In style, 2 and 3 John are very much alike, indicating that the sender of both letters is the person who identified himself as “the presbyter” or “the elder.” The ancient questioning regarding 3 John is the same as for 2 John, with doubts having been raised about whether the apostle John is the elder who wrote these two letters. In 3 John, like in 2 John, the writer does not identify himself as the apostle. For this reason, the commentary that follows will refer to him as the “elder.” (See the introduction for 2 John, as the comments of Eusebius and Origen apply also to 3 John.)
It is unlikely that this brief personal letter would have been extensively copied, recopied, and circulated. This may explain why it is not represented among the earliest extant papyrus manuscripts.
Third John praises Gaius for his exemplary love, commends Demetrius as a believer with an outstanding reputation, and exposes the wrong attitude and high-handed actions of Diotrephes who jealously tried to secure his position as the foremost one in the local congregation. Nothing in the letter makes it possible to identify where Gaius lived. Three of the apostle Paul’s close associates were named Gaius. One was a Macedonian, another Gaius came from Derbe in Asia Minor, and the third, one of the few believers whom Paul had personally baptized, resided in Corinth. (Acts 19:29; 20:4; Romans 16:23; 1 Corinthians 1:14) Nothing contained in 3 John identifies Gaius with any one of these three believers, and it is far more likely that he is yet another believer named Gaius.
The designation “the presbyter” or “the elder,” as in 2 John, could apply to the apostle John both from the standpoint of his being advanced in age and as one who functioned in the community of believers as a teacher who encouraged, admonished, and looked out for the interests of fellow disciples of Jesus Christ. Gaius is addressed as “the beloved,” a dear fellow believer and friend. The elder loved him “in truth.” Being “in truth,” this sincere or genuine love befitted a fellow member of God’s family of beloved children. (Verse 1)
The elder desired, hoped, or prayed that his beloved or dear friend Gaius might be prospering or faring well in everything and enjoying good health or physical well-being. Based on the favorable reports of others regarding Gaius and probably also his personal knowledge, the elder knew that the “soul” of Gaius fared well. In this case, the Greek word for “soul” (psyché) may denote the inner life of Gaius as a devoted disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Verse 2)
The elder experienced exceeding joy when “brothers came and testified” about Gaius in relation to the truth, just as he did “walk in the truth.” These brothers could have been believers whom the elder had sent to the community of believers in the town or city where Gaius resided. Upon their return, they would have given their favorable report. Another possibility is that the “brothers” were fellow believers who engaged in the work of evangelizers, traveling from city to city to proclaim the glad tidings about the Son of God, and that from them the elder received the encouraging news about Gaius. (Compare Acts 8:4, 5, 26-40; 21:8.) In the Greek text, the participial forms of the terms for “coming” and “testifying” are in the present tense and so may indicate that the “brothers” arrived at various times and provided their testimony. (Verse 3; see the Notes section.)
After the Greek expression for “testifying,” the text literally reads, “of you to the truth.” This may be understood to mean that Gaius adhered faithfully to the truth that focused on Jesus Christ and what he did and taught. For Gaius, this truth was a way of life; he walked in it, harmonizing his life with the example and teaching of Jesus Christ. (Verse 3)
The elder experienced the greatest joy (chará) when hearing that his “children” were “walking in the truth,” or living the truth embodied in what Jesus Christ did and taught. It may be because of his being a man of advanced years that the elder affectionately referred to fellow believers as his “children.” There is also the possibility that he had been instrumental in assisting a number of them to become disciples of God’s Son and so would have come to be like a father to them. Paul, for example, spoke of Onesimus as his “child,” to whom he had become a father during the time of his imprisonment. (Verse 4; verse 10 of Philemon; see the Notes section.)
The elder commended the “beloved,” or his dear friend Gaius, for the kindly help he had extended to the “brothers,” fellow believers whom he had not known previously (literally, “strangers”). These brothers were the ones who had come to the town or city where Gaius resided, and he had received them hospitably. In the Greek text, the word pistós, meaning “faithful,” “trustworthy,” or “dependable,” describes what Gaius had done. In this context, pistós could be understood to mean that the actions of Gaius revealed the genuineness of his faith in God and Christ or that his kindly support of the brothers expressed his trust in them, recognizing them as fellow members in God’s family and treating them accordingly. (Verse 5)
Probably to the congregation or the community of believers among whom the elder then was, the brothers who had experienced the kindness of Gaius testified to his love. Gaius would have been doing well when sending these brothers on their way as persons in God’s service (literally, “worthily of God”). In the Greek text, the reference to the testifying is in the aorist tense, commonly expressing something that happened in the past. Then the commendable act Gaius would be doing in sending the brothers on their way “worthily of God” is expressed in the future tense, which could mean that they had not as yet departed. The New Jerusalem Bible conveys this meaning and does not represent the testimony as a report the brothers made to the congregation. “They are a proof to the whole Church of your love and it would be a kindness if you could help them on their journey as God would approve.” Another significance could be that the brothers who had told the congregation about the love of Gaius would again be seeing him because the elder would be sending them to deliver the letter he had written. (Verse 6)
These brothers had gone forth for the sake of “the name” and, therefore, deserved to be lovingly received and provided with aid for the journey (food, other essentials, and funds) to another location. A number of translations have interpretively replaced “name” with “Christ” (NCV, NRSV) or explicitly rendered the text to read “for love of Christ’s name.” (REB) In the previous verse, however, God is mentioned, and so the “name” could identify the brothers as having gone forth in God’s service. For many centuries, the Jews have used the expression “the name” as a reference to YHWH. Possibly the expression has the same significance here in 3 John. The brothers who went forth to advance the cause of God and Christ did not receive support “from the nations,” or from people who had not responded in faith to the message about Christ. (Verse 7)
Therefore, believers were obligated to “receive” the brothers or to welcome and aid them, making sure that their needs were met. By supporting the efforts of these brothers in furthering Christ’s interests, believers who assisted them became “fellow workers for the truth.” This truth relates to Christ, what he accomplished by surrendering his life, and his example and teaching. As the “brothers” labored in the furtherance of the vital truth that Christ embodied, believers who assisted them became co-workers in spreading “the truth.” (Verse 8)
The elder had written something to the congregation of believers with whom Gaius associated. A certain Diotrephes, however, did not receive or accept anything in a respectful manner. This indicates that he disregarded what had been written to the congregation and responded contemptuously to the brothers who, likely at the request of the elder, had come for a visit. (Verse 9)
It appears that Diotrephes did not want anyone to detract from the prominent role he had assumed in the congregation. He liked being “first.” (Verse 9; see the Notes section.)
