|
About Jesus Steve Sweetman 3
John written
2022 Biblical
text used and quoted in Part Two of this commentary is the Christian
Standard Bible (CSB) as seen in the authorization statement below. Scripture
quotations marked CSB have been taken from the Christian Standard Bible®,
Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission.
Christian Standard Bible® and CSB® are federally registered trademarks
of Holman Bible Publishers. Table
Of Contents I think that you would agree with me that
every page and every book in the Bible is important, but sometimes we
ignore the shorter books of the Bible, like the apostle John's two last
letters. Even these shorter
books of the Bible have important significance to us, and thus, the reason
for this commentary. John was a very elderly man when he penned
these letters, or, had someone else pen them for him.
I would suggest, especially since I am now an elderly man, that any
elderly person who still had his mental capacities would have some
important things to say in the last years of his life.
The apostle John, the one who Jesus seemed to bond with more than
others, did have some things to say that are beneficial for us today.
John, as it has been said, was the disciple
whom Jesus loved. Among other
passages that makes this point, John 21:20 reads: "So
Peter turned around and saw the disciple Jesus
loved [John] following them, the one who had
leaned back against Jesus at the supper and
asked, 'Lord, who is the one that's going to betray you?'" I don't think Jesus was playing favourites, as
we would call it today. I
simply think that Jesus' human personality and John's personality blended
together to the degree that they became close, maybe even, best friends.
Jesus loved everyone. That
is why He sacrificed His life, but being completely human as well as being
completely divine, He would have naturally had a few best friends, and, it
appears to me that John was Jesus' best friend.
That only makes sense, don't you think?
In the following pages I hope to instruct the
reader on what John had to say to the recipients of these two letters.
I have already written an exhaustive commentary on John's first
letter, which if you have not read, would be worth reading. It
is entitled An Elderly Man Speaks. Here
in January, 2022, I thought, since I had written a commentary on first
John, I should finish the task by writing a commentary on second and third
John. My hope and prayer is
that you, the reader, will be both instructed and inspired by what you
read. Like most all of the New Testament letters,
they were written to address certain problems in the church.
John's second and third letter does just that, and that is why I
have titled this commentary "Addressing Problems."
Before
you read further I tell you in advance that due to the fact I have been
legally blind since birth, because I am not a professional editor, and
because this book has not been edited by an outside source, you may find a
few grammatical or spelling errors. Hopefully
you will not find many, but most importantly, I hope those you do fine
will not detract from what you read. There
is no real debate among Evangelical Christian Bible scholars over who
penned 2 John and 3 John. It
was written by John. There is,
however, debate over which John it was who actually wrote first, second,
and third John. The majority
opinion, to which I hold, is that the disciple and apostle of Jesus named
John wrote 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, the gospel of John, and the book of
Revelation. The minority
opinion is that the "elder John" who was an elder in the church
in I
hold to the majority opinion for at least two reasons.
The first reason is that the content of John's three letters and
the content of the gospel of John, which most scholars believe was written
by the apostle John who personally knew Jesus, are extremely similar in
their theology, wording, and content.
The
second reason for my opinion is that some early second-century Christian
leaders claimed that the apostle John was the elder John who ended up
living in the city of Papias
was another second-century Christian leader (born 70 AD - died 163 AD).
In his writings he associated the elder John with Peter, James, and
other original disciples of Jesus, thus intimating that the elder John
(presbyteros in Greek meaning older man) as being the apostle John.
Concerning
Papias, you should know that we do not have any of his original writings.
What we do have are quotes of Papias in the writings of Irenaeus
(born around 120 AD - died around 202 AD).
Irenaeus was an important Christian apologist in the second
century. By the second half of
the second century when Irenaeus wrote his books defending the Christian
faith, the majority opinion was that John who was the apostle of Jesus was
also the elder John who cared for the Christians in I
have said that John was an elder in the church at In
today's ecclesiastical terminology, a bishop is a church leader with
authority over a large geographical area that includes several
congregations. This is
sometimes called "trans-local authority."
I question the idea that John held some kind of official
trans-local ecclesiastical authority over a large geographical region.
However, John was certainly well respected across the Christian
landscape in those days because he was the last of the original apostles.
For that reason Christians across the known world would have
esteemed John above all other church leaders of the day.
However you view this isse is fine with me.
We all can agree that John was one very important Christian leader,
if not the most important Christian leader, at the end of the
first-century.
