Historical and Theological Themes
The theme of 3 John is the commendation of the proper standards of Christian hospitality and the condemnation for failure to follow those standards.
Interpretive Challenges
Some think that Diotrephes may either have been a heretical teacher or at least favored the false teachers who were condemned by 2 John. However, the epistle gives no clear evidence to warrant such a conclusion, especially since one might expect that John would have mentioned Diotrephes’ heretical views. The epistle indicates that his problems centered around arrogance and disobedience, which is a problem for the orthodox as well as the heretic.
Outline
I. The Commendation Regarding Christian Hospitality (1-8)
II. The Condemnation Regarding Violating Christian Hospitality (9-11)
III. The Conclusion Regarding Christian Hospitality (12-14)
The Third Epistle of
JOHN
3 John 1
Greeting to Gaius
1The Elder,
To the beloved Gaius, awhom I love in truth:
2Beloved, I pray that you may prosper in all things and be in health, just as your soul prospers.
3For I brejoiced greatly when brethren came and testified of the truth that is in you, just as you walk in the truth.
4I have no greater cjoy than to hear that dmy children walk in 1truth.
Gaius Commended for Generosity
5Beloved, you do faithfully whatever you do for the brethren 2and for strangers,
6who have borne witness of your love before the church. If you send them forward on their journey in a manner worthy of God, you will do well,
7because they went forth for His name’s sake, etaking nothing from the Gentiles.
8We therefore ought to freceive3 such, that we may become fellow workers for the truth.
Diotrephes and Demetrius
9I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us.
10Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, gprating4 against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the church.
11Beloved, hdo not imitate what is evil, but what is good. iHe who does good is of God, 5but he who does evil has not seen jGod.
12Demetrius khas a good testimony from all, and from the truth itself. And we also 6bear witness, land you know that our testimony is true.
Farewell Greeting
13mI had many things to write, but I do not wish to write to you with pen and ink;
14but I hope to see you shortly, and we shall speak face to face. Peace to you. Our friends greet you. Greet the friends by name.
3 John Commentaries
3 John 1
1 The Elder. John uses the same term for himself as he did in 2 John 1. The term probably has reference to his age, his apostolic eyewitness status of Jesus’ life and also that he had an official position of authority in the church. the beloved. The term “beloved” is only used of Christians in the NT (Col. 3:12; Philem. 1, 2; 2 Pet. 3:14; 1 John 4:1). Gaius. Nothing is known of Gaius beyond the mention of his name in the salutation. The name was one of 18 common names from which Roman parents usually chose a name for one of their sons, making any specific identification doubtful. John, his fellow believers, and even strangers to whom Gaius extended hospitality held him in great esteem for his Christian walk and conduct (vv. 1–6). John conveyed his own appreciation for Gaius by calling him “beloved” 4 times in the letter (vv. 1, 2, 5, 11). He probably was a member of a church somewhere in Asia Minor that was under John’s sphere of influence. The apostle planned to visit him sometime in the near future (v. 13). whom I love in truth. Because Christians have common knowledge of the truth, they have the common source of love (2 John 1). While some have taken the phrase to mean simply “truly” or “really” (Mark 12:32; John 1:47), John’s usage of this phrase elsewhere in these letters where truth takes on such a significant meaning suggests that the elder intended the kind of love that is consistent with the fundamental truths of the faith (cf. v. 4; 1 John 2:21; 3:19).
2 I pray. John’s prayer for Gaius is significant. Gaius’ spiritual state was so excellent that John prayed that his physical health would match his spiritual vigor. To ask about one’s health was standard custom in ancient letters, but John adapted this convention in a unique manner to highlight Gaius’ vibrant spiritual state.
3 when brethren came and testified. The phrase indicates that Christians continually praised Gaius’ exemplary obedience to the fundamentals of the faith. His spiritual reputation was well known. you walk in the truth. Gaius’ walk matched his talk. His reputation for practicing what he preached was exemplary (2 John 4). John’s commendation of him is one of the greatest given in the NT, since the commendation centers not only in the fact that he knew the truth but that he faithfully practiced it. Gaius’ actions were in stark contrast to Diotrephes’ negative reputation (v. 10).
