Download discussion questions:  3 John 1:1-15

One of the most obvious differences in 3 John that sets it apart from the writer’s two other letters is the fact that here John names names.  The letter of 1 John contained no personal references other than terms of endearment such as “my little children.”  In 2 John, the author identifies himself as “the elder” and his recipient as “the elect lady and her children.”  In contrast, 3 John includes the names of three specific individuals.  In fact, as one member of our discussion group pointed out, the structure of the letter is a “sandwich” with the negative portion inserted between two very positive segments.  The sandwich arrangement reflects the three individuals that John identifies:  Gaius (v. 1), Diotrephes (v. 9), and Demetrius (v. 12).

If the format is different, the common themes are still there.  John writes to Gaius, whom he calls “beloved” four times in the brief letter (v. 1, 2, 5,11).  As in 1 & 2 John, the writer is concerned with truth (seven times; v.  1, 3 twice, 4, 8, 12 twice), and his focus is not merely philosophical truth, but putting truth into practice, “walking” in it (v. 3, 4) in practical ways (v. 5-8).  Those same themes take up most of the other two letters John wrote.

The first “layer” of the sandwich is John’s exuberant affirmation of Gaius (vv. 1-9).  John is excited (and maybe a little relieved) at the report he received about Gaius “walking in the truth” (v. 3).  With all the doctrinal and practical problems addressed in 1 John, the Apostle was probably glad to hear that someone he cared for was continuing to be true to the faith.  Gaius was a friend, probably a leader in the church, maybe even its pastor.  The traveling missionaries (“the brothers” in v. 3, 5) had visited the church and then had reported to John (v. 6).  Whatever problems that Gaius might have been dealing with in the church, he still had a desire for the spread of the Gospel and supporting those in the work (v. 6b-8).  John’s response to the news about Gaius was like a proud parent, “I have no greater joy that to hear my children are walking in the truth” (v. 4).  John was experiencing the positive side of the concern Paul felt for the troubled Galatian church:  “My children, with whom I am again in labor until Christ is formed in you” (Galatians 4:19).  Both John and Paul saw their leadership roles as more than a job or even a ministry.  They were passionately committed to the spiritual formation of others.

The brothers’ report to John may have included more than just the glowing words about Gaius.  The brothers may have also described the turmoil going on in the congregation.  The next section brings up the uncomfortable topic of Diotrephes (v. 9).  Our group discussed the sad list of the issues that made this one person a problem in the church:

• Pride – loving to be first (v. 9a). Jesus challenged the Pharisees (Luke 11:43) for loving the front-row seats in the synagogue and the respectful greetings in the market.  Their goal was to draw attention to themselves, and apparently that was the motivation of Diotrephes, to be in charge, to be number one.
• Independence – not listening to counsel (v. 9b). The easiest way to be in charge and to be number one is to ignore advice.  The ESV translation renders the phrase, “he does not acknowledge our authority.”  Diotrephes was not ignoring just anybody, he was ignoring the Apostle John.  In our twenty-first-century setting that might be ignoring the authority of Scripture.
• Relational sin – slander (v. 10b). In his scramble to be first in the church, Diotrephes was spreading undefined rumors or gossip about John.  Attacking the person instead of what they are saying (ad hominem) is easier than trying to defend bad theology against John’s eyewitness authority.
• Relational sin – divisiveness (v. 10c). Apparently Diotrephes had attained some level of authority in the church.  John doesn’t say he was trying to be first but he loved being first.  Part of the abuse of that authority was an autonomous attitude about who could be a part of the church.  Whatever Diotrephes believed, he was actively resisting self-sacrificing missionaries (the brothers) and sacrificing the faith of others by putting them out of the church.

John ends this section with an exhortation to the beloved Gaius:  “Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good” (v. 11).  Even with all the good news about his faithfulness, Gaius could still have faced the temptation to yield to pressure from Diotrephes or to succumb to the attraction of the “success” Diotrephes was having in the church.  John’s simple reminder is to choose role models carefully.  As our group discussed, the letter itself provides examples to imitate, two good ones (Gaius and Demetrius) and one very bad one (Diotrephes).

Perhaps the beginning of the third section (v. 12) is John’s subtle suggestion to Gaius to consider Demetrius as a better object of imitation than Diotrephes.  Demetrius may have been the courier who brought the letter to Gaius.  With the trials the church was facing, maybe John even sent him to provide Gaius with a good example of a faithful believer.  John doesn’t offer a list of specifics about the character of Demetrius, only that he has a universally positive reputation backed up by the testimony of others.  Even that bit of information about Demetrius provides us with an example of good to imitate.  Hopefully, the testimony of others about us would be as true and positive.

One of the items that came up in our discussion was the example of missions that John affirms.  He makes several comments about the support Gaius (and perhaps the church) provided for “the brothers” (v. 3).  They provided support even though they were strangers (v. 5).  All that mattered was the message they were preaching:  “for the sake of the name” (v. 7).  Some concern was raised in our group about the comment that “they accepted nothing from the Gentiles” (v. 7b).  The assumption is that “Gentiles” was not a distinction between Jewish and Gentile believers, but rather that the term was used as a synonym for non-Christian.  Still one person in our group asked if that was some extreme isolationist attitude.  Shouldn’t we engage and interact with “Gentiles” in order to build relationships?  One suggestion we discussed was that John’s statement was in the context of a culture which often saw itinerant philosophers who took money for their public speaking.  So-called evangelists could do the same thing, using rhetoric and reasoning with the content of the Gospel to provide entertainment rather than to communicate truth.  In that environment many legitimate teachers (such as Paul) faced the accusation of “peddling the word of God” (2 Corinthians 2:17). (The practice may not have been limited to the first-century. Consider some ministries today.)  Maybe John is defending the brothers against such a charge.  The brothers were not putting on shows to raise money by lecturing, but rather, like Paul, preaching “from sincerity, from God, in the sight of God.”  They were deserving of generous support.

John also makes a motivating comment in verse 8.  He equates supporting the missionaries with being “fellow workers for the truth.”  Most of us have heard fund-raising appeals that emphasize the importance of supporting mission work, even if we don’t make it to the foreign country ourselves.  John seems to be saying exactly that, although I don’t recall ever hearing this verse used to support missions fund raising.  Maybe the relative obscurity of the shortest book in the New Testament caused it to be overlooked.  Whatever else we might apply from 3 John, that verse should challenge us to view our missions giving as an amazing opportunity to be “fellow workers for the truth.”