3 JOHN
The author identifies himself as “the elder” and speaks with authority (2 Jhn 1), which points to John, the last remaining one of the twelve apostles, who alone lives to great age. Church tradition confirms John as the writer and there are significant parallels of this letter and the other writings of John: the Gospel of John, Revelation and the letters 1 John and 2 John. According to church tradition John lived the latter part of his life (after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD) in Ephesus, the capital city of the Province Asia in Asia Minor, in modern day Turkey. He lives till about 98 AD, and – as last remaining apostle – must have been a pillar and anchor to the church. He would have been a person with great authority, yet he refers to himself simply as “the elder”. He travels the area (2 Jhn 12, 3 Jhn 13) and probably oversees church planting and church growth in the whole of Asia Minor.
He addresses an otherwise unknown Gaius, commending him for his faithfulness to the truth (3 Jhn 3) and for extending hospitality to traveling believers and workers. John encourages Gaius to do so even more (3 Jhn 5-8).
John mentions a person named Demetrius and commends him to Gaius, though is not clear why he does that. Possibly Demetrius is another traveling believer or teacher and John wants Gaius to welcome him.
John further mentions a person named Diotrephes and warns Gaius about him. Diotrephes is a leader or elder or pastor in this church. But Diotrephes has refused John’s authority, probably by withholding a letter of John from the church (3 Jhn 9). John calls him one “who likes to put himself first”. It seems Diotrephes is systematically cutting off the church from outside influence, because besides sidelining John’s letter, he refuses hospitality to traveling believers or possibly traveling teachers. But more than that: he expels church members if they go ahead and host traveling believers or teachers. It seems Diotrephes is dominating the church and making sure it stays completely under his control.
It is not clear with exactly what intention John warns Gaius about Diotrephes. Maybe Gaius and Diotrephes are in two different locations but have dealings with each other. Or maybe Diotrephes uses Gaius’ hospitality now and again but refuses the same in his place.
Or – if Gaius and Diotrephes are in the same church – John wants Gaius to know that a letter of his has been withheld from the church. Maybe he wants Gaius to host traveling believers in spite of Diotrephes’ pressure, especially teachers who could address the problems in the church. This will put Gaius in a difficult position, of course; maybe John is trying to strengthen him or possibly authorize him in the eyes of the church. It seems that John has been worried about this church, has addressed it in a letter, has found that the letter was never read to the people and brothers whom John sent have been refused. Maybe Gaius is the only other person in this church that John can reach, now that Diotrephes has cut the church off from the outside world. If so then John requests him to help opening things up again until he arrives himself (3 Jhn 14).
As also 2 John, the letter is a call to hold on to truth, to walk in it by showing love and wise hospitality. It has the possible added component of standing up to a very difficult and controlling person.
The author
The author identifies himself as “the elder” (2 Jhn 1), he speaks with authority and fatherly kindness in this letter. This together with the witness of church tradition strongly points to John, the son of Zebedee, the last of the twelve apostles still alive. According to church tradition by around 70 AD all apostles have been martyred except John. After the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, it seems John moves to Ephesus, the capital city of the Province Asia in Asia Minor, in modern day Turkey. Ephesus had a church since around 52 AD, was Paul’s ministry base in 53-56 AD, was pastored by Timothy for a time, and now is the center of John’s life and ministry from 70-98 AD. As last remaining apostle and eye witness to Jesus, John must have been a pillar and anchor to the church. He would have been a person of great authority, though referring to himself simply as “the elder”. He travels the area and probably oversees church planting and church growth in the whole of Asia Minor.
What other evidence is there for John being the author of this letter? Church tradition states so, but there are also significant parallels (both in themes and wording) of 3 John to John’s other writings: the Gospel of John, Revelation and the letters 1 John and 2 John.
