“Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God. Demetrius has received a good testimony from everyone, and from the truth itself; and we add our testimony, and you know that our testimony is true. I had many things to write to you, but I am not willing to write them to you with pen and ink; but I hope to see you shortly, and we will speak face to face. Peace be to you. The friends greet you. Greet the friends by name.”

For the last time, John addresses Gaius as “beloved.” His commendation of Gaius’ hospitality and love in the truth comprised verses 1-8. His resounding denunciation of Diotrephes’ practical hatred for the truth through his disobedience in falsehood made up verses 9-10. Now, he turns once more to Gaius and will introduce a third party named Demetrius.

John makes a terse, sweeping statement to Gaius after condemning Diotrephes’ actions. He tells Gaius, “do not imitate what is evil, but what is good.” The concept of imitation is key to the Christian’s walk. Christians are commanded to imitate Christ and to imitate those who walk worthy of the calling of Christ (e.g. 1 Corinthians 11:1; 2 Thessalonians 3:7, 9; Hebrews 13:7; 1 John 2:6; 4:17). We are to walk in every way as He walked. Furthermore, we are to shun and abhor evil, a concept intimated throughout Scripture (e.g. Amos 5:15; Romans 12:9). Perhaps John has in mind the words of the psalmist as he connects his condemnation of Diotrephes to an exhortation for Gaius: “The fear of the Lord is to hate evil; pride and arrogance and the evil way and the perverted mouth, I hate.” (Proverbs 8:13) But what is good? Well, as we have already established throughout 1 and 2 John, doing good is obedience to God’s commands. No, not simply observance of the Ten Commandments given to Israel (one of those no longer applies anyways...); observance of all that God has stated in the new covenant for Christians is mandated. If we walk in truth, we hate evil and do good.

His brief exhortation is rounded out by the brilliant, luminescent example of Demetrius. Most view Demetrius as the letter-bearer. In this brief word, we have built within a letter of commendation for this worker for the Lord. Three witnesses unequivocally reinforce Demetrius’ character. The first is so general as to include “everyone.” This of course could simply mean everyone where John currently is, but the plain sense suggests more. The commendation is reminiscent of Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 8:18 – “We have sent along with him the brother whose fame in the things of the gospel has spread through all the churches”. Could this be the same brother? Perhaps, perhaps not. Demetrius, like Gaius, was a very common name in the Roman Empire. Several are mentioned biblically (e.g. Acts 19:23ff; cf. Demas in Colossians 4:14; Philemon 1:24; 2 Timothy 4:10) and extra-biblically without any definitive connection to the one here mentioned. In conjunction to this witness we have the witness of the truth itself. This could be a reference to the truth in general or it could be a personal reference to Christ Himself, both are possible grammatically. Either way, what a powerful witness to one’s character! And on top of this, the testimony of the Apostle and those with him as well. This last witness is why many prefer the testimony of the first witness to be general in a broader sense than those John is currently with. On this last witness, John tacks on the further statement: “And you know that our testimony is true.” Recall that Diotrephes had slandered them with baseless words! John is reaffirming the trusting and loving relationship he shared with Gaius and with those in Asia Minor.

The last few verses of the epistle end in much the same vein as Second John. He desires to see Gaius and the brethren there face to face. He will need to rebuke Diotrephes and encourage and strengthen the brethren. Much damage was being done and John would be there soon to heal the wounds Diotrephes had inflicted. He ends with the expected expression of peace (How fitting with Diotrephes there!) and salutations. Uniquely though, he does not mention the brethren he is with by name or the brethren affiliated with Gaius by name. He simply refers to them as friends. And how fitting for the apostle of love to use the very terminology that Jesus used. It’s a last reminder that whoever does what Jesus commands is truly a friend (cf. John 15:13-14). May we prove ourselves friends of God by doing as He commands. One last point, and that is although there is anonymity in the letter’s salutations, there is a command and expectation to greet the brethren by name. John Stott on the very last page of his commentary on the Epistles of John comments: “Christians should not lose their individual identity and importance in the group. God surely means each local fellowship to be sufficiently small and closely knit for the minister and members to know each other by personally and be able to greet each other by name. The Good Shepherd calls His own sheep by name (Jn. X. 3); undershepherds and sheep should know each other by name also.”