John
was a Jew, who in his younger days, lived in the Roman 1
John 1:7 reads: "If
we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship
with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all
sin." 1
John 2:2 reads: "He
himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours, but
also for those of the whole world." When
John penned his three letters he lived in the Roman city of 1
John 4:18 reads: "There
is no fear in love; instead, perfect love drives out fear, because fear
involves punishment. So the one who fears is not complete in love." John
was one of the original disciples and apostles of Jesus.
He has been forever known as the disciple whom Jesus loved.
He is so known because that is how he described himself in John
13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, and 21:20. Not
that Jesus had favourites but it appears to me that Jesus' and John's
personalities were such that they became close friends.
John
had a brother named James (Matthew 17:1, Mark 5:37).
Matthew 17:1 reads: "After
six days Jesus took Peter, James, and his brother John and led them up on
a high mountain by themselves." John
had a father named Zebedee. John's
father and brothers had a fishing business ass seen in Luke 5:8 and 11
read: "When
Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus’s knees
and said, 'Go away from me, because I’m a sinful man, Lord!' For he and
all those with him were amazed at the catch of fish they had taken, and so
were James and John, Zebedee’s sons, who were Simon’s partners. 'Don’t
be afraid,' Jesus told Simon. 'From now on
you will be catching people.' Then they brought the boats to land,
left everything, and followed him." John
outlived all of the other original apostles.
He could easily have been seventy to eighty five years old when he
wrote his three letters, and most likely closer to eighty five years old
than seventy years old. This
is important because an older person has much wisdom to pass along to the
next generation. Many things
an elderly person once thought to be important are no longer important in
old age. Only the real
important issues of life are important when you are standing before
death's door. This was
especially the case in John's day when an older person was more respected
than he or she is today. So,
because John was an elderly man, what he has written needs our undivided
attention.
The
Text 1 - The elder: To my dear friend Gaius, whom I love in the truth. 2 Dear friend, I pray that you are prospering in every way and are in good health, just as your whole life is going well. 3 For I was very glad when fellow believers came and testified to your fidelity to the truth—how you are walking in truth. 4 I have no greater joy than this: to hear that my children are walking in truth. 5 Dear friend, you are acting faithfully in whatever you do for the brothers and sisters, especially when they are strangers. 6 They have testified to your love before the church. You will do well to send them on their journey in a manner worthy of God, 7 since they set out for the sake of the Name, accepting nothing from pagans. 8 Therefore, we ought to support such people so that we can be coworkers with the truth. 9 I wrote something to the
church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have first place among them, does
not receive our authority. 10 This is why, if I come, I will remind him of the works he is doing,
slandering us with malicious words. And he is not satisfied with
that! He not only refuses to welcome fellow believers, but he even stops
those who want to do so and expels them from the church. 11 Dear friend, do not
imitate what is evil, but what is good. The one who does good is of
God; the one who does evil has not seen God. 12 Everyone speaks
well of Demetrius—even the truth itself. And we also speak well of him,
and you know that our testimony is true. 13 I have many things to write you, but I don’t want to write to you with pen and ink. 14 I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face. 15 Peace to you. The friends send you greetings. Greet the friends by name. My
Commentary Verse
1 "The
elder: To my dear friend Gaius, whom I love in the truth." As
we saw in 2 John, the word "elder" refers to John.
By the time John wrote this letter, he was both an elder, as in
older man, and, an elder, as in a leader in the church.
Certain second century writings state that John was the lead elder
in the city of Some
Bible teachers suggest that our English word "the," written
before the word "elder," suggests that John was a lead elder in
the church at Such
a thing as lead elder, that is, a leader among leaders, was not the normal
procedure in the first couple of generations of the church.
The move towards a lead elder began to change near the end of the
first century, and that was due to heresy creeping into the church that
caused major divisions. The
idea behind having one man in charge of the local church to whom all would
submit was meant to keep the unity of the church intact.
This never really worked. What
did happen, though, is that the move towards a lead elder began the
process where within three hundred or so years, that lead elder became
God's spokesman to the church and also he became the church's
representative to God. This in
fact, forms the foundation of Catholicism's system of church structure,
which is unbiblical. By this I
mean that when a priest is seen as a middle-man between God and the
Christian, that clearly destroys the doctrine of the priesthood of the
believer that maintains all Christians have free and equal access to God
through Jesus. There is no
middle man between Jesus and the Christian.
