The Third Epistle of John
Stanley Bruce Anstey
Table of Contents
The Third Epistle of John
Introduction
In many ways this third epistle complements the second. In the second epistle, we are told of those whom we shouldn’t receive and have fellowship with, and in the third epistle, we are told who we are to receive and have fellowship with. Thus, a closed door characterizes the previous epistle because it has to do with how we are to treat evil teachers; whereas an open door characterizes this third epistle because it has to do with how we are to treat true servants of the Lord who bring the truth. Simply put, all who hold error as to the Person of Christ are to be refused, and all who teach the truth as to His Person and work are to be received and helped on in whatever way we can assist them. Accordingly, W. Kelly said, “The keyword of the third epistle is ‘receive,’ as the keyword of the second is ‘receive not’” (Exposition of the Epistles of John, p. 408). Hence, the two epistles counterbalance each other.
This is the only “third” epistle in the Bible. If the “second” epistles assume breakdown and ruin in the Christian testimony, the existence of a third epistle suggests that the ruined conditions described in the second epistles have progressed. In this third epistle, we have a situation in an assembly in which the assembly has lost its power to deal with evil in its midst. A man had risen up and seized control of the assembly and was using it to further his own selfish interests, and the assembly had no administrative power to deal with him. Under normal conditions, if a man like that rose up in such a fashion, the assembly would rein him in and keep a check on him thereafter. But in this case, things were in such a weakened state that there was no moral or spiritual power in the assembly to restrain the man. The Apostle John writes to Gaius to advise him concerning this troubled situation.
Three men are mentioned in the epistle—Gaius, Diotrephes, and Demetrius. Each serve to teach us a lesson as to how we are to walk in our local assemblies in the closing days of the Christian testimony.
Gaius
(Vs. 1)
John opens with the salutation: “The elder unto the well-beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth.” Like the second epistle, John does not identify himself, but the style of writing is unmistakably his. Unlike the second epistle, the person to whom John writes is named; it is addressed to “the well-beloved Gaius.” His name appears five times in Scripture (Acts 19:29; 20:4; Rom. 16:23; 1 Cor. 1:14; 3 John 1), but it is not known whether all the references that bear his name refer to the same person.
We see in Gaius a spiritually-minded saint whose interests were centered in the Lord and His people. How commendable! It is little wonder as to why John said that he loved him “in truth.” The truth is a prominent feature in the epistle. There is:
• Love in the truth (vs. 1).
• Holding fast the truth (vs. 3a).
• Walking in the truth (vs. 3b, 4).
• Helping the truth (vs. 8).
• Having a good report of the truth (vs. 12).
Vs. 2—Before commending him for his labours in helping on the servants of the Lord, John mentions his concern for Gaius’s health. He says, “Beloved, I wish [desire] above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.” We see here the Apostle’s tender concern for Gaius’s personal wellbeing. It teaches us that we should have a genuine care for one another on a natural level, as well as on a spiritual level. While Gaius’ physical health was failing, his spiritual health was good. In these last days, it is often the other way around! John’s desire was that Gaius’s physical health would be equal to his spiritual health because he needed good health to be able to carry on his ministry of helping the Lord’s servants.
(Vss. 3-4)
John then commends Gaius for walking in the truth. He says: “I rejoiced greatly, when the brethren came and testified of the truth that is in thee, even as thou walkest in the truth. I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.” The servants of the Lord who circulated among the saints reported the benevolence of Gaius to John, and he mentions it as being a living proof of the truth being “in” him. He had not only learned the truth, but it had become an integral part of him, and thus, it governed his life. Hence, John speaks of him as “holding fast the truth” and “walking in the truth.”
Including Gaius among those whom John classes as “my children” suggests that Gaius may have been one of John’s converts. Paul speaks of Timothy, Titus, and Onesimus similarly (1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2; Titus 1:4; Phile. 9); Peter speaks of John Mark in that way as well (1 Peter 5:13).
