From: Over 50 Interpreters Explain 1 to 3 John Return to
Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2018
List of All Sources
Quoted At End of File
Entire
Third John
(Verses
1-14)
Verse 1 Translations
WEB: The elder to Gaius
the beloved, whom I love in truth.
Young’s: The
Elder to Gaius the beloved, whom I love in truth!
Conte (RC): The
Elder, to Gaius, most beloved, whom I love in the
truth.
Verse 1 The elder. One
possibility for the language used to describe the author: In this letter, too, John does not mention his name, but only describes
himself as the last representative of an older generation, around whom an
entirely new generation had already grown up.
[41]
The author of this
letter is the elder, the aged Apostle John. He modestly and invariably describes himself under
some general or distinguishing description (see John l:35;
21:20.) In striking contrast to the
claims made and the terms used by the modern popes and the bishops of
unto the wellbeloved. In the Greek
order the name comes first. Gaius the
beloved. [1]
An epithet thrice used in the
epistle, as “elect” is twice in
the Second Epistle. [33]
Gaius. The name was not an uncommon
one, and it cannot be determined now who he was, or where he lived. Whether he
had any office in the church is unknown, but he seems to have been a man of
wealth and influence. [18]
The
name occurs several times in the New Testament, at Acts 19:29; 20:4; Romans 16:23; 1 Corinthians 1:14. The person addressed here cannot be
identified. [1]
If he is one of these: The
Gaius of Acts
whom I love in the
truth [omitting “the:” ESV, NASB]. Either as fellow followers of the Truth (retaining “the”) or “in reality,
genuinely, sincerely” (omitting “the”).
[rw]
Arguments both ways: As the article is wanting in
the Greek, some interpreters understand the phrase, whom
I truly love. This makes
good correspondence with “beloved.” Thou art “the
well beloved,” and I love thee in
truth. But John often omits
the article where the real meaning is the gospel truth, as in verse 3. [33]
Verse 2 Translations
WEB: Beloved,
I pray that you may prosper in all things and be healthy, even as your soul
prospers.
Young’s: beloved,
concerning all things I desire thee to prosper, and to be in health, even as
thy soul doth prosper,
Conte (RC): Most beloved, concerning everything, I make it my prayer that you may benefit by advancing and succeeding in whatever may be to the benefit of your soul.
Verse 2 Beloved. Indicating the intensity of feeling and good will. [rw]
I wish above
all things.
Since his soul's prosperity is presupposed, “above all
things” does not imply that John wishes Gaius' bodily
prosperity above that of his soul, but as the first object to be desired next
after spiritual health. I know you are
prospering in your soul. I wish you
similar prosperity in your body. Perhaps
John had heard from the brethren (verse 3) that Gaius
was in bad health, and was tried in other ways (verse 10), to which the wish
refers. [4]
The sense is, “In every respect, I
wish that it may go as well with you as it does with your soul; that in your
worldly prosperity, your comfort, and your bodily health, you may be as
prosperous as you are in your religion.”
[18]
The
order of the Greek is striking, “all things” at the beginning being placed in
contrast to “soul” at the end of the sentence: in all things I
pray that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even
as prospereth thy soul. The verse is a model for all friendly wishes
of good fortune to others. [23]
that thou mayest prosper. Literally, have a prosperous journey.
[1]
Implies John’s belief that the soul of Gaius did prosper. [47]
and be in health. “Prosper” -- in general. “Be in health” -- in particular. [4]
Possibly implying that he had had serious
health problems that might reoccur. [rw]
An ascetic would be surprised that
one of the greatest of the Apostles should be so earnest on such a point. But the better a man’s health, the more
thoroughly he can do the work of God. A
Christian whose faith is firm and character established,
can ill afford to despise the inestimable blessing of a sound body. Functional and organic disorder
proportionately lessen the capacity for thought, resolution, and
activity. [32]
Or: We cannot conclude from these good wishes that Gaius
had been ailing in health and fortune:
but it is quite clear from what follows that “prosper and be in health”
do not refer to his spiritual condition, and this verse is, therefore, good
authority for praying for temporal blessings for our friends. In the Pastoral Epistles “to be in health” (ὑγιαίνειν)
is always used figuratively of faith and doctrine. [23]
even as thy soul prospereth. It appears from the last
clause that the soul of Gaius was in a very
prosperous state. [17]
The word “prospereth”
is literally makes good way, and so links on to the idea of walking, in verses 3-4.
The health of the soul came first in the Apostle’s mind: when
there is that, he can wish for bodily health to support it. [32]
A
man’s spiritual prosperity is known by his works. [49]
Verse 3 Translations
WEB: For I
rejoiced greatly, when brothers came and testified about your truth, even as
you walk in truth.