Topic / word John 1 John 2 John 3 John
truth Jhn 1:14, Jhn 8:32, Jhn 14:6; Jhn 17:8,17-19
1 Jhn 1:6-8 2:27, 3:18, 4:1-6
2 Jhn 1, 3, 4
3 Jhn 3, 4, 8, 12
whom I love in the truth 2 Jhn 1 3 Jhn 1
children walk in the truth 2 Jhn 4 3 Jhn 4
Jesus, the Father’s (only) Son Jhn 1:14, 1:34 1 Jhn 2:22-25 2 Jhn 3
To have the Son = to have the Father Jhn 5:23 2 Jhn 9
A new command, no new command, his command
Jhn 13:3-4, 15:17 1 Jhn 2:7, 3:23 2 Jhn 5
love one another Jhn 13:34 1 Jhn 3:11 2 Jhn 5
In / from the beginning Jhn 1:1-2 1 Jhn 1:1, 2:7 2 Jhn 5
abide in Christ / teaching Jhn 15:4-10 1 Jhn 2:6, 3:6 2 Jhn 9
joy will be full / complete Jhn 16:24 1 Jhn 1:4 2 Jhn 4,12
deception 1 Jhn 2:26 2 Jhn 7
enemies of Christ / Antichrists 1 Jhn 2:18, 22 2 Jhn 7
those doing evil are not from God / haven’t seen God 1 Jhn 3:10 3 Jhn 11
hospitality Jhn 2:1-11 2 Jhn 10-11 3 Jhn 5-10
final greetings 2 Jhn 12-13 3 Jhn 13-15
The addressee
John writes a warm letter to a person called Gaius. There are several people with that name in the Bible:
- Gaius of Macedonia, a travel companion of Paul, who (together with fellow worker Aristarchus) is with Paul in Ephesus during the third missionary journey. He gets caught up in the silver smith riot at the end of Paul’s time in Ephesus time (Acts 19:29).
- Gaius of Derbe, another travel companion of Paul, mentioned during the third missionary journey together with Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Timotheus, Tychicus and Trophimus (Acts 20:4).
- Gaius of Corinth, an early convert whom Paul baptized, and who is hosting him later on during the third missionary journey, when Paul writes the letter to the Romans (Rom 16:23).
- The “beloved Gaius” of 3 Jhn 1 seems to be a resident of Asia, or Asia Minor, he may well be a Gaius other than the three mentioned above. No clear identification can be made.
It is not clear when John writes this letter, only the basic time frame is known: 70-98 AD. Neither is it clear where this church is that Gaius is part of, other than that it is most likely somewhere in Asia Minor. Therefore neither the founding nor the history of this church is known. Generally it can be said that Paul starts preaching the gospel in Galatia in around 48 AD, that there is a church in Ephesus from latest 52 AD onward, that Paul makes Ephesus his ministry base from 53 to 56 AD, that churches are planted by both the apostles (Paul, Aquila and Priscilla, possibly Peter) and by local converts, like Epaphras (Col 1:7). This general area is being written to by Paul (Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, 1 Timothy, possibly 2 Timothy), by Peter (1 Peter, possibly 2 Peter) and now by John (Gospel of John, Revelation, 1 , 2, 3 John).
Historical background
Because of the similarity of 2 John and 3 John we can assume a similar general background and situation. In both letter the issue of hospitality comes up, in 2 John in the context of a false gnostic teacher, in 3 John in the context of a controlling church leader.
Gnosticism is not mentioned directly in 3 John, but may still be the backdrop to the tensions over the hospitality question. Following is a summary of this false teaching, though it is not mentioned directly in 3 John.
False teaching: Gnosticism
Gnosticism was a syncretistic teaching that challenged the early church for decades, even centuries, and most of John’s writings as well as the writings of many later church fathers were addressing this heresy.
Gnosticism comes from the Greek word ‘gnosis’ which means knowledge. Knowledge is understood to be secret spiritual insight, that leads to enlightenment, which considered the equivalent of salvation.