Have a blessed Lord’s Day!

-Eric Parker

11-11-2017 – 3 John 1:9-10

“I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church.”

After a sterling commendation for Gaius’s service as a disciple of Jesus Christ, John now directs his attention to a man whose name is not easily forgotten – Diotrephes. Paul says that he had written something that Diotrephes had dealt with treacherously. It is very likely, given the heavy emphasis on practicing hospitality toward traveling evangelists, that Paul’s letter was in fact a letter of commendation (cf. 2 Corinthians 3). Such a practice in the early church was common and practical because much like in our world today, there were very real and present dangers abroad and at home. Letters of commendation would make “loving strangers” much easier and set a man and his household more at ease.

One thing that doesn’t come across is that the very name Diotrephes attested to the depravity of the man. The name was exceedingly unique and was primarily found in noble and ancient Greco-Roman families. It means “Zeus-nursed”. It is likely that his background inflamed his predisposition to pride and caused this disciple of Jesus to return to a fleshly attitude – he “loves to be first among them.” He had exalted himself over the church and preferred his headship at the local group to Jesus’. He favored personal aggrandizement to glorifying God. He failed to heed the warning of Jesus against ambition and the desire to rule over others (Mark 10:42-45; 1 Peter 5:3). A factor that may have further played in to this is the early heresy involving local church leadership. Ignatius of Antioch, in 115 AD, attests to the exaltation of one elder over another in this development of “monarchial episcopasy” very early in the church. The situation here in 3^rd John may be an even earlier and inspired accounting of this early heresy and provide an antidote to such exaltation of men in the local assemblies of Christ.

Not only did Diotrephes reject the letter of the inspired Apostle, but he went several steps further in his rebellion. And rebellion is an exact description of the type of attitudes and actions in which Diotrephes was engaged. Paul planned an open condemnation of such behavior (compare his open rebuke of Peter in Galatians 2). He unjustly accused the Apostles and those affiliated with them with wicked words. The King James Version reads: “prating against us with malicious words”. Or as one writer put it, he spoke nonsense against John and his fellow workers. While it may have been fluent, it was nonetheless completely devoid of any substance. All of this because Diotrephes loved the preeminence, something belonging exclusively to Christ! (Colossians 1:18) Compounding all of this, Diotrephes had closed the door on those engaged in the labor of the Lord. What Gaius was doing, Diotrephes was actively refusing; what Gaius is commended and encouraged regarding, Diotrephes was scoffing. This sinner was puffed up and John was riding hard to deflate him. How would he have had such authority? It may have been as an elder in the church or perhaps simply that the church met in his home. And think of the impact of Diotrephes’ actions! If this letter is indeed written at the end of the first century, persecution was rampant and only growing worse at the turn of the century. Diotrephes’ rejection might result in the torture or even death of these traveling workers for the Lord! This man needed the son of thunder to make an appearance and John was coming in righteous indignation against this enemy of the truth.