Young’s: for I
rejoiced exceedingly, brethren coming and testifying of the truth in thee, even
as thou in truth dost walk;
Conte (RC): I was
very glad when the brothers arrived, and when they offered testimony to the
truth in you, that you are walking in the truth.
Verse 3 For I rejoiced greatly.
Giving reason “for” assuming that his
soul was all right; namely, his accepting and aiding John’s missionaries of “truth,” instead of the errorists. [33]
when the brethren
came. Possibly the visitors who reported to “the elder” the facts
named in verse 4. [10]
Who these were is not certainly
known. They may have been members of the
same church with Gaius, who, for some reason, had
visited the writer of this Epistle; or they may have been the “brethren” who
had gone from him with a letter of commendation to the church (verse 9), and
had been rejected by the church through the influence of Diotrephes,
and who, after having been hospitably entertained by Gaius,
had again returned to the writer of this Epistle. In that case, they would of course bear
honorable testimony to the kindness which they had received from Gaius, and to his Christian character. [18]
and testified of
the truth that is in thee. Thy faith, love, and other
Christian graces. [35]
Some brethren had brought a report
of the conduct of Gaius which was favorable. That is the basis of his remark about his soul
prospering. [9]
even as thou walkest in the truth. “Walkest” shows
the constantly maintained Christian life.
A man is responsible for his beliefs; they are his own. They both make him and he makes them. The two thoughts that control this letter are truth
and love. John joins them indissolubly together. [52]
Verse 4 Translations
WEB: I
have no greater joy than this, to hear about my children walking in truth.
Young’s: greater
than these things I have no joy, that I may hear of my
children in truth walking.
Conte (RC): I have no greater grace than this, when I hear that my sons are walking in the truth.
Verse 4 I have no greater joy.
In the Greek
“greater” is put first for emphasis, and this is worth preserving: Greater joy
have I none than this.
[23]
than to hear. By word or
correspondence. [rw]
that my children. Gaius appears to come under the term, “my children.” If this means that he was a convert of John,
it would mean that he was not one of the others named Gaius,
who are mentioned in Scripture. However John probably uses the term in a
pastoral way here, as he evidently does in his first Epistle. He had a fatherly interest in all the saints
who came within the sphere of his ministry.
Peter warns the elders not to act as “lords over God’s heritage.” By his example John shows us that the true
attitude for an elder is that of a father filled
with love and solicitude for his children.
It would have been well if all who have exercised rule amongst the
saints had followed his steps. [8]
walk in truth. That
they adhere steadfastly to the truth, and that they
live in accordance with it. [18]
Verse 5 Translations
WEB: Beloved,
you do a faithful work in whatever you accomplish for those who are brothers
and strangers.
Young’s: Beloved,
faithfully dost thou do whatever thou mayest work to
the brethren and to the strangers,
Conte (RC): Most
beloved, you should act faithfully in whatever you do for the brothers, and
those who are sojourners;
Verse 5 Beloved. Beloved marks
the introduction of a new thought. Four
times in this short letter John uses the term (verses 1, 2, 8, 11). [51]
thou doest
faithfully.
Uprightly
and sincerely. [2] [35]
It is noticeable that his
“faithfulness’’ in this regard is mentioned.
It was not a spasmodic thing on his part, but a steady flow of grace
through him. His breadth of disposition
is also mentioned since his giving was not limited to those he knew but
extended to those he did not know. [6]
whatsoever thou doest to the brethren. In all your contact with them, and in all your conduct toward them. The particular thing which led to this remark
was his hospitality; but the testimony respecting his general conduct had been
such as to justify this commendation. [18]
“Whatsoever” marks the entire range of the treatment of the Christian brother. A cup of cold
water will not be forgotten (Matthew
and to strangers. “The duty of entertaining Christians on their travels was of peculiar
importance in early times, (1) from the length of time which traveling
required, (2) from the poverty of the Christians, (3) from the kind of society
they would meet at public inns” (Sinclair).
[7]
The
brethren and the strangers are not two classes, but one and the same. It enhanced the hospitality of Gaius that the Christians whom he entertained were
personally unknown to him. Compare
Matthew 25:35 [“For I was an hungred, and ye gave me
meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me
drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me
in”].
[23]
Verse 6 Translations
WEB: They
have testified about your love before the assembly. You will do well to send
them forward on their journey in a way worthy of God,
Young’s: who
did testify of thy love before an assembly, whom thou wilt do well, having sent
forward worthily of God,
Conte (RC): they have given testimony to your charity in the sight of the Church. You would do well to lead these ones worthily to God.