4 I have no greater joy. John’s personal affection for Gaius radiated especially from his personal conduct (Luke 6:46). my children. The word “my” is emphatic in the original. John’s heart delighted in the proper conduct of his spiritual children in the faith. Those who walk (conduct) in the truth (belief) have integrity; there is no dichotomy between professing and living. He had strong fatherly affection for them (cf. 1 Cor. 4:14–16; 1 Thess. 2:11; 3:1–10).
5 you do faithfully. Genuine faith always produces genuine good works (James 2:14–17). brethren and for strangers. Gaius practiced hospitality not only toward those whom he knew but also to those whom he did not know. The reference concerns especially itinerant gospel preachers that Gaius aided on their journeys.
6 who have borne witness of your love before the church. Gaius’ reputation for hospitality and kindness (as well as obedience—v. 3) was also well known throughout the churches in the region. in a manner worthy of God. Cf. Col. 1:10; 1 Thess. 2:12. The phrase has the connotation of treating people as God would treat them (see Matt. 10:40), and becomes the key manner in which hospitality should be practiced (Matt. 25:40–45). you will do well. John encouraged Gaius to keep practicing hospitality, especially because of the actions of Diotrephes who conducted a heavy-handed campaign against it (v. 10).
7, 8 John gives several grounds for practicing hospitality in a “manner worthy of God.” First, one must show hospitality to those who have pure motives. These itinerant missionaries went out “for the sake of the name” (v. 7; cf. Rom. 1:5). They must be doing their ministry for God’s glory not their own. Second, one must show hospitality to those who are not in ministry for money. Since the missionaries were “taking nothing from the Gentiles” (v. 7), the church was their only means of support. They were free from avarice (2 Cor. 2:17; 1 Tim. 5:17, 18). Third, those who show hospitality participate in the ministries of those to whom hospitality is shown (v. 8). Verse 8 gives the same reason to demonstrate hospitality to genuine teachers as does 2 John 10 in forbidding hospitality toward false teachers, i.e., that those who extend hospitality share in the deeds (i.e., good or bad) of those receiving it.
9 I wrote to the church. John apparently had written a previous letter to the church, perhaps on the subject of hospitality, but it was lost. Perhaps Diotrephes never read it to the church because he rejected John’s authority (cf. vv. 9, 10). Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence. In the second part of his epistle, John condemned the violation of hospitality toward faithful ministers of the Word. The word “preeminence” has the idea of “desiring to be first.” It conveys the idea of someone who is selfish, self-centered, and self-seeking. The language suggests a self-promoting demagogue, who served no one, but wanted all to serve only him. Diotrephes’ actions directly contradict Jesus’ and the NT’s teaching on servant-leadership in the church (cf. Matt. 20:20–28; Phil 2:5–11; 1 Tim. 3:3; 1 Pet. 5:3). does not receive us. Diotrephes modeled the opp
osite of kindness and hospitality to God’s servants, even denying John’s apostolic authority over the local congregation, and as a result, denying the revelation of God that came through that authority. His pride endeavored to supplant the rule of Christ through John in the church. Diotrephes’ character was the very opposite of the gentle and loving Gaius who readily showed hospitality.
10 if I come, I will call to mind his deeds. John’s apostolic authority meant that Diotrephes had to answer for his behavior. The apostle did not overlook this usurping of Christ’s place in the church. Verse 10 indicates that Diotrephes was guilty of 4 things: 1) “prating against us.” The word “prating” comes from a word meaning “to bubble up” and has the idea of useless, empty jabber, i.e., talking nonsense. The charges against John were completely unjustified; 2) “with malicious words.” Not only were Diotrephes’ charges false, they were evil; 3) “does not receive the brethren.” He not only slandered John but also deliberately defied other believers; and 4) “putting them out of the church.” The original language indicates that Diotrephes’ habit was to excommunicate those who resisted his authority. does not receive the brethren. To accept John’s authority (v. 9), as well as being hospitable to the traveling ministers, directly threatened the authority that Diotrephes coveted.