Gnosticism is strongly dualist: matter is evil, spirit is good. Gnosticism acknowledges a supreme God, who is good, but he is also completely transcendent, separated from this evil material world and can have nothing to do with it. God has no personality and cannot be known. In gnostic understanding ‘knowing’ means ‘mastering’, and since God can’t be mastered, he therefore cannot be known.
But how then did this evil material world ever come about? Gnosticism gives a very complicated explanation: God has spirit emanations (something going forth from him), which all are good, but less so than him. This creates a hierarchy of spiritual beings (called ‘aeons’), with lesser and lesser God-likeness. One of these emanations or spirit beings created the physical world by accident or out of foolishness or out of rebellion. Some Gnostics associated this bad emanation that is responsible with creating the evil physical world with the Creator God of the Old Testament. Gnostics therefore despised the Old Testament, though they heavily borrowed from the New Testament writings.
Gnosticism asserts that some divinity of God broke to pieces and some of these pieces are incarcerated in evil matter, that is: incarcerated in human bodies. Gnosticism therefore says that there are three types of people:
- Gnostics, who are enlightened. If they have major spiritual experiences they might escape reincarnation and be reunited with God when dying.
- Psychics, lesser men but still with a hope to get enlightened. In gnostic eyes most Christians are psychics.
- Hycics, completely material men with no hope of enlightenment and no chance of salvation. They are destined for destruction.
Gnosticism borrowed from Christianity a concept of a Redeemer sent from God, who brings the necessary knowledge of man’s origin, identity and destiny. By being initiated into this knowledge, the divine spark is set free at death and is reunited with the godhead. In Gnosticism a man’s real problem is not sin (bad choices), but his body (physical matter). Salvation is not redemption from sin, but the escape of the divine spark from the body, the material world by revelation and enlightenment. Salvation is to recognize one’s divinity or the spark within.
This special revelation or enlightenment is attainable only through knowledge to only an elite. Therefore Gnosticism is an elitist, exclusive cult with special knowledge, initiation, ranks of spirituality and limited access. Gnostics claim, that they are not capable of sinning because of their superior enlightenment. Moral conduct is not important, since salvation only depends on the divine spark, special knowledge and enlightenment. If one’s spirit is enlightened, it doesn’t matter any more what a person does with the body.
Gnosticism, therefore, doesn’t really believe in Jesus’ incarnation. It holds that a Redeemer from the spiritual world could not possibly defile himself by becoming flesh. How then is Jesus’ story understood? Some gnostics believed that Jesus is only a Spirit, appearing like a man but not being touchable and real but rather floating on the ground like a ghost, leaving no footprints. Other gnostics came up with what is called ‘doceticism’, the teaching that Jesus is a normal, good human who at baptism is possessed by the divine spirit called Christ. Christ, being a pure spirit cannot suffer or be sullied by suffering and death. Therefore docetists claimed that the Christ spirit left the man Jesus before his suffering and death.
Warm recommendation of Gaius
John addresses Gaius with very warm words. He calls him “beloved, whom I love in truth” (3 Jhn 1) and commends him for his continued service and faithful hospitality to traveling believers or traveling teachers (3 Jhn 5-8). Many have enjoyed and praised Gaius’ hospitality (3 Jhn 6). John expresses his joy over him for his commitment to walk in the truth “I was overjoyed when… some testified to your faithfulness to the truth, namely how you walk in the truth. I have no greater joy than this, to hear that my children are walking in the truth” (3 Jhn 3-4). He also encourages Gaius to keep doing that: walking in the truth and being of service to others (3 Jhn 6).
John mentions a person named Demetrius and commends him to Gaius, though is not clear why he does that. Possibly Demetrius is another traveling believer or teacher and John wants Gaius to welcome him.
The situation in the church
But it seems that a man called Diotrephes’ bad behavior is the main reason for John to write this letter (3 Jhn 9-10). What exactly did Diotrephes do? John says that he “likes to put himself first” and that he doesn’t acknowledge John’s (and others’) authority (3 Jhn 3:9). The way this showed – it seems – is that he withheld a letter from John to the church. Diotrephes is also spreading false rumors against “us”, which probably means John and other sincere believers (3 Jhn 10). Diotrephes also refuses to welcome traveling believers or possibly traveling teachers. But not only that, he also expels believers from the church for hosting traveling believers or teachers (3 Jhn 10).