In view of the disposition of Diotrephes, the elder determined that, whenever he might personally visit the community of believers, he would hold an accounting. He would recall “the works” that Diotrephes had done. These works would have included his making baseless accusations with “wicked words.” The elder again used the first person plural (“us”) when mentioning the deeds of Diotrephes, either using the editorial “we” or meaning himself and the brothers who had visited. The Greek term that can apply to making baseless accusations is phlyaréo and can refer to making senseless or disparaging remarks. Diotrephes did so with “wicked words” or expressed himself maliciously or in an outrageous manner. But he was not satisfied by limiting himself to maligning. Not only did he personally not “receive” or welcome the brothers who had been sent, but he actively endeavored to stop others from extending hospitality and, apparently when they did, expelled them from the congregation. (Verse 10)
The elder encouraged the “beloved,” or his dear friend Gaius, to “imitate, not the bad [of which Diotrephes proved to be a prime example], but the good,” the disposition and conduct that reflected genuine concern for the welfare of others. One who does good “is of [literally, ‘out of’ or ‘from’] God,” but the one who does bad “has not seen God.” The heavenly Father is the source of everything that is good. He is holy or pure, without any taint of impurity or bad, and love is the attribute that best identifies who he is in every aspect of his being. Individuals who live a life of love, actively doing good for others and conducting themselves in a manner that honors God reveal that they are his children. They belong to him. Practicers of bad, persons who, in attitude, word, and action, fail to show love, have not “seen” God. Their lack of concern and care for fellow humans demonstrates that they have no true knowledge of what it means to be loving, making it impossible for them to “see” or to have even a remote perception of God, for “God is love.” (Verse 11; 1 John 4:8)
Unlike Diotrephes, Demetrius demonstrated himself to be a disciple of Jesus Christ who exemplified the doing of good and merited being imitated. Demetrius had the favorable testimony of “all,” doubtless meaning all believers who knew him. Additionally, he had the testimony of the “truth.” This indicates that he conducted himself according to the example and teaching of Jesus Christ who embodied the truth and who, without flaw, reflected the image of his Father in every way. Apparently using the editorial “we,” the elder continued, “And also we are testifying, and you know that our testimony is true.” Based on what Gaius knew about the elder, he had every assurance that the favorable testimony about Demetrius was “true,” or completely trustworthy. (Verse 12)
Nothing in this letter provides any specifics about the relationship of the fellow believer Demetrius to Gaius or to the elder. Demetrius and Gaius may have had association as part of the same local congregation. Another possibility is that Demetrius may have been one of the brothers whom the elder had sent in the past. Or he may have been the brother whom the elder sent with the letter he had written. If Demetrius acted as his representative, the elder, when commending him, may have intended to encourage Gaius to welcome him and, as a loving host, care for his needs. (Verse 12)
The elder could have written much more to Gaius, but he did not wish to continue writing with “ink” (the genitive form of mélas) and “pen” (the genitive form of kálamos, meaning “reed”). He hoped to see Gaius personally, making it possible to speak to him “mouth to mouth,” or face to face. (Verse 13, 14; see the Notes section.)
After concluding with an expression of “peace,” or a wish for the well-being directed to Gaius, the elder conveyed the greetings of the “friends,” or fellow believers with whom he then was, and requested that Gaius greet the “friends” (“brothers,” according to other manuscripts) for him, doing so “according to name.” For Gaius to greet fellow believers by name would have meant to extend the elder’s greetings to all of them individually, not leaving anyone out. (Verse 14[15]; see the Notes section.)
Notes:
In verse 3, a number of manuscripts do not include the conjunction gár, meaning “for,” and numerous English translations omit the word in their renderings. It is, however, found in many manuscripts and may be understood to introduce the reason the elder was confident that the “soul” of Gaius prospered or fared well.
Fourth-century Codex Vaticanus and a number of other manuscripts (in verse 4) do not contain a form of chará (“joy”) but have a form of cháris, which, in this context, denotes “thanks” or “gratitude.”
In verse 9, the verb for “wrote” is first person singular. When, however, the reference is to the refusal to receive on the part of Diotrephes, the first person plural pronoun (“us”) is used. This could either be an editorial “we” or could include the brothers whom the elder had sent.
The Greek word for “ink” (mélas) literally means “black.” In this context, the term designates the ink that had soot or black carbon as the main ingredient. Likely a plant gum served as the binding agent for the black pigment. The “pen,” as the Greek term kálamos indicates, was a reed. To function as a pen, the reed had been pointed and slit (much like the writing point of a fountain pen). (Verse 13)
According to the reading of a number of manuscripts, “amen” (“so be it”) concludes the letter.