As if personal rebellion were not enough, Diotrephes as the local self-appointed demagogue excommunicated brethren who desired to serve God in providing hospitality to God’s people. One wonders what impact this had on Gaius and what impact it may have played in Demetrius’ life once he got there with the letter. The impact of a Diotrephes is cataclysmic in proportion. John R.W. Stott in the Tyndale New Testament commentary on these letters writes: “Diotrephes slandered John, cold-shouldered the missionaries and excommunicated the loyal believers because he loved himself and wanted to have the pre-eminence. Personal vanity still lies at the root of most dissensions in every local church today.” No doubt you have seen such devastation by one not walking in the truth and in love. It impacts and negatively affects all whom it touches. Such a scourge on the early church and today can only be engulfed by the examples of zealous devotion that God’s soldiers demonstrate as they serve the living God, boldly exposing the deeds of darkness of wicked men. F.F. Bruce writes in his commentary: “Twenty centuries of church history have witnessed many of [Diotrephes’] successors: the lust for power, from whatever form of inner insecurity it may spring, is always a curse, and pre-eminently so in the realm of religion.” Daniel King in the Truth Commentary series concurs and writes: “There is an important lesson for us in this. If it was possible for men to oppose the apostles of the Lord when they still lived and walked among the sons of men, it out not to shock us today when some of those who claim to be the disciples of Jesus seem to care so little for the writings of the apostles and prophets. Like Diotrephes of old, they will have their own way despite the Spirit’s admonitions on the pages of the Sacred Scriptures....How does a man like Diotrephes rise to preeminence? How does he maintain his ascendency over others? Why is he not removed from power by the force of the majority? The answers to these questions are not easily determined. But some factors are undoubtedly present. On the one hand there is the fact that he is usually a person who is aggressive and abrasive in dealing with others. The result is that some people genuinely fear him. Because of his caustic manner, he is able to bully people who do not have the courage to stand up to him. In the second place, he is brought to power and kept there by his enablers. These are folks who genuinely respect him because they count him as a fearless soldier of the cross. he is their hero. They consider his harsh methods as necessary under the 'mitigating' circumstances of the present. They make excuses for him and justify his actions. For them he can do no wrong. Finally, there are the weak and spineless who allow him to work his evil because they are not going to cause any waves no matter what happens. They will never stand up against any evil at any time. They are the ultimate enablers. They are the spiritual cowards in the war between evil and good. They view themselves as followers and not as leaders. And followers they are. They will follow the Devil himself into hell. This represents the largest number of those who fall in line to follow someone like Diotrephes. They know that what he does and says is wrong, but they will never have the intestinal fortitude necessary to say so, or if they do say it they will do so in whispered tones, and deny it if you repeat what they say. Again, they are the ultimate enablers, and there are far more of them than any of us would ever like to admit." (Daniel H. King, Sr. "The Three Epistles Of John" in Truth Commentaries. Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Foundation, 2004. pages 234-235.)”

We turn to the positive example of Demetrius and wrap up this brief fifteen-verse letter in our next reading. Please read 3 John 1:11-15 for tomorrow!

Be blessed!

“Beloved, you are acting faithfully in whatever you accomplish for the brethren, and especially when they are strangers; and they have testified to your love before the church. You will do well to send them on their way in a manner worthy of God. For they went out for the sake of the Name, accepting nothing from the Gentiles. Therefore we ought to support such men, so that we may be fellow workers with the truth.”

---End of Scripture verses---

This is now the third of four times that the elder refers to Gaius as “beloved.” It should be obvious at this point that John’s indignation in his earlier life has been tempered by divine love. Gaius was subject of that spiritual fellowship and camaraderie that John so pleasantly enjoins upon his children in the faith.

Just as we need regular encouragement because of the incessant fiery darts of the evil one, so John exhorts Gaius. The influence of Diotrephes has been cancerous to the local group/area and Gaius was no doubt discouraged. Have you ever been in a group of the Lord’s people with a Diotrephes? All possible prospects, all privileges of fellowship, all work is constantly snuffed out by this individual. Any time you get traction, he pulls you and the group back into the rut. It’s frustrating isn’t it? Gaius was frustrated and John knew it. He needed a reminder that he was doing the Lord’s work and it was not in vain. “Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 15:58)

Gaius was a faithful servant and was proving himself pleasing unto the Lord. The witness of those who had seen and experienced the love of Gaius first hand attested all of this to the Apostle. There is little doubt that the ones testifying had been subjects of the hospitality of Gaius and witness to the destructive wake Diotrephes was leaving. Did you know that the work “hospitality” in the New Testament is translated by the Greek word “philoxenia” and means the “love of strangers” (philo means love; xenia means strangers)? So not only was Gaius showing love for “brethren” but also for those whom he had no previous connection too! The New Testament is rife with instructions to be hospitable! (Romans 12:13; 1 Timothy 3:2; 5:10; Titus 1:8; Hebrews 13:2; 1 Peter 4:9; etc.) Gaius was receiving a prophet in the name of a prophet and would receive a prophet’s reward (cf. Matthew 10:40-41). He was welcoming those who should be welcomed (contrast 2 John 1:9-11).