It is clear that Diotrephes is an elder, leader or pastor in the church, because otherwise he would not have the power to expel. It is also clear that he is using his power to cut the church members off from John and the wider church. This could be related to him falling for gnostic teachings and now shielding the church against John’s efforts to bring truth back. But there is no actual mention of any doctrine or teaching issue. It could also just be Diotrephes’ desire for power or control, binding the believers to himself and cutting them off from the wider church. Clearly Diotrephes is controlling: he doesn’t read John’s letters to the church, he doesn’t host traveling believers or teachers and he forbids church members to do so. He prevents interaction and other people’s influence.
But with what intention is John writing this to Gaius? Who is Gaius in relation to this church? What is his relationship to Diotrephes?
Maybe Gaius and Diotrephes are in two different locations but have dealings with each other. Maybe Diotrephes uses Gaius’ hospitality now and again but refuses the same in his place.
Or maybe Gaius and Diotrephes are in the same church. It could be that Gaius is the pastor, and Diotrephes a misbehaving elder. If so then John wants Gaius to stop Diotrephes from exercising control in this way. Maybe Gaius is a timid pastor, shy of confrontation, pushed aside by an overbearing elder.
But more likely Diotrephes is in leadership over the church, and that by his behavior he has effectively cut off the church from John’s influence (whether by reason of private dominion or Gnostic influence). Gaius is a remaining good elder in the church, whom John knows, and whom John writes to, as his other pathways of influence are cut off.
If so then John wants to ensure that Gaius is not silently accepting what’s happening. John gives Gaius a clear signal as to how Diotrephes’ behavior is understood by good people. John then is strengthening Gaius not to bow to Diotrephes’ pressure but rather to do the opposite: to keep hosting traveling believers and traveling teachers who could influence the church positively. This will put Gaius in a difficult position, of course; maybe John is trying to strengthen him or possibly authorize him in the eyes of the church.
It seems that John has been worried about this church, has addressed it in a letter, has found that the letter never was read to the people and that workers John sent have been refused. Maybe Gaius is the only other person in this church that John can reach, now that Diotrephes has cut the church off from the outside world, and so John requests him to help opening things up again so that Diotrephes’ grip is weakened until John will arrive himself (3 Jhn 14). Demetrius, then, could be the carrier of this letter, that now needs hospitality. Or he could be a person John is hoping to send ahead of himself.
In a church situation like this, there is usually much hurt and confusion. People feel obliged to obey leadership, they want to be loyal, but they feel bad about it, or they feel the Spirit’s conviction in contrast with the church leader’s word, creating tremendous confusion. Domineering behavior puts a church into a difficult situation with false obedience, false loyalties, false favors, false preferring and on the other hand with false disobedience, disloyalty, disfavors and rejections. It throws people into turmoil, it is highly divisive, extremely hurtful and highly confusing.
John thinks this situation definitely needs his letter, and probably his visit (3 Jhn 14).
The Author of the Letter
The author identifies himself with ‘the elder’, as in 2 Jn 1. The author knows the recipient Gaius, knows that it is well with Gaius’ soul (3 Jn 2), expresses his joy about him and all who walk in the truth (3 Jn 3), that he is faithful to extend hospitality to believers unknown to him (3 Jn 5-7). He knows about a problematic situation with Diotrephes (3 Jn 9), and finds it needful to commend Demetrius to Gaius (3 Jn 12). He hopes and plans to see Gaius soon (3 Jn 14) and expresses his joy about them (3 Jn 4).
Church tradition strongly points to John, whose later life and ministry in Ephesus (70-98 AD) would fit the letter well, also the title ‘elder’ would be one John can truly claim, and it expresses his humility also.