Verse 6 Which have borne witness of thy charity [love, NKJV]. These traveling brethren
reported to the Church how Gaius had aided them. [3]
Reconstruction of why Gaius is complimented and not the congregation he was
presumably part of: He doubtless refers to the first visit of the missionaries. Diotrephes had not
only on his part failed to receive the brethren, but had also prevented the
congregation from doing so. The
congregation was ready to do so, but by threatening to excommunicate from the
congregation everybody who was willing to do this, he defeated their
wishes. This had probably been the fate
of Gaius, of whom we have heard that he had received
these men kindly; and for this reason he recommends the missionaries now not to
the congregation, but only to this private man.
[41]
before the church. The congregation with whom I now
reside. [2] [35]
Probably
at
In like manner Paul and Barnabas gave an account of their missionary
journey before the church at
whom if thou bring
forward on their journey. Supplied with what is needful. [2]
[35]
Furnishing them counsel, guidance,
and material aid. [33]
after a godly sort. Margin, as in Greek, “worthy of God.” The meaning is, As
becomes those who serve God; or as becomes those who are professors of His
religion. [18]
No higher standard could well be
set. It reminds us of “perfect, as your heavenly Father is
perfect” Gaius is to treat them as remembering the
Divine declaration, “He that receiveth whomsoever I
send, receiveth me; and he that receiveth
me, receiveth him that sent me” (John 13:20). This coincidence, consciously or
unconsciously made, between the Gospel and Third Epistle, is lost in the rather
colorless rendering in the Authorized Version, “after a godly sort.” [24]
thou shalt do well. You
will do what religion requires in these circumstances. [18]
There
would be abundant opportunity in the early Church for such friendly acts; and
in telling Gaius that he will do a good deed in
helping Christians on their way the Apostle gently urges him to continue such
work. Compare Philippians 4:14; Acts 10:33. [23]
To help them was,
in reality, to help God in His work upon the earth. In like manner Jesus speaks of the reception
that ought to be accorded to His messengers (Matthew
Verse 7 Translations
WEB: because
for the sake of the Name they went out, taking nothing from the Gentiles.
Young’s: because
for His name they went forth, nothing receiving from the nations;
Conte (RC): For they
set out, on behalf of his name, accepting nothing from the unbelievers.
Verse 7 Because that for his name's sake.
Out of zeal for his honor and
interest. [35]
“For the sake of the Name:” Such
is the exact rendering of the true text; the insertion of “his” before “Name”
weakens the effect. There was no need to
say more. Just as to a Jew “the Name”
must mean “Jehovah,” so to a Christian “the Name” must mean “Jesus Christ”
(compare Acts
This
use of “the Name” is common in the Apostolic Fathers; Ignatius, Eph. iii., vii.; Philad. x.; Clem. Rom. ii., xiii.; Hermas, Sim. viii. 10, ix. 13,
28. [23]
they went forth. To preach the gospel. [2]
taking nothing of the Gentiles.
The words in the Greek imply that this was their deliberate purpose. [51]
Interpreted
as Gentile Christians: Refusing to receive anything as pay, or
maintenance, though justly entitled to it: as Paul at
Objection: There was
reason in not accepting money or hospitality at all, but working for their own
living, as Paul loved to do. And there
was reason in not accepting help from heathen.
But there would be no reason in accepting from Jewish converts,
but not from Gentile ones. [23]
Interpreted as Gentile non-Christians: We are not
to understand that the Gentiles offered help which these brethren refused, but
that the brethren never asked them for help. [23]
Interpreted as they being victims
of Gentile unbelievers: Some expositors render this very differently. “For the Name’s sake they went forth from the
Gentiles, taking nothing;” i.e. they were driven out by the heathen,
penniless. But “went forth” is too
gentle a word to mean this; and the negative (μηδέν not οὐδέν)
seems to imply that it was their determination not
to accept anything, not merely that as a matter of fact they received nothing. For “receive from” in a similar sense compare
Matthew 17:25. [23]
The reason for the principle: Lest
the heathen should suspect their motives, and think, “Like all the quack
priests and philosophers, you make a mere trade of your doctrine, and preach to
fill your bellies.” Nothing wins men
over so much as clear proofs of disinterestedness. The missionary who is suspected of
self-seeking will preach in vain. [24]
Paul preached in a like manner, refusing to take pay from the newly
formed churches (1 Corinthians
Verse 8 Translations
WEB: We
therefore ought to receive such, that we may be fellow workers for the truth.
Young’s: we,
then, ought to receive such, that fellow-workers we may become to the truth.
Conte (RC): Therefore, we must accept such as these, in order that we may cooperate with the truth.