Although opening his home was certainly commendable, John exhorts Gaius further to “send them on their way in a manner worthy of God.” The context and plain sense indicates that this was a financial responsibility. We’ve already established that Gaius was Roman by birth given his name. As a Roman citizen, he had experienced some level of prestige that had placed him ultimately in the position to be hospitable. John is asking Gaius not only to continue doing good, but to excel still more! (compare 1 Thessalonians 4:1, 10). It is right, proper, and worthwhile to support those who have committed their lives to the work of the Lord. As much is defined unequivocally in 1 Corinthians 9, especially verse 14 – “So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel.” Inasmuch as we commit ourselves to those who commit their lives to the work, it is through support that we can participate, at least in one way, in those labors. No, this does not end our responsibility nor was it meant to complete the responsibility of Gaius here, but it is one more thing we can do. Not all can or even should commit themselves in the same sense here described, but we can all be wholly devoted disciples in whatever capacities we find ourselves. Let us all be so committed to that “Name”, i.e. that authority, whence all salvation comes! (Acts 4:12) And, interestingly enough, 3^rd John is the only book in the New Testament that does not mention “Christ” but this should obviously be viewed as a reference to Him. Gaius, and we, should receive those committed to the work in Christ’s name (compare Mark 9:37).

One last theme to explore, and that has to do with the “restricted support” here stated: “For they went out for the sake of the Name, accepting nothing from the Gentiles.” This begs the question, for what reason would they not accept funds and support from the Gentiles? Well, there are a couple of considerations. First, is the term “Gentile” possibly here being used of those unconverted pagans who these brethren may have had interaction with in their travels. We cannot of course exempt ourselves from interaction among such people, although we can and should limit it. Perhaps the injunctions the Lord had given in the limited commissions of the 12 and 70 are alluded to in principle? Understanding the statement this way is preferable for several reasons. Verbally, the term that is used here is elsewhere understood as impenitent pagans (e.g. Matthew 5:47; 6:7; 18:17). It is also preferable given that asking support of pagans would suggest an inadequacy of the church to care for itself. John R.W. Stott, in his commentary on John’s inspired letters in the Tyndale series, comments on why this would be significant and what it does and does not mean: “The phrase taking nothing need not be pressed into meaning that these Christian missionaries would refuse to accept gifts voluntarily offered to them by the unconverted. There is no prohibition here of taking money from non-Christians who may be well disposed to the Christian cause. Jesus Himself asked for and accepted a glass of water from a Samaritan woman. What is here said is that these itinerant evangelists would not (as a matter of policy) seek their support from the heathen and did not (as a matter of fact) receive their support from them. Christian missionaries were not like many wandering non-Christian teachers of those days (or the begging friars of the Middle Ages), who made a living out of their vagrancy.”

Our second possible consideration, are these converted pagans who are culturally and ethnically Gentiles? These of course would be Christians and certainly had a responsibility to the work of the Lord. Why then were they not an approved source of income? It is possible that circumstances required such. We have several New Testament examples where Christians forewent support, even though they had a right to it (e.g. Paul in 1 Corinthians 9 so as to avoid empty boasting, party alliances, and one-upmanship). All can and should be involved in the work of the Lord, but sometimes certain situations may dictate what level of interaction we may have with a particular work. We must always use discretion so as not to provide a basis for any accusation against the Lord’s work.

Please read 3 John 1:9-10 for tomorrow!

We pray that in all respects you may prosper and be in good health, just as your soul prospers!

“The elder to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth. Beloved, I pray that in all respects you may prosper and be in good health, just as your soul prospers. For I was very glad when brethren came and testified to your truth, that is, how you are walking in truth. I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth.”

---End of Scripture verses---

The elder John begins and ends in much the same way as in 2nd John. Yet, as we pointed out in our introduction, there are differences between the two letters. John addresses this third epistle to a brother in Christ named Gaius. Gaius was one of the most popular names in the Roman Empire so complete satisfaction in identifying this brother evades the reader (it was one of the 18 names from which Roman parents could choose a praenomen, a first name, for one of their sons). Even so, a brief listing is beneficial: Gaius of Corinth (1Cor. 1:4; Rom. 16:23); Gaius of Macedonia (Acts 19:29); and Gaius of Derbe (Acts 20:4). The general consensus seems to be that the Gaius mentioned here is Gaius of Derbe (based on the early extra-biblical document “Apostolical Constitutions” from the fourth century), but again, we cannot know this for certain. What we do know of the Gaius mentioned in 3rd John is simple, powerful statements of confidence are expressed by the beloved apostle of Jesus. John’s love for this Gaius is said to be “in truth.” Just as we noted in the second epistle, truth undergirds love and love is demonstrated by obedience to God. This brother was beloved (the same term used of God toward His people). We do well to note that “love” is at the root of three of the first eleven words in the Greek text of 3rd John.