The other big argument are the many parallels of 1 John to Gospel of John, but also between 2 and 3 John, and the four writings in general:
Topic / word John 1 John 2 John 3 John
truth
Jhn 1:14, Jhn 8:32, Jhn 14:6; Jhn 17:8,17-19
1 Jhn 1:6-8 2:27, 3:18, 4:1-6
2 Jhn 1, 3, 4
3 Jhn 3, 4, 8, 12
whom I love in the truth 2 Jhn 1 3 Jhn 1
children walk in the truth 2 Jhn 4 3 Jhn 4
Jesus, the Father’s (only) Son Jhn 1:14, 1:34 1 Jhn 2:22-25 2 Jhn 3
To have the Son = to have the Father Jhn 5:23 2 Jhn 9
A new command, no new command, his command
Jhn 13:3-4, 15:17 1 Jhn 2:7, 3:23 2 Jhn 5
love one another Jhn 13:34 1 Jhn 3:11 2 Jhn 5
In / from the beginning Jhn 1:1-2 1 Jhn 1:1, 2:7 2 Jhn 5
abide in Christ / in this teaching
Jhn 15:4-10 1 Jhn 2:6, 3:6 2 Jhn 9
joy will be full / complete Jhn 16:24 1 Jhn 1:4 2 Jhn 4,12
deception 1 Jhn 2:26 2 Jhn 7
enemies of Christ / Antichrists 1 Jhn 2:18, 22 2 Jhn 7
those doing evil are not from God / haven’t seen God 1 Jhn 3:10 3 Jhn 11
hospitality Jhn 2:1-11 2 Jhn 10-11 3 Jhn 5-10
final greetings 2 Jhn 12-13 3 Jhn 13-15
The Readers of the Letter
The Greek style letter identifies the audience in 3 Jn 1 “to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth”. There are several Gaius mentioned in the Bible:
- Gaius of Macedonia, travel companion of Paul, who (together with fellow worker Aristarchus) who is with Paul in Ephesus, and gets caught in the silver smith riot at the end of the Ephesus time during the 3rd missionary journey (Ac 19:29)
- Gaius of Derbe, another travel companion of Paul, mentioned during the 3rd missionary journey together with Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Timotheus, Tychicus and Trophimus (Acts 20:4).
- Gaius of Corinth, an early convert whom Paul baptized, and who is hosting him later on during the 3rd missionary journey, when Paul writes the letter to the Romans (Ro 16:23).
- Beloved Gaius of 3 Jn 1, possibly a resident of Asia, or Asia Minor. No clear identification can be made.
Date of the Letter
No direct evidence. John is still able to be travelling (3 Jn 13), visiting churches, presumably to teach, strengthen & help. The range is about 70-98 AD.
There is no direct evidence where the letter was written from. If the above is correct (John as writer, 70-98 AD as date), then most likely from Ephesus, the base John uses in the latter part of his life as per records of Church history.
Historical background
Ephesus and its area had generally strong idolatry, widespread mystery cults and occultism or magic, but also the influence of Greek philosophy. Besides this there was a growing influence and sway of gnosticism, a false teaching plaguing the church, and its “Christian child” doceticism.
Gnosticism
Gnosticism is a combination of Greek philosophy, mystery religions, Jewish faith and Christianity. From Greek philosophy it took dualism of spirit and matter, from the Jewish faith angelic beings, hierarchies and legalism, from Christianity the concept of a Redeemer coming down, from mystery religions the idea of secret knowledge and initiation.
Even though Gnosticism isn’t in full flower till the 2nd century (around 140 AD) with greatest influence in Egypt, Syria and Asia Minor, Gnostic views had begun to affect the churches in that area: Ephesus, Colossae, Pergamum, Thyatira, etc.
Gnosticism comes from the Greek word “gnosis” meaning knowledge. Though there was different groupings within Gnosticism, they all had in common an emphasis on knowledge (meaning: secret spiritual truth) leading to salvation.