Verse 8 We therefore ought to receive such. The pronoun is very emphatic. If no help comes from the heathen, we must give it; that we may become
their fellow-workers for the truth. Just
as the apostle warned the elect lady that to welcome and support preachers of
false doctrine is to partake in their evils works (2 John verse 11), so he
encourages Gaius and his friends with the thought
that to welcome and support preachers of the truth is to partake in their good
works. It is the Master's teaching in
another form, “He that receiveth a prophet in the
name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward” (Matthew
All of us ought hospitably to
entertain and help such persons. The
work in which they are engaged is one of pure benevolence. They have no selfish
aims and ends in it. They do not even
look for the supplies of their own needs among the people to whom they go to
minister; and we ought, therefore, to help them in their work, and to
contribute to their support. Doubtless,
the apostle meant to urge this duty particularly upon Gaius;
but, in order to show that he recognized the obligation himself, he uses the
term “we,” and speaks of it as a duty binding on all Christians. [18]
that we might be fellowhelpers [fellow workers, ESV, NASB] to the truth. All
Christians cannot go forth to preach the gospel, but all may contribute
something to the support of those who do; and in this case they would have a
joint participation in the work of spreading the truth. [18]
It is quite a common idea that the man should accredit the message: So-and-so is duly ordained, so what he
says must be right. Or it may take this
form: So-and-so is such a good man, so
earnest, so gifted, so spiritual, therefore he cannot
be wrong. The whole principle however,
is a false one. The true principle is
just the reverse: The message accredits
the man. The Lord’s words in Luke 9:49-50, virtually enunciate this
principle; and it is clearly stamped on both 2 John and 3 John. The man is not the test of the truth: the truth is the test of the man. How important then that we should be so
established in the truth that we can use it as a test! [8]
to the truth. Which they preach. [2]
Verse 9 Translations
WEB: I
wrote to the assembly, but Diotrephes, who loves to
be first among them, doesn't accept what we say.
Young’s: I did
write to the assembly, but he who is loving the first
place among them -- Diotrephes -- doth not receive
us;
Conte (RC): As it happens,
I had written to the church. But Diotrephes, who
loves to bear the highest rank among them, would not accept us.
Verse 9 I wrote unto the church.
That letter was not designed by the Spirit for the
universal Church, else it would have been preserved. [4]
This
may either have been a copy of his Gospel or his First Epistle, or a lost
letter of no special importance. [32]
Likely contents
of the letter: The Epistle which was written on that occasion
is now lost, and its contents cannot now be ascertained. It was, probably, however, a letter of mere
commendation, perhaps stating the object which these brethren had in view, and
soliciting the aid of the church. [18]
Another reconstruction: Diotrephes
gained nothing by destroying the letter, for we have in this letter, doubtless,
a repetition of its contents, with the added characterization of Diotrephes himself. [51]
Based on a modestly attested alternate reading, the
possibility that the letter was never actually written: As six or
seven MSS read here,εγραψα αν, a reading
which is followed by the Vulgate, the Syriac, and the
Coptic versions, Macknight, supposing it to be the
genuine reading, renders the clause, I
would have written; remarking,
that the letters which the apostles wrote to the churches, were all sent to the
bishops and elders in those churches, to be by them read to the people in their
public assemblies. So that “if Diotrephes was a bishop or elder of the church to which St.
John would have written, the apostle might suspect that that imperious,
arrogant man, would have suppressed his letter; consequently, to have written
to a church of which he had usurped the sole government, would have answered no
good purpose.” [35]
but Diotrephes. Nothing more is known of Diotrephes than is here specified. [18]
who loveth to have the preeminence among them. To govern all things according to
his own will. [2]
The single word rendered “who loveth to have the pre-eminence” (φιλοπρωτεύων) occurs nowhere else in the New
Testament. It means simply, “who loves
to be first”--meaning that he loved to be at the head of all things, to rule,
to lord it over others. It is clearly
supposed here, that the church would have complied with the request of the
writer if it had not been for this man. [18]
Alas, an undying mind-frame: Diotrephes wanted to be the leader of the assembly, a kind
of a pope in embryo. He loved the
preeminence and this self-love and seeking to maintain his position led him to
act so outrageously that he excommunicated the brethren and dared to rise up
against the apostle himself. What harm
such jealousies, self-seeking, self-glorification and
ecclesiastical bossism have worked and are working in the body of Christ! and nowhere so much
as in circles where the full truth is known and confessed. [38]
Both Christ and the apostle Paul had warned against this
kind of dominating mind-frame: Love of pre-eminence, desire of
holding the first place, is common to man.
It is a part of that nature which must undergo a change. And there is a “first place” in spiritual
concerns as well as secular. Our Lord
foresaw this and warned His apostles, “He that is greatest among you, let him
be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve” (Luke
receiveth us not. Neither them nor me.
