important man looking for a prominent place. He was not a spiteful gossip either, always talking against others. If he had been, he would never have had a good report of all men... Lastly, because he walked in line with the example and teaching of the apostles, they also witnessed to his integrity and devotion.
The striking clause is the second one. Notice which way the testimony runs:
It is not that he bore witness to the truth, but that the truth bore witness to him. Demetrius was not the standard for testing the truth. The truth was the standard for testing Demetrius, and under that test he stood approved.
How can something impersonal testify? One explanation looks at the fruit left behind him:
He goes so far about the truth as to say that the truth itself bore witness to Demetrius. I suppose Demetrius had spread it. The truth was established and confirmed everywhere — at least where he had worked — and that was a testimony about him.
Other writers point to his life rather than his labours:
Demetrius embodied the truth he professed. His life resembled it and agreed with the truth. Gaius could therefore have confidence in Demetrius, a man honoured of God.
John does not stop at what others say. He adds his own witness, and that has a purpose for Gaius in an evil day:
The truth itself, as well as all, bore witness to Demetrius; and we also bear witness, and Gaius knew for himself that it was true... It seems the Spirit of God notices Demetrius for this reason: even in our evil day, we may look for others who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. So here, if we hear of one Diotrephes, there were two to praise: Gaius and Demetrius. And there were the faithful brothers too, though strangers, of whom Diotrephes had nothing good to say. The apostle would not have us too weighed down by the sense of evil or by evil-speakers. He would have our hearts encouraged in the truth and in love.
A name like this takes years, and it stands against the story just told:
Diotrephes was far removed from the spirit of the One he claimed to own as Master. In happy and vivid contrast to his sad and tragic story, we have Demetrius. He had a good report of all, and of the truth itself. The Elder was glad to give him this praise. He could only have won such a happy report by years of quiet, steady testimony and a modest walk among his brothers.
The same standard that gave Demetrius a good report will one day test every believer:
The truth gives us a standard of what is good that never fails. Examine the life of Demetrius in the light of the truth, and the truth itself gave a good report in his favour. The truth will examine all of us in the end, when we stand before the judgment seat of Christ. What is our report going to be? Good or bad?
- Tested. The truth is the standard. It measured Demetrius, and he came out approved — he did not measure the truth by himself.
- Testified. The verse's "good testimony" means others bore witness to him — all the saints, not just a friendly few.
- Embodied. Commentators differ on how the truth spoke for him. Some point to the truth he spread and settled; others to a life that matched what he taught.
- Confirmed. John adds his own witness. Gaius could welcome Demetrius with full confidence, even in a day of Diotrephes.
- Earned. Only years of quiet, steady faithfulness built such a name. That same truth will give every believer a report at the judgment seat of Christ.
I had many things to write to thee, but I will not with ink and pen write to thee;
John's last letter ends the way a long visit ends at the door — with more to say than there is time to say it. He had enough for a much fuller one, but he put down the pen — and his reason tells us what he valued more than paper.
The letter is brief because only the pressing matter needed ink. Everything else could wait for the visit.
Our little letter closes in much the same way as the second. As with the elect lady, so with Gaius, the face-to-face conversation was far better than the letter. But one thing was urgent and allowed no delay: strengthening the elect lady against the quiet approaches of evil. It was just as urgent to confirm Gaius in receiving and supporting those who were good and true, even when others refused them.
One reason was simply physical:
John "had much to write": far more than could fit on a single sheet of papyrus.
The word covers more than one kind of writing tool in the Bible:
A general term for any tool used to cut an inscription into stone or metal. It also means a reed for writing on papyrus or parchment. Judges 5:14; Job 19:24; Psalm 45:1; Isaiah 8:1; Jeremiah 8:8; Jeremiah 17:1; 3 John 13.
John had power to work miracles behind him, yet what he wanted was a conversation with a friend. Where these writers quote the next verse as speaking "mouth to mouth," the ESV reads "talk face to face."
The Holy Spirit gave power to work signs and wonders and mighty works. Yet He also gave power to work as though one were nothing oneself. The inspired man had many things to write with ink and pen. But he hoped to see his beloved Gaius, when "we shall speak mouth to mouth." He preferred living fellowship, and wished him peace in the meantime.
Preferring a conversation does not lower the value of the written page. Timothy heard Paul in person. We have the letters instead, and that is God's arrangement, not a loss.
In the main we have this too, in Paul's letters, to mention no others. It pleased God to make it permanent, for our instruction, encouragement, warning and general blessing. Yet we cannot have what Timothy enjoyed so much: speaking "mouth to mouth." Another apostle uses that phrase, and he valued such talk highly compared with paper and ink and pen (2 John 12; 3 John 13-14). Yet each has its own excellence, and everything is surely arranged in its season.