Gnosticism was strongly dualist: matter and spirit. Matter was inherently evil, spirit was good. Gnosticism acknowleged a supreme God, who is good, but he is also completely transcendent, separated from the evil material world (as in Aristotle), can have nothing to do with it. God has no personality and is unknowable. In their understanding: ‘knowing’ means ‘mastering’, and since God can’t be mastered, he therefore can’t be known.
If that is so, a problem arises: how did this evil material world ever come about? Gnosticism gave a very complicated explanation: God has emanations (something going forth from him), which all are good, but less so than him > hierarchy of spiritual beings, with lesser and lesser God-likeness. They are called aeons, together they make up the fullness ‘pleroma’ of God.
One of these emanations or spirit beings created the world by accident or out of foolishness or out of rebellion. Some gnostics associated this bad emanation with the God of the Old Testament, therefore gnostics despised the Old Testament, though they heavily borrowed from the New Testament writings.
They claimed some divinity of God broke to pieces, some of these pieces were incarcerated into evil matter (human bodies) > so some humans have a divine spark in them. Therefore there are 3 types of people:
- Gnostics, who are enlightened, if major spiritual experiences they might escape reincarnation and be reunited with God when dying.
- Psychics, lesser men but still with a hope to get enlightened, in gnostic eyes most Christians fit this category.
- Hycics, completely material men, no hope of enlightenment, cannot be saved, destined for destruction
In order to make this salvation possible, the supreme God had sent a Redeemer, who brought the necessary knowledge of who man was and of his origin and destiny. By being initiated into this knowledge, the divine spark is set free at death and is reunited with the godhead.
The problem of evil in gnosticism is therefore not so much one of sin, but one of matter. Salvation was not redemption from sin, but the escape of the divine spark from the material world by revelation and enlightenment. Salvation is to recognize one’s divinity or the spark within. This special revelation or enlightenment was released only through knowledge, to only the “elite” > elite, exclusivity cult with special knowledge, initiation, , ranks of spirituality, limited access.
Gnostics claimed, that they were not capable of sinning because of superior enlightenment. Moral conduct was not important, since salvation depended on the diving spark, special knowledge or enlightenment. The body was seen as sinful, the spirit as separated and good. If one’s spirit was enlightened, it didn’t matter what a person did with the body, the total dichotomy of spirit and body.
Again two schools of thought arose from this dichotomy: Aceticism (gaining control over matter by denying, controlling, punishing the body) or Libertinism (since spirit cannot be infected or affected by matter, the body is of no importance and one can do what one likes with it).
Gnosticism doesn’t really believe in Jesus’ incarnation, for a Redeemer from the spiritual world could not possibly defile himself by becoming flesh. How then is Jesus’ story understood?
Doceticism, a Gnostic heresy of Christianity
The following points are taken from Church Father Irenaeus’ writing Book 1 ‘Against Heresies’ where he describes doceticism of Cerinthius (a docetist gnostic and contemporary of John in Ephesus) as follows:
Jesus not born of a virgin but Mary and Joseph’s natural child, though more righteous, prudent and wise than other men. At his baptism, the spirit ‘Christ’ (another emanation from the supreme ruler) descended upon human Jesus in the form of a dove. Christ=Jesus is a gnostic, a good human possessed by a divine spirit, proclaiming the unknown father. Christ=Jesus is not from this world, he is not tempted, impassable (not liable to pain of injury), a spiritual being untouched by the world. Some taught that Jesus left no foot prints in the dust or sand but floated about.
The spirit Christ departed from Jesus before the suffering. Spirit cannot be suffering, be humiliated, be infected, be defiled nor be associated with death. Only the human Jesus suffered. Church father Irenaeus calls docetists “those who separate Jesus from Christ” (Book 1 of Against Heresies). One interesting story recorded by Irenaeus tells that John was going into the bath house at Ephesus and finding Cerinthus there rushed out without bathing exclaiming, “Let us fly, lest the bath house fall down because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth is within!” Tradition also links Cerinthus with immorality. He was, it seems, anticipating a thoroughly sensual millennium, he was also connected to the “Nicolaitans” mentioned in Rev 11:6,14,15. These people are guilty of immorality.