[2]
Did not regard the instructions
which John had given [as authoritative]; perhaps intercepted and suppressed the
letter. [12]
In depth: What post
did Diotrophes hold in the local congregation [18]? Erasmus
and Bede supposed that he was the author of a new
sect; but of this there is no evidence, and if he had been, it is probable that
John would have cautioned Gaius against his
influence. Many have supposed that he
was a self-appointed “Bishop” or “Pastor” in the church where he resided; but
there is no evidence of this, and, since John wrote to “the church,” commending
the strangers to “them,” this would seem to be hardly probable. Others have supposed that he was a deacon, and
had charge of the funds of the church, and that he refused to furnish to these
strangers the aid out of the public treasury which they needed, and that by so
doing he hindered them in the prosecution of their object. But all this is mere conjecture, and it is now
impossible to ascertain what office he held, if he held any. That he was a man of influence is apparent;
that he was proud, ambitious, and desirous of ruling, is equally clear; and
that he prevailed upon the church not to receive the strangers commended to
them by the apostle is equally manifest.
(Later
on the same subject:) If he was
an officer in the church--a pastor, a ruling elder, a deacon, a vestry-man, a
warden, or a private individual--we have no means of ascertaining. The presumption, from the phrase “who loveth to have the pre-eminence,” would rather seem to be
that he was an aspiring man, arrogating rights which he did not have, and
assuming authority to which he was not entitled by virtue of any office . Still
he might have held an office, and might have arrogated authority, as many have
done, beyond what properly belonged to it.
[18]
The
argument that he was probably a church leader because he was in a
position to frustrate the congregation acting on the letter: The fact that John wrote unto the church but
that Diotrephes ignored the letter, indicates that
the epistle was sent to this man as an elder of the congregation. That would be usual to send an official
document to the officers, or at least in their care, as we read that Paul
addressed his epistle to the church at
In depth: What was Diotrophes’ excuse not to accept and go by John’s
letter [18]? What were the alleged
grounds for the course which he constrained the church to take, we are not
informed; the real ground, the apostle says, was his desire to rule. There may have been at the bottom of it some
secret dislike of John, or some private grudge; but the alleged ground may have
been, that the church was independent, and that it should reject all foreign
interference; or that the church was unable to support those men; or that the
work in which they were engaged was one of doubtful propriety. Whatever was the cause, the case furnishes an
illustration of the bad influence of one ambitious and arrogant man in a
church. It is often in the power of one such man to bring a whole church under
his control, and effectually to embarrass all its movements, and to prevent all
the good which it would otherwise accomplish.
In depth: Additional thoughts on Diotrephes’ possible motives [17]. Diotrephes might have been a converted Jew, who was unwilling that the Gentiles should be received into the Church; or a Judaizing Christian, who wished to incorporate the law with the Gospel, and calumniated the apostles who taught otherwise. This haughty and unfeeling man would give no countenance to the converted Gentiles; so far from it, that he would not receive any of them himself, forbade others to do it, and excommunicated those who had been received into the Church by the apostles. This appears to be the meaning of “neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the Church.” He had the complete dog in the manger principle: he would neither do, nor let do; and when good was done that he did not approve, he endeavored to undo it.
Verse 10 Translations
WEB: Therefore,
if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing
us with wicked words. Not content with this, neither does he himself receive
the brothers, and those who would, he forbids and throws out of the assembly.
Young’s: because
of this, if I may come, I will cause him to remember his works that he doth,
with evil words prating against us; and not content with these, neither doth he
himself receive the brethren, and those intending he doth forbid, and out of
the assembly he doth cast.
Conte (RC): Because of this, when I come, I will admonish his works which he does, babbling against us with malicious words. And as if this were not sufficient for him, he himself does not receive the brothers. And those who do receive them, he hinders, and he ejects them from the church.
Verse 10 Wherefore, if I come. He
was evidently expecting soon to make a visit to Gaius,
and to the church (verse 14). [18]
I will remember
his deeds which he doeth. Meaning,
not only that he would tell him of them to his face, but make mention of them,
and expose them to the whole church, and reprove him for them. [16]
Why John would have to do
this: What had been done was public. It pertained to the authority of the apostle,
the duty of the church, and the character of the brethren who had been
commended to them. If the letter was
written, as is supposed by the aged John, and his authority had been utterly rejected
by the influence of this one man, then it was proper that that authority should
be asserted. If it was the duty of the
church to have received these men, who had been thus recommended to them, and
it had been prevented from doing what it would otherwise have done, by the
influence of one man, then it was proper that the influence of that man should
be restrained, and that the church should see that he was not to control
it. If the feelings and the character of
these brethren had been injured by being rudely thrust out of the church, and held
up as unworthy of public confidence, then it was proper that their character
should be vindicated, and that the author of the wrong should be dealt with in
a suitable manner. [18]
prating against us. Excusing himself
by maligning John. [3]
The word “prate,” (φλυαρέω) occurring nowhere else in the
New Testament, means to “overflow with talk,” to talk much without weight, or
to little purpose; to be loquacious; to trifle; or, to use an expression common
among us, and which accords well with the Greek, to run on in talk, without
connection or sense. The word [implies]
that the talk was of an idle, foolish, and unprofitable character. [18]
The
word for “prate” (φλυαρεῖν)
occurs nowhere else in N.T. It is
frequent in Aristophanes and Demosthenes, and means literally “to talk
non-sense.” Its construction here with
an accusative after it is quite exceptional.