11 do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. The verse begins the introduction to the commendation of Demetrius in v. 12. Gaius was to imitate Demetrius as the correct role model for his actions. He who does good is of God, but he who does evil has not seen God. John’s statement indicates that Diotrephes’ actions proved that he was never a Christian. This is a practical application of the moral test (see notes on 1 John 5:2, 3).
12 Demetrius. As with Gaius, Demetrius was a very common name in the Roman world (Acts 19:24, 38). Nothing is known of him apart from this epistle. He may have delivered this letter, which also would serve to commend him to Gaius. has a good testimony from all. Like Gaius, Demetrius’ reputation was well known in the region. from the truth itself. Demetrius was an excellent role model preeminently because he practiced the truth of God’s Word in his life.
13, 14 pen and ink…face to face. See note on 2 John 12.
3 John 1
1:1 a 2 John 1
1:3 b 2 John 4
1:4 c 1 Thess. 2:19, 20; 2 John 4
1:4 d (1 Cor. 4:15)
1:4 1 NU the truth
1:5 2 NU and especially for
1:7 e 1 Cor. 9:12, 15
1:8 f Matt. 10:40; Rom. 12:13; Heb. 13:2; 1 Pet. 4:9
1:8 3 NU support
1:10 g Prov. 10:8, 10
1:10 4 talking nonsense
1:11 h Ps. 34:14; 37:27; Rom. 14:19; 1 Thess. 5:15; 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22
1:11 i (1 John 2:29; 3:10)
1:11 j (1 John 3:10)
1:11 5 NU, M omit but
1:12 k Acts 6:3; 1 Tim. 3:7
1:12 l John 19:35; 21:24
1:12 6 testify
1:13 m 2 John 12
Introduction to Jude
Title
Jude, which is rendered “Judah” in Hebrew and “Judas” in Greek, was named after its author (v. 1), one of the 4 half-brothers of Christ (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3). As the fourth shortest NT book (Philem., 2 John, and 3 John are shorter), Jude is the last of 8 general epistles. Jude does not quote the OT directly, but there are at least 9 obvious allusions to it. Contextually, this “epistolary sermon” could be called “The Acts of the Apostates.”
Author and Date
Although Jude (Judas) was a common name in Palestine (at least 8 are named in the NT), the author of Jude generally has been accepted as Jude, Christ’s half-brother. He is to be differentiated from the Apostle Judas, the son of James (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). Several lines of thought lead to this conclusion: 1) Jude’s appeal to being the “brother of James,” the leader of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) and another half-brother of Jesus (v. 1; cf. Gal. 1:19); 2) Jude’s salutation being similar to James (cf. James 1:1); and 3) Jude’s not identifying himself as an apostle (v. 1), but rather distinguishing between himself and the apostles (v. 17).
The doctrinal and moral apostasy discussed by Jude (vv. 4–18) closely parallels that of 2 Peter (2:1—3:4), and it is believed that Peter’s writing predated Jude for several reasons: 1) 2 Peter anticipates the coming of false teachers (2 Pet. 2:1, 2; 3:3), while Jude deals with their arrival (vv. 4, 11, 12, 17, 18); and 2) Jude quotes directly from 2 Pet. 3:3 and acknowledges that it is from an apostle (vv. 17, 18). Since no mention of Jerusalem’s destruction in A.D. 70 was made by Jude, though Jude most likely came after 2 Peter (ca. A.D. 68–70), it was almost certainly written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Although Jude did travel on missionary trips with other brothers and their wives (1 Cor. 9:5), it is most likely that he wrote from Jerusalem. The exact audience of believers with whom Jude corresponded is unknown, but seems to be Jewish in light of Jude’s illustrations. He undoubtedly wrote to a region recently plagued by false teachers.