So Gnosticism doesn’t really believe in Jesus’ death (how could a good spirit die?), not resurrection (why would you want a new body?) nor in Jesus’ 2nd coming (why would this world be redeemed & restored?). In the commentary of Jerome on Gal 6:10 he tells the famous story of John in extreme old age at Ephesus. He used to be carried into the congregation in the arms of the disciples and was unable to say anything except “Little children, love one another!” At last wearied that he always spoke the same words, they asked “Master, why do you always say this?” “Because”, he replied, “it is the Lord’s command, and if only this is done, it is enough”.
Problems with Gnosticism
Gnosticism has no acknowledgement of sin, no need for confession, repentance forgiveness, change. It has no need for holiness, moral behavior, selflessness, service, love. In Gnosticism the pursuit is not of character, but of knowledge, revelation, spiritual experience.
Gnosticism is exclusive, excluding, elitist, and initiates’ only religion, denying access to most, leading to pride, superiority on the one hand and hopelessness on the other. It is flying in the face of the universal gospel of faith and salvation for all.
In gnosticism the issue is not response to the gospel, not attitude nor heart. The issue is divinity leading to deep pride, excluding others, loveless, prideful and selfish behavior. Gnosticism declares everybody else as pretty much lost, or almost lost, so it is shaking up people’s assurance of salvation and eternal life (as exemplified in Colossians).
Gnosticism is a fascination with knowledge, revelation, enlightenment, light, spirit, special access, secrecy spiritual experience, it sets its followers up for all kinds of deception and immorality
The founding of the Readers’ churches (parallel 1 John)
If Asia Minor is assumed as readership, then the founding was possibly from
- 30 AD Pentecost Acts 2:9 Jews from Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia)
- 47-48 AD 1st missionary journey Acts 13-14 churches of Galatia founded
- 50 AD 2nd missionary journey Acts 16:1-3 Paul travels through Galatia shortly
- 53-57 AD 3rd missionary journey Acts 19:8-10 Ephesus as center, gospel spreading from there
- before 64 AD Peter most likely visited (1 Peter 1:1 mentions Peter writing to Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, Bithynia)
- the area received several New Testament writings: Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, 1 Peter, (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy)
Groups in the church
No direct evidence, other than the conflict over Diotrephes, who is rejecting John’s (and other good people’s) authority and dominating the church.
The Readers’ Strengths
- 3 Jn 1,2 beloved, loved by John ‘in the truth’
- 3 Jn 2 John’s confidence that it is well with Gaius’ soul
- 3 Jn 3 John is overjoyed at hearing some brothers testify to Gaius faithfulness to the truth.
- 3 Jn 4 John has no greater joy than this, to hear that my children are walking in the truth. Gaius called John’s child.
- 3 Jn 5 John praises Gaius’ faithful hospitality to believers
- 3 Jn 6 the believers who have visited have testifies to Gaius’ love.
- 3 Jn 9-10 John thinks it necessary to make Gaius aware of Diotrephes and the fact that John has written but that hasn’t reached the church
- 3 Jn 11 John thinks it necessary to commend Demetrius to Gaius … both of this speaks for Gaius to be a person of some influence in the church, possibly an elder
The Readers’ Weaknesses
- 3 Jn 6-8 further encouragement to be hospitable to traveling believers who depend on this.
- 3 Jn 11 a reminder to imitate what is good, not what is evil.
- 3 Jn maybe Gaius is not exerting his influence or authority against Diotrephes, but John depends on him to do so
Literary Style
Entirely prose > literal interpretation
Structure
Letter, Greek style with author, audience, prayer, and greetings.