“Prates against us” cannot well be improved: it conveys the idea that the words were not
only wicked, but senseless. Compare “And
not only idle, but tattlers (φλύαροι)
also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not” (1 Timothy
with malicious
words.
Greek, “evil words;” words that were
fitted to do injury. [18]
Not only hostile, but intrinsically evil “words.” [33]
and not content therewith. Not
satisfied with venting his private feelings in talk. Some persons seem to be satisfied with merely
talking against others, and take no other measures to injure them; but Diotrephes was not. He himself rejected the brethren, and
persuaded the church to do the same thing.
Bad as evil talking is, and troublesome as a man may be who is always
“prating” about matters that do not go according to his mind, yet it would be
comparatively well if things always ended with that, and if the loquacious and
the dissatisfied never took measures openly to wrong others [as well]. [18]
neither doth he himself receive the brethren. The
messengers John sent. [3]
Does not himself treat them as
Christian brethren, or with the hospitality which is due to them. He had not done it on the former visit, and
John evidently supposed that the same thing would occur again. [18]
One particular victim specifically/especially in mind? It is
evident that the servant who had been so ruthlessly rejected by this
self-elected leader is the man named in verse 12): “Demetrius hath good report of all men, and
of the truth itself: yea, and we also bear [witness]; and ye know that our
[witness] is true.” But such a report
matters little to those with the spirit of Diotrephes. They could care less that a man is honored of
God, that he proclaims the truth, that his walk is
blameless, that many can testify to his devotedness, piety, spirituality, and
helpfulness of his ministry. These
arrogant people feel that if “he followeth not with
us” he must be treated as a publican and a sinner, or rejected as though he
were a blasphemer. [30]
and forbiddeth them that would. Seeks to prevent any of the church from
hearing or extending hospitality to these messengers. [3]
and casteth them out of the church. There
is no occasion to take the word as pointing at that which Diotrephes
was attempting to do or threatening to do, and so as spoken in irony (Huther): the present
tense indicates his habit. [22]
It has been made a question whether
the reference here is to the members of the church who were disposed to receive
these brethren, or to the brethren themselves.
Macknight and some others suppose that it
refers to those in the church who were willing to receive them, and whom Diotrephes had excommunicated on that account. Rosenmuller,
Bloomfield, and others, suppose that it refers to these strangers, and that the
meaning is, that Diotrephes would not receive them
into the society of Christians, and thus compelled them to go to another place. That this latter is the correct
interpretation seems to me to be evident, for it was of the treatment which they
had received that the apostle was speaking.
[18]
Verse 11 Translations
WEB: Beloved,
don't imitate that which is evil, but that which is good. He who does good is of God. He who does evil hasn't seen God.
Young’s: Beloved,
be not thou following that which is evil, but that which is good; he who is
doing good, of God he is, and he who is doing evil
hath not seen God;
Conte (RC): Most
beloved, do not be willing to imitate what is evil; instead imitate what is
good. Whoever does good is of God. Whoever does evil
has not seen God.
Verse 11 Beloved. Again stressing his positive feelings toward the recipient. Hence what he says is not disguised criticism
but what it appears to be on the surface—an encouragement that he live in the
right and proper manner and not allow the discouragements even of his fellow
church members to deter him from doing so.
[rw]
follow not that which is evil. There can be no doubt that
in this exhortation the writer had Diotrephes
particularly in his eye, and that he means to exhort Gaius
not to imitate his example. He was a man
of influence in the church, and though Gaius had
shown that he was disposed to act in an independent manner, yet it was not
improper to exhort him not to be influenced by the example of any one who did
wrong. [18]
The
word for “evil” or “ill” is not that used in the previous verse (πονηρός),
but a word, which, though one of the most common in the Greek language to
express the idea of “bad,” is rarely used by John (κακός). Elsewhere only John 18:23; Revelation 2:2; Revelation 16:2: in Revelation 16:2 both
words occur. [23]
but that which is
good.
Of course doing good and doing evil are to be understood in a wide
sense: the particular cases of granting
and refusing hospitality to missionary brethren are no longer specially in
question. [23]
He that doeth
good is of God. He shows that he resembles
God, for God continually does good. [18]
but he that doeth
evil hath not seen God. Is a stranger to him. [2]
Verse 12 Translations
WEB: Demetrius
has the testimony of all, and of the truth itself; yes, we also testify, and
you know that our testimony is true.