Although Jude had earlier rejected Jesus as Messiah (John 7:1–9), he, along with other half-brothers of our Lord, was converted after Christ’s resurrection (Acts 1:14). Because of his relation to Jesus, his eye-witness knowledge of the resurrected Christ, and the content of this epistle, it was acknowledged as inspired and was included in the Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170). The early questions about its canonicity also tend to support that it was written after 2 Peter. If Peter had quoted Jude, there would have been no question about canonicity, since Peter would thereby have given Jude apostolic affirmation. Clement of Rome (ca. A.D. 96) plus Clement of Alexandria (ca. A.D. 200) also alluded to the authenticity of Jude. Its diminutive size and Jude’s quotations from uninspired writings, account for any misplaced questions about its canonicity.
Background and Setting
Jude lived at a time when Christianity was under severe political attack from Rome and aggressive spiritual infiltration from gnostic-like apostates and libertines who sowed abundant seed for a gigantic harvest of doctrinal error. It could be that this was the forerunner to full blown Gnosticism which the Apostle John would confront over 25 years later in his epistles. Except for John, who lived at the close of the century, all of the other apostles had been martyred, and Christianity was thought to be extremely vulnerable. Thus, Jude called the church to fight, in the midst of intense spiritual warfare, for the truth.
Historical and Theological Themes
Jude is the only NT book devoted exclusively to confronting “apostasy,” meaning defection from the true, biblical faith (vv. 3, 17). Apostates are described elsewhere in 2 Thess. 2:10; Heb. 10:29; 2 Pet. 2:1–22; 1 John 2:18–23. He wrote to condemn the apostates and to urge believers to contend for the faith. He called for discernment on the part of the church and a rigorous defense of biblical truth. He followed the earlier examples of: 1) Christ (Matt. 7:15ff.; 16:6–12; 24:11ff; Rev. 2; 3); 2) Paul (Acts 20:29, 30; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 3:1–5; 4:3, 4); 3) Peter (2 Pet. 2:1, 2; 3:3, 4); and 4) John (1 John 4:1–6; 2 John 6–11).
Jude is replete with historical illustrations from the OT which include: 1) the Exodus (v. 5); 2) Satan’s rebellion (v. 6); 3) Sodom and Gomorrah (v. 7); 4) Moses’ death (v. 9); 5) Cain (v. 11); 6) Balaam (v. 11); 7) Korah (v. 11); 8) Enoch (vv. 14, 15); and 9) Adam (v. 14).
Jude also vividly described the apostates in terms of their character and unconscionable activities (vv. 4, 8, 10, 16, 18, 19). Additionally, he borrowed from nature to illustrate the futility of their teaching (vv. 12, 13). While Jude never commented on the specific content of their false teaching, it was enough to demonstrate that their degenerate personal lives and fruitless ministries betrayed their attempts to teach error as though it were truth. This emphasis on character repeats the constant theme regarding false teachers—their personal corruption. While their teaching is clever, subtle, deceptive, enticing, and delivered in myriads of forms, the common way to recognize them is to look behind their false spiritual fronts and see their wicked lives (2 Pet. 2:10, 12, 18,
19).
Interpretive Challenges
Because there are no doctrinal issues discussed, the challenges of this letter have to do with interpretation in the normal process of discerning the meaning of the text. Jude does quote from non-canonical, pseudepigraphal (i.e., the actual author was not the one named in its title) sources such as 1 Enoch (v. 14) and the Assumption of Moses (v. 9) to support his points. Was this acceptable? Since Jude was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20, 21) and included material that was accurate and true in its affirmations, he did no differently than Paul (cf. Acts 17:28; 1 Cor. 15:33; Titus 1:12).
Outline
I. Desires of Jude (1, 2)
II. Declaration of War Against Apostates (3, 4)
III. Damnable Outcome of Apostates (5-7)
IV. Denunciation of Apostates (8-16)
V. Defenses Against Apostates (17-23)
VI. Doxology of Jude (24, 25)
The Epistle of
JUDE
Jude 1
Greeting to the Called
1Jude, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, and abrother of James,
To those who are bcalled, 1sanctified by God the Father, and cpreserved in Jesus Christ:
2Mercy, dpeace, and love be multiplied to you.
Contend for the Faith
3Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you econcerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting fyou to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
4For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord 2God and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Old and New Apostates
5But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that gthe Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
The MacArthur Study Bible, NKJV Page 666