After expressing sentiments of divine passion, John follows the typical trajectory of a short, personal letter and expresses concern for the prosperity and good health of Gaius. It was so common in fact that in Roman letters, it was abbreviated S V B E E V which stood for si uales, bene est; ego valeo (“if you are well, that is good; I am well”). He loves this brother and prays to God that Gaius is blessed in service. This style of beginning a letter is reflected in Greco-Roman letters as in Jewish letters, but the standard of the greeting is deeper. This is no mere trifling expression to meet common expectation; this is John pouring out his heart and soul for a brother who is in a difficult circumstance. Gaius needed an ally and John is there with him 100%. What a wind to be put into Gaius’s sails! Further, this expression is compounded in value by the addition of “just as your soul prospers.” John was not simply concerned for the temporal Gaius, but for the spiritual Gaius as well. They are brothers in arms in the greatest army of all, the army of the Lord! Gaius needed a reminder that his love, sincerity, devotion, and service to the cause of Christ were purposeful, effective, and appreciated, despite the difficulties he faced with Diotrephes, and possibly others.

John rejoiced at the good report he had received regarding Gaius. Gaius was withstanding the flames of Satan and was on fire for the Lord. This sentiment was reflected in 2nd John with “some” of the group and is not heartily lavished upon a single light – Gaius. And much like the second epistle, truth is mentioned several times in as many verses. Truth. Truth. Truth. That’s what it all comes back to brothers and sisters. When one possesses the truth, they can be confident that what they are committed to is pleasing to the Lord. Gaius was pleasing the one who had enlisted him (2 Timothy 2:4).

I have to confess that one of the greatest verses of this letter has to be verse 4: “I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth.” Is there really anything that could compare? To hear and be confident that your spiritual work in the kingdom on behalf of another soul has stayed true, held fast, and been proven? It reminds me of 1 Corinthians 3:10-15: “According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.” Compare also the sentiments expressed in 1 Thessalonians 3:1-10 between Paul and his spiritual children. John Stott, in his commentary in the Tyndale New Testament Commentary series, also expresses this about the verse: “He who ‘walks in the truth’ is an integrated Christian in whom is no dichotomy between profession and practice. On the contrary, there is in him an exact correspondence between his creed and his conduct” (219-220).

Please read 3 John 1:5-8 for tomorrow.

Have a blessed day!

John’s third letter in the New Testament canon is one of the shortest books in the entire Bible, with a mere fifteen verses. The same Apostle who wrote four other inspired works of the New Testament composes it and just as he does in Second John, he refers to himself as “the elder”. A very early extra-biblical document records this terminology being used of the Apostles, most notably John. Eusebius quotes a man named Papias who lived at the same time as John as saying: ““If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders, -- what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice.” (HE, 3.39).

While Second and Third John share several characteristics, there are also some differences. Second John was written to “the lady” (i.e. a local congregation in Asia Minor); Third John is addressed to a disciple named Gaius. In 2nd John, “many deceivers have gone out”, whereas in 3rd John, there was one troublemaker inside the church (Diotrephes). Second John warns against receiving some; 3rd John commends for receiving some. Further, Third John is a clear example of a letter between two individuals; 3rd John is written to a group of Christians (compare even Philemon).

Verses 5-6 of the letter have led many to wonder at the situation of the letter. It is possible this hints at persecution, especially if we take the view that these letters were written at the close of the first century AD. Trajan and Domitian were emperors during that time and they violently persecuted Christians. It is also possible though to understand the verses as simply referring to evangelistic activity without persecution being a present, widespread danger in the area.

Here is a brief outline of the short letter that will guide our daily readings:

Verses 1-4 – Prayer and rejoicing over good news
Verses 5-8 – Commendation of their generosity and hospitality
Verses 9-10 – Condemnation of Diotrephes
Verses 11-15 – Encouragement to continue in what is good and final salutations

Let’s plan on reading and discussing verses 1-4 for tomorrow!

May the Lord bless your day today!