Composition
Problem > solution
Color coding advice
Color for the following repeated themes
• knowing / knowledge / truth <=> lies / liars / deception
• love, faithfulness, do good <=> sin, do evil, put himself first
• testify
• write
• joy
LOOKING AT THE TEXT
The happening
What is the story or happening that precipitated this letter? Most likely it is Diotrephes’ behavior that has precipitated this letter (3 Jn 9-10).
What did Diotrephes do? 3 Jn 9 says that he Diotrephes likes to put himself first. He does not acknowledge John’s (and others’) authority. The way this showed – it seems – is that he withheld a letter from John to the church. In 3 Jn 10 Diotrephes is spreading false charges against ‘us’ (John, other good believers, presumable). He also refuses to welcome good believers. Not only that, he expels church members from church for hosting good believers coming through.
So what is happening? This all could be related to gnostic or docetist teachings, for example Diotrephes falling for this and now shielding the church against John’s efforts, to bring truth back. But there is no specific mention of any doctrine or teaching. It could also just be a simple power-politics and domineering behavior issue that doesn’t focus around gnosticism.
Clearly Diotrephes is overbearing, effectively cutting the church off from outside influence: he doesn’t read John’s letters to the church, he doesn’t host believers coming through, he forbids church members to do so, preventing all mixing, interaction or influence.
What are Diotrephes’ and Gaius’ roles in the church? In order to be so influential in the church as to prevent John’s letters read and expel members, Diotrephes must be at least an elder, possibly the pastor of the church.
But why is John writing this to Gaius? Who is Gaius in this church? What is his relationship to Diotrephes? One scenario is that Diotrephes is an elder, and Gaius the pastor, and John wants him to stop what Diotrephes is doing. Maybe a timid pastor, shy of confrontation, pushed aside by an overbearing elder?
But then we would expect much more direct instructions, commands, or advise on how to go about by John. But there is no direct command to Gaius other than to keep welcoming believers and to keep imitating what is good.
Another scenario is that Diotrephes is in leadership over the church, and that by his behavior has effectively cut off the church from John’s influence (whether for private dominion issues or for Gnostic influence). Gaius is a remaining good elder in the church, whom John knows, and whom John writes to, as his other pathways of influence are cut off.
So John wants to ensure that Gaius is not bowing to what’s happening, that he has a clear word from John as to how this is understood by leaders or good people, that he will not bow to Diotrephes’ pressure to not host believers but rather do the opposite: to keep hosting believers and to keep relationships and communication from outside open so that Diotrephes’ grip is weakened.
It could be that Gaius is John’s last leverage point for John, his last open channel to get a message in to a dominated and probably confused church and people in turmoil.
What is Demetrius doing in this equation? Who is he?
John finds it necessary to recommend Demetrius to Gaius. Why? Is Demetrius another good elder in this church? But then they know each other well and no recommendation is needed. Or is Demetrius the carrier of this letter, that now depends on Gaius for hospitality, since other channels in the church are cut? Is in for that reason that John urges hospitality? Or is Demetrius another believer that may go through that region shortly? Or one John is trying to send ahead of himself to start sorting out things?
Why the seemingly ‘harmless’ letter addressing a quite difficult situation? It seems John is indirectly asking Gaius to be a bridgehead for the truth in an embattled church. Why is he saying things so indirectly then? For fear that if this letter falls in Diotrephes’ hands that could mean Gaius getting expelled? John – in a very friendly and non-threatening way is making clear that
In a situation like this, there is usually much hurt and confusion. People feel obliged to obey leadership, they want to be loyal, but they feel bad about it, or feel the Spirit’s conviction, and that creates confusion. Domineering behavior puts on a church a system of false obediences, loyalties, favors, preferrings and false disobediences, disloyalities, disfavors and rejections. All of throws people into turmoil, is highly divisive, highly hurtful and totally confusing.
• Illustration from Lord of the Rings: Gandalf says about the guard’s murder trying to prevent Faramir being burned by his despairing father Denethor “Work of the enemy, such deeds he loves: friend at war with friend, loyalty divided in confusion of hearts.”