Young’s: to
Demetrius testimony hath been given by all, and by the
truth itself, and we also -- we do testify, and ye have known that our testimony
is true.
Conte (RC): Testimony
is being given for Demetrius by everyone, and by the truth itself. And we also
offer testimony. And you know that our testimony is true.
Verse 12 Demetrius. Respecting
Demetrius we know no more than is told us here.
All that we can safely infer from what is stated is that he is a person
of whom Gaius has not hitherto known much; otherwise
this elaborate commendation would scarcely be necessary. [24]
Who is Demetrius ? Is he a
member of the church where Gaius lived? or is he one whom
John sends there to bear the present needed letter and give support to the shattered
cause? Not the former, since in that
case John would have appealed to the good opinion of Gaius
concerning Demetrius. The other view
commends itself as reasonable. In
sending him John emphasizes his good standing, in
order that Gaius may receive him with confidence, and
that others may be favorably influenced by his coming. [52]
hath good report [testimony,
ESV, NKJV] of all men. No one speaks ill of his behavior or faith. [rw]
“All
men” means chiefly those who belonged to the Church of the place where
Demetrius lived, and the missionaries who had been there in the course of their
labors. [23]
and of the truth
itself.
As
meaning “proved true” by behavior: Not only by men, who might possibly be deceived in the
estimate of character, but by fact. It
was not merely a reputation founded on what “appeared” in his conduct, but in
truth and reality. [18]
As meaning “proved true” by a comparison with what the
truth itself says: The “truth itself,” by agreeing with his
faith and doctrine, attested and bore “record” of
his genuineness. [33]
yea, and we also
bear record [witness, NKJV]. John himself had personally
known him. He had evidently visited the
place where he resided on some former occasion, and could now add his own
testimony, which no one would call in question, to his excellent
character. [18]
and ye know that
our record is true. That every commendation I
give is well founded. [35]
Being that of an original witness of Christ. [33]
True in quality; true morally; true in the very strongest sense. Such pre-eminently is apostolic testimony, as
Gaius knows. A manifestly weighty evidence of the apostolic origin of the
letter. It is natural as coming
from John the apostle (John
Verse 13 Translations
WEB: I had
many things to write to you, but I am unwilling to write to you with ink and
pen;
Young’s: Many
things I had to write, but I do not wish through ink and pen to write to thee,
Conte (RC): I had
many things to write to you, but I am not willing, through ink and pen, to
write to you.
Verse 13 I had many things to write.
This Epistle closes, as the second does, with a
statement that he had many things to say, but that he preferred waiting until
he should see him rather than put them on paper. [18]
but I will not
with ink and pen write unto thee. The reason being given
in the next verse: He does not think it
will be long before they see each other again.
[35]
Verse 14 Translations
WEB: but I
hope to see you soon, and we will speak face to face. Peace be
to you. The friends greet you. Greet the friends by name.
Young’s: and I
hope straightway to see thee, and mouth to mouth we shall speak. Peace to thee!
salute thee do the friends; be saluting the friends by
name.
Conte (RC): Yet I
hope to see you soon, and then we will speak face to face. Peace to you. The
friends greet you. Greet the friends by name.
Verse 14 But I trust. He could promise nothing peremptorily, but submits to
God. [25]
I shall shortly
see thee.
It won’t be very
long so there is no necessity of saying more at this time. There will be plenty of time to cover
everything at that point. [rw]
and we shall speak
face to face. How ever ably “pen and ink” can communicate knowledge, insight, and
emotions, yet there remains something “special” in face-to-face
communications. If there is
misunderstanding, it can be straightened out immediately. If more information is sought, there need be
no delay. Plus the way you look and
react shows your affection and concerns in special ways that written
communication does not. [rw]
Peace be to thee. And every
desirable blessing, from God our Father, and Christ Jesus our Lord. [35]
This is the only instance in the New Testament of this personal formula.
Jesus with this term greeted His
disciples (John
Our friends
salute [greet, NKJV] thee. That is, your friends and
mine. This would seem rather to refer to
private friends of John and Gaius than to Christians
as such. They had, doubtless, their warm
personal friends in both places. [18]
“Friends:” Seldom
[used] in the New Testament, as it is absorbed in the higher title, “brother,
brethren.” Still, Christ recognizes the
relation of friend (John
Greet the
friends by name. The phrase (κατ' ὄνομα) occurs in N.T. in
only one other passage (John 10:3): “He calleth His own sheep by name.” The
salutation is not to be given in a general way, but to each individual
separately. John as shepherd of the
Churches of Asia would imitate the Good Shepherd and know all his sheep by
name. [23]
This Epistle [is] “not addressed as from an apostle to a church, but as a friend to his friend, in which mutual friends on both sides would be the senders and receivers of salutation.” (Alford). [47]
Such a letter
received by a person or by the church would be placed among the archives of the
church as a part of its treasures; would be read before the church (see 1 Thessalonians
BOOKS/COMMENTARIES
UTILIZED IN THIS STUDY:
All commentaries are in the public domain; the copyright
having expired or never been on them.