Anyone who claims to be that middle-man is out of the will of God.
He is abusing authority and does not understand the duties of a
church leader. No
one knows for sure who this man Gaius was.
There are a few men we read about in the New Testament with the
name Gaius. Gaius was a
popular Greco-Roman name back in the first-century Note
the words "dear friend" here in the Christians Standard Bible.
We should know that there is no corresponding word in the original
Greek text for our English word "dear."
What is in the Greek text is a derivative of the Greek word
"agape," which means love that is demonstrated through some kind
of sacrifice. At
first glance as you read the English text you might have thought a
derivative of the Greek word "philos" might be seen in the Greek
text instead of the Greek word "agape," but that is not the
case. Philos suggests
reciprocal love, as in, I love you as you love me in return.
It is commonly understood as brotherly love, and thus, why you
might think that was the Greek word translated as "dear friend"
in the English text here in verse 1. I
believe the CSB, and other translations as well, interpret the Greek as
"dear friend" because of the Greek derivative of agape.
It appears, then, that John and Gaius had such a relationship with
each other that they were willing to lay down their own will for the sake
of the other, and thus, they would be seen as dear friends.
Again,
we see the phrase "love in the truth" here in verse 1 as we have
seen before. As I wrote in my
commentary on 2 John, love and truth are often seen together, not only in
John's writings, but Paul's writings as well.
Here is why I believe that the New Testament often associates love
with truth and truth with love. All
expressions of love must be based on and demonstrated within the
boundaries of Biblical truth, and truth does have Biblical boundaries.
If you step beyond the Biblical boundaries of truth in the process
of demonstrating love, you actually fail to love.
You do not express agape, sacrificial love as you think you are
doing. If,
for example, your sixteen year old son steels something from your
neighbour, you do not hide his theft based on the fact that you love him.
You do not cover his sin as an act of love.
That would be attempting to love outside of the Biblical boundaries
of truth. You would, in fact,
be participating in his sin. True
love, would confront your son with his sin with the hope that he would
admit to the sin and take any needed action that demonstrates true
repentance. This is love that
is demonstrated within the boundaries of Biblical truth.
It is often called "tough love" because it is often tough
on the one demonstrating the love and tough on the one who is the
recipient of such love. 1
John 3:18 confirms what I have just written.
That verse reads: "Dear
children, let us not love with words or
speech but with actions and in truth." True
Biblical agape love must be demonstrated within the boundaries of what the
Bible defines as truth. It
also must be demonstrated in concrete actions.
If you step beyond the boundaries of Biblical truth, or, if you do
not express love in action, you fail to express agape love. Verse
2 "Dear
friend, I pray that you are prospering in every way and are in good
health, just as your whole life is going well." It
is interesting to note, at least in my thinking, that the CSB version of
this verse seems to suggest something a bit different than the NIV's
version. The CSB says: I pray
that you are prospering." The
NIV says: "I pray that you may prosper."
Whether right or wrong, I tend to see a slight difference between
the two versions of this verse. I
tend to like the NIV's version a bit better and that is due to the verb
tense of this phrase, which is, a Greek present, middle, infinitive verb.
I realize that sounds very complicated and confusing to you.
I will explain. The
present part of this verb tense means that John hoped and prayed that
Gaius would right now, and into the future, prosper.
The middle part of this verb suggests that the reality of such
prospering is based on Gaius doing something and something being done to
him by an outside source. The
outside source, in context, would be Jesus.
The infinitive part of this verb actually suggests that this verb
is what is called a verbal noun. You
might say it is a combination of a noun and a verb.
You might be able to then say that John's prayer was that Gaius
would be "a prosperous one."
This places the emphasis on Gaius being a prosperous man, not just
on him being the recipient of prosperity or doing things that look
prosperous. It is thus, my
opinion that John was praying that Gaius' very existence would be
prosperous, and that would originate from both Gaius and Jesus. John's
prayer for Gaius is twofold. First
he would like to see Gaius being prosperous in every way possible.
That would suggests financially, socially, and most of all
spiritually. Beyond that, John
prayed that Gaius would be in good health, even as his soul was in good
health. Over
the years I have seen this verse abused by those in the Hyper Faith
Movement and the Prosperity Movement.
Those in those movements often say that we, as Christians, should
expect to be in good health, especially if our souls are in good shape.
They, thus say, if you have genuine faith