“The elder unto the well-beloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth. Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth. For 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. Beloved, thou doest faithfully whatsoever thou doest to the brethren, and to strangers; which have borne witness of thy charity before the church: whom if thou bring forward on their journey after a godly sort, thou shalt do well: because that for His name’s sake they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles. We therefore ought to receive such, that we might be fellow-helpers to the truth. I wrote unto the church: 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 against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church. Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God. Demetrius hath good report of all men, and of the truth itself: yea, and we also bear record; and ye know that our record is true. I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee: but I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face. Peace be to thee. Our friends salute thee. Greet the friends by name” (3 John).
Third John is the correlative of Second John. In this letter we learn the breadth of Christian fellowship, and in it narrow ecclesiasticism is sharply rebuked.
In this case the apostle addresses Gaius, a brother in the Lord, honored for his large-heartedness, whose home was ever open to properly accredited preachers. To him John expresses the pious wish that he may prosper and be in health as his soul prospers. There was no doubt of the latter condition., But a weak body is often the dwelling of a happy and prosperous soul.
Traveling brethren had reported to the aged apostle the graciousness of Gaius and his walk in the truth. He was possibly, a convert of John’s, as seems implied in the words, “I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.”
Then he adds, “Beloved, thou doest faithfully whatsoever thou doest to the brethren, even to strangers; which have borne witness of thy love before the Church: whom if thou bring forward on their journey after a godly sort, thou shalt do well: because for His name’s sake they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles.” What a side-light this, throws upon conditions in the early Church! As the itinerating evangelists and teachers went about they were graciously entertained by such as Gaius and helped on their way. They did not look to the world for sustenance. They recognized the fact that the Lord’s work should be supported by the Lord’s people. Thus they were happily independent of the heathen to whom they ministered, and so had a rightful claim upon the sympathetic help of fellow-believers. “We therefore ought to receive such that we might be fellow-helpers to the truth.” All might not be gifted as preachers or teachers, but all could help those who were, and thus keep them independent of the world, but dependent upon God.
What a contrast this delightful Christian simplicity is to the unholy and utterly un-Christian financial methods of many today who are presumably attempting to follow in the steps of these first century workers! High-pressure efforts to squeeze money out of Christ-rejecters and even carnal Christians is thoroughly opposed to the grace of the gospel.
On the other hand Christians need often to be reminded that “we ought” to further the gospel by supporting to the best of our ability men approved by the truth they carry, as they launch out in dependence upon the Lord Himself.
From vs. 9 and 10 we learn that already men had arisen in the churches who were of a narrow sectarian spirit, men of hard, rigid ecclesiastical views who despised these “free lances,” as they might have termed them, and who desired to recognize only those who were of their particular stripe. John had evidently written to the church where Gaius was locally connected commending an itinerant named Demetrius, but he says, “Diotrephes, who loveth to have the pre-eminence among them, receiveth us not.” He rejected Demetrius, and, in rejecting him he was rejecting the apostle who endorsed him. “Wherefore when I come,” John continues, “I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.” Diotrephes was the sample ecclesiastic to whom church order meant more than love to Christ’s sheep. “He followeth not with us,” would be his slogan, “therefore we cannot receive his ministry, nor show him fellowship!” Unhappily, the spiritual descendants of Diotrephes are many. They may be found not only in the great denominations but in the humblest Christian assemblies, self-seeking, self-important, self-elected “bishops” and “overseers,” lording it over their brethren and arrogating to themselves the right to say who may or may not be recognized. And woe unto any who opposes their pretentious ipse dixit!
John himself, an inspired apostle, had no fear of the anathema of Diotrephes, but many a humbler worker has been utterly discouraged and turned aside by the presumptuousness of men of similar spirit. To such the message comes: “Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God (whether approved by Diotrephes or not), and he that doeth evil (whatsoever his ecclesiastical standing) hath not seen God” (vs. 11).
It is evident that the servant who had been so ruthlessly barred out 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 it matters nothing to the rigid advocates of a pseudo-church-order that a man is honored of God, that he proclaims the truth, that his walk is blameless, that many can testify to his devotedness and his piety, as also to the spirituality and helpfulness of his ministry—if “he followeth not with us” he must be treated as a publican and a sinner, or rejected as though he were a blasphemer. How shocking it all is and what an insult to the Head of the Church and to the Holy Spirit of God!
How aptly these two epistles thus counterbalance each other: the one testifying against fellowship with apostasy, the other inculcating fellowship in the truth.
The closing verses here again are too plain to need any comment, but they testify to the freedom of communion between the venerable apostle and his friends in Christ.