1 Marvin R.
Vincent, D.D. Word
Studies in the New Testament.
1886. Internet edition.
2 John Wesley. Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible. 1754-1765. Internet edition.
3 Barton Johnson. People’s New Testament. 1891.
Internet edition.
4 Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, David Brown.
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole
Bible. Unabridged
edition. Internet
edition.
5 Charles Simeon. Horae Homileticae.
1832. Internet edition.
6 James Gray. Concise Bible Commentary. 1897-1910. Internet edition.
7 John Dummelow,
editor. Dummelow’s
Commentary on the Bible. 1909. Internet edition.
8 Frank B. Hole. Old and New Testament
Commentary. Internet edition.
9 E. M. Zerr. Commentary on Selected
Books of the New Testament. Internet edition.
10 Arthur Peake. Commentary on the Bible. 1919.
Internet edition.
11 John A. Bengel. Gnomon of the New
Testament. 1897. Internet edition.
12 John S. C. Abbott. Illustrated New
Testament. 1878. Internet edition.
13 Joseph Sutcliffe. Commentary on the Old
and New Testaments.
1835. Internet edition.
14 Matthew Poole. English Annotations on
the Bible. 1685. Internet edition.
15 Paul E. Kretzmann. Popular Commentary. 1921-1922. Internet edition.
16 John Gill. Exposition of the Entire
Bible. 1746-1763. Internet
edition.
17 Adam Clarke. Commentary. 1832.
Internet edition.
18 Albert Barnes. Notes on the New
Testament. 1870. Internet edition.
19 Heinrich Meyer. Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the New Testament.
1832. Internet edition.
20 Johann P. Lange. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical. 1857-1884. Internet edition.
21 William R. Nicoll,
editor. Expositor’s Greek Testament. 1897-1910. Internet edition.
22 Henry Alford. Greek Testament Critical
Exegetical Commentary.
1863-1878.
Internet edition.
23 Alfred Plummer.
24 The Pulpit Commentary. 1897.
Internet edition.
25 John Trapp. Complete Commentary. Lived 1601-1669. 1865-1868 reprinting. Internet edition.
26 William Godbey. Commentary on the New Testament. Internet edition.
27 John Calvin. Commentary on the Bible. Internet edition.
28 Joseph C. Philpot (1802-1869). Commentary on Select
Texts. Internet
edition.
29 George Haydock
(1774-1849). Catholic
Bible Commentary. Internet edition.
30 H. A. Ironside. Ironside’s Notes on Selected Books. 1914.
Internet edition
31 Lost source; rather than delete the
material, I felt it better to simply list the unidentifiable volume and admit
my error.
32 Charles J. Ellicott, editor. Ellicott’s
Commentary for English Readers. Internet edition.
33 Daniel D. Whedon. Commentary on the Bible. Internet edition.
34 Philip Schaff,
editor. Schaff’s
Popular Commentary on the New Testament.
Internet edition.
35 Joseph Benson (born 1748). Commentary of the Old
and New Testaments. Internet edition.
36 Thomas Coke (published 1801-1803). Commentary on the Holy
Bible. Internet
edition.
37 Robert S. Candlish. The First Epistle of John Expounded In A
Series of Lectures. 1877 edition. Internet edition.
38 Arno C. Gaebelein. The Annotated Bible.
Internet edition.
39 Joseph Parker. The People's Bible. Internet edition.
40 Thomas Scott. Commentary on the Bible. Volume Six. Fifth Edition. London:
L. B. Seeley et al, 1822.
41 Bernhard Weiss. Commentary on the New
Testament. Volume
Four.
42 M. F. Sadler. The General Epistles of
SS James, Peter, John and Jude.
43 [Robert S. Hunt?] The
Cottage Commentary: The Epistle to the
Hebrews and the General Epistles.
44 Charles
Erdman. The General Epistles: An Exposition.
45 W. H. Bennett. The Century Bible: The General Epistles—James, Peter, John, and
Jude.
46 John B. Sumner. A Practical Exposition
of the General Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude.
47 James C. Gray. Biblical Museum: Hebrews to the End of the New Testament.
48 William G. Humphry. A Commentary on the
Revised Version of the New Testament.
49 Revere F. Weidner. The Lutheran Commentary: Annotations on the General Epistles of James,
Peter, Peter, John, and Jude.
50 A Short Protestant Commentary on the
New Testament. Volume
3. Translated
from the Third German Edition.
51 O. P. Eaches.
52 Henry A. Sawtelle. Commentary on the
Epistles of John.