There is nothing grand about how the letter signs off, and that plainness is itself a mark of Scripture.
How simple and true are the closing words of this third letter, as of the second! Great artists used to paint not only the Lord but the apostles and the saints with a halo over the head. Scripture speaks of them all with plain simplicity. The Lord is the meekest and lowliest of men. The apostles differ from other believers in deeper self-denial, and in a more vivid sense of abiding in God — the privilege of His grace.
The hope of seeing a friend points to a far greater meeting.
Both letters end with a coming face-to-face meeting. Let us remember that some blessed day there will be a "face to face" meeting. The saints of God will meet together for eternal fellowship. Above all, we shall be face to face with Him.
Something larger also stops with this letter:
Not everything has been told. Revelation reached John, and nothing more is to be added with pen and ink. The volume of written inspiration is closed. The paper and the ink are filled up and used to the full. John was the last to use it. But, as we know, what we now see "in a mirror dimly" we shall see "face to face."
- Unwritten. John had far more to say than the sheet in front of him could hold; he wrote only what could not wait.
- Urgent. Only one thing could not wait: strengthening Gaius to receive and support faithful workers.
- Unassuming. The letter ends with no display of rank — the plain speech of a man who valued a friend more than a flourish.
- Unhurried. He saved the rest for a conversation, preferring living fellowship to ink and pen — yet the written word keeps its own excellence.
- Unfinished. The pen stops here, and written revelation stops with it. What remains is the face-to-face meeting, above all with Him.
but I hope soon to see thee, and we will speak mouth to mouth. Peace [be] to thee. The friends greet thee. Greet the friends by name.
The letter closes the way a personal note ends: travel plans, a wish of peace, and greetings passed on. But this letter has just exposed Diotrephes, a man who pushed himself to the front and shut others out. So even the last lines carry weight about how believers treat one another.
One commentator draws out what John chose instead of ink and pen.
The inspired writer had many things to write with ink and pen, but he hoped to see his beloved Gaius and talk face to face. He preferred living fellowship, and wished him peace meanwhile. Here we have the friends greeting one another, and in no vague way but "by name." As in the second of John's letters, it is a family greeting: "The children of your elect sister greet you."
The wish of peace is not filler. It meets Gaius in the middle of real trouble.
"Peace be to you" is a greeting familiar to Jews. Here it is so fitting, given the pressure of Diotrephes' maliciousness.
John calls these believers "the friends." One commentator traces the word back to what Jesus said to His disciples.
In the closing sentences the Apostle speaks of the brethren who were with him and those with Gaius as "the friends." This carries our minds back to John 15. There the Lord says, "You are My friends if you do what I command you." He says again, "I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you." The obedient saint is the one brought into this wonderful intimacy, and so acknowledged as a friend of Christ.
In this letter the gathering of believers has itself become a place of conflict. The title still marks out a small group.
This is of very deep interest. In one of the very last of the inspired Epistles, probably the last of all, John has to speak of the assembly as the scene of tyranny and strife. Yet he speaks of those who were true as THE FRIENDS. They were clearly not many, but they were all known by name. They were keeping the Lord's commands, and this remarkable honour rested on them: they carried the name "friends."
"By name" turns a polite sign-off into a pattern for church life. It refuses to treat believers as a crowd.
Gaius was to greet the friends by name. They did not form a nameless mass, as if each person's 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. All should know each other personally, and be able to greet one another by name.
One writer links John's hoped-for visit to a far greater meeting.
Both Epistles end with a coming face to face meeting. Let us remember that some blessed day there will be a "face to face" meeting. The saints of God will meet together for eternal fellowship. Above all, we shall be face to face with Him.
A letter that names Diotrephes could leave a reader discouraged. One commentator warns against that very reaction.
We are not to fall under the cloud of evil. There is always a danger of throwing up one's hands and saying that all is gone. I could never sympathise with so unbelieving a thought. The worst evil is spreading, and quite a few who seemed faithful have broken down. That is all the more reason to distrust ourselves, and yet to stay close to the Lord with purpose of heart. Let us never forget that the Holy Spirit stays in us and with us for ever. He works to gather to His name even more than to convert sinners, though He does both.
- Face to face — John cuts the letter short. He prefers living fellowship, and saves the rest until he arrives.
- Peace first — the greeting of peace meets Gaius under the pressure of Diotrephes' malice.
- Friends, by obedience — the title goes back to Jesus' words in John 15. Obedience brings the believer into that intimacy.
- Friends, by name — not an anonymous crowd, but a close community where each person is known and greeted by name.
- Friends, unshaken — the spread of evil is no reason to give up. The Spirit stays to gather to Christ's name, and John's hoped-for visit points to the day we see Him face to face.