(Vss. 5-8)
Gaius not only loved the truth, but he also loved the brethren. This was expressed in his hospitality. John commends him for his well-doing, stating: “Beloved, thou doest faithfully in whatever thou mayest have wrought towards the brethren, and that strangers, (who have witnessed of thy love before the assembly) in setting forward whom on their journey worthily of God, thou wilt do well; for for the Name have they gone forth, taking nothing of those of the nations.” Gaius loved the saints and wanted to see them built up in the truth, and thus, used his material resources to help those who were going about teaching the truth. There is no indication that he himself had a gift for the public ministry of the Word, but he sought to help those who did. This is commendable.
The KJV rendering of verse 5 seems to indicate that there were two classes of saints to which Gaius ministered—brethren and strangers. But better translations render the verse as: “the brethren, and that strangers”—indicating one class. They were brethren who were strangers in that area. These strangers were servants of the Lord who went abroad preaching the gospel and teaching the truth, and Gaius exercised hospitality toward them. He followed the exhortation given in Hebrews 13:2: “Be not forgetful to entertain strangers.” These itinerate ministers of the Word bore witness of Gaius’s love “before the assembly,” and John encouraged him to continue in that good work of ministering to their temporal needs “after a godly sort.”
These brethren went forth in faith, trusting the Lord to sustain them. They understood that they should take “nothing” from the unbelieving Gentiles among whom they went preaching, so as not to falsify the grace of God in the eyes of the world. Such a practice could have given the lost a false ground on which to rest through thinking that they could earn salvation and favour with God by good works (Rom. 4:4-5; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5). These servants’ practice of “taking nothing of the Gentiles” is illustrated in type in Elisha’s refusing the gifts of Naaman (2 Kings 5:5, 15-16). Scripture indicates that these servants of the Lord should be supported by the saints (1 Cor. 9:1-18; Gal. 6:6; Phil. 4:11-12; Heb. 13:16). This is what Gaius was doing. The money-raising campaigns in evangelical Christendom today disregard this principle; many regularly beg financial support from mixed audiences of saved and lost persons. All such activity is rebuked by the Lord’s dealing with Gehazi who ran after Naaman and took a gift from him; in doing so he became a leper (2 Kings 5:20-27).
John adds, “We therefore ought to receive such, that we might be fellow-helpers to the truth” (vs. 8). By saying “we,” John was indicating that all the saints should participate in this ministry as they are able, and not leave it to a certain few, as the tendency often is. We see from this that truth and love marked Gaius’s life, and the saints all over benefited from it.
Diotrephes
(Vss. 9-10)
In sharp contrast to Gaius’s conduct, John mentions Diotrephes. He says: “I wrote unto the church [assembly]; but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating [babbling] against us with malicious [wicked] words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbideth them that would, and casteth them out of the church [assembly].” H. Smith said, “If in Gaius we have a beautiful example of a saint governed by the truth, in Diotrephes we have a solemn warning of the way in which the whole Christian life may be marred by unjudged vanity of the flesh” (The Epistles of John, p. 43).
Diotrephes would not regard the Apostle John, and instead of receiving the itinerate servants of the Lord, he rejected them, and forbad those like Gaius who did—even to the point of casting them out of the assembly! It is clear that he was a jealous man. He viewed John and the brethren who went about ministering the Word as rivals who needed to be put down. He resented any outside ministry from those travelling through, seeing it as an interference. F. B. Hole suggests that his reason for rejecting these brethren may have been that he saw them as “unauthorized men, and that he was standing for what was orderly and official”—but it was really just a case of jealousy (Epistles, vol. 3, p. 194).
Diotrephes was an elder who had gotten out of control. The man was “a little pope” who sought to control everything and everybody in the assembly. He was doing what the Apostle Peter warned the elders not to do—he was lording it over the flock (1 Peter 5:3). Inflated with pride and self-importance, he had the idea that God’s flock was his flock! Gaius was characterized by love, but this man was marked by a different kind of love altogether—it was the love of self. Johns says: He “loveth to have the preeminence.” Down through the years many have sadly followed Diotrephes’s example of self-seeking, and assemblies have consequently been torn apart. Let us be warned.
The Evils That Marked Diotrephes
• Self-importance; he loved to have the preeminence.
• He slighted apostolic authority by suppressing a letter from the Apostle John to the brethren.
• He unjustly accused John and those who laboured with him with malicious words.
• He opposed active testimony in the gospel by refusing to help those who had gone forth labouring in word and doctrine.
• He hindered those who sought to receive the travelling labourers.
• He singlehandedly excommunicated brethren who stood in his way.
We might wonder why John didn’t tell Gaius to gather the brethren together and stand up to the man, and to put him under discipline. In earlier days, when things in the house of God were more in order, this would have been done, but conditions were such in that assembly that there was no moral power to do so. All who stood up to Diotrephes found themselves excommunicated from the assembly—and being outside of it, they could no longer be a help in the assembly. Thus, having a showdown is not the answer; such confrontations only result in more casualties. Therefore, John does not tell Gaius to fight Diotrephes. Fighting a fleshly man can result in the flesh in us rising up, and we cannot deal with the flesh with the flesh. This would be like trying to put out a fire with a bucket of gasoline! Nor does John tell Gaius to leave and find another assembly in another locality. Such an action does not manifest a genuine love and care for the flock. The Lord said that a “hireling” will leave the flock when times get tough, because he “careth not for the sheep” (Zech. 11:17; John 10:12-13). Leaving was not the answer.
John promised to come “shortly” (vs. 14) to deal with Diotrephes with an apostolic judgment, for he, like Paul (1 Cor. 4:21; 2 Cor. 1:23), had apostolic authority from the Lord and could exercise judgment in an assembly—if the need called for it. Whether John actually got there or not we don’t know; he was a very aged man at the time, but with this promise in hand, Gaius and the brethren were to wait for John’s coming. The point we are to get from this is that when conditions exist where there is no moral power left in the assembly to deal with persons like Diotrephes, we must cast ourselves on the Lord and wait for Him to intervene. We can’t, of course, expect an apostle to come and sort things out for us, because there are no apostles on earth today. But the Lord can come in providentially and deal with the situation (1 Cor. 11:30; 2 Tim. 4:14; 1 John 5:16)—when we have humbled ourselves as to our low state which has allowed such things to develop in the first place. We see this in the Lord’s addresses to the seven churches. When the angel of the church (the responsible leaders) at Thyatira would not, or could not, deal with Jezebel, the Lord (being Son over God’s house – Hebrews 3:6), promised to step in and judge her and her children (Rev. 2:22-23).
(Vs. 11)
Thus, Gaius and the brethren were not to sink with discouragement under the evil doings of Diotrephes, but to wait for the Lord to intervene, either through John’s coming or by the Lord’s dealing with him directly. In the meantime, they were to “overcome evil with good” (Rom. 12:21). John says, “Beloved, follow [imitate] not that which is evil, but that which is good.” In the context of the situation facing Gaius and the brethren, to meet Diotrephes on the same principles upon which he acted himself would be to follow evil. All such action would not have the Lord’s blessing. John desired that the saints there would continue on with their good works, even though it would be much to the chagrin of Diotrephes.
In John’s typical abstract style, he summarizes things in absolutes—that is, of what characterizes those who are real and those who are false. He says: “He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.
Demetrius
(Vs. 12)
John then points to Demetrius as the example we are to follow. He says: “Demetrius hath a good report of all men, and of the truth itself: yea, and we also bear record; and ye know that our record is true.” Having a good report of “all” men is quite incredible. This would, of necessity, include Diotrephes, would it not? It is not that Diotrephes would have approved of Demetrius—the only person he approved of was himself! It’s that Demetrius carried himself in such a way that Diotrephes couldn’t find anything against him. The fact that Demetrius not only had a good report among all men, but also “of the truth itself,” means that he didn’t compromise any part of the truth in living before the tyrant. He refused to be cajoled or frightened out of doing what he believed the Lord would have him to do. He would not leave, nor would he fight. He went on quietly with the Lord, and this met with the Apostle’s approval. He is our model in these situations. The lesson here is that we are to meet a Diotrephes type with the spirit of Demetrius, as we wait for the Lord to intervene.
Closing Salutations
(Vss. 13-14)
John had more to say, but he thought that it would be better to leave it to a personal visit which he planned for “shortly.” His closing salutations indicate that he longed for Christian fellowship—not with Gaius only, but with all “the friends” who were there. He closes with, “Greet the friends by name.” This would not include Diotrephes; he was a believer, but no friend of John’s, nor of the truth. The Lord defined what a true friend was—one who did whatsoever He commanded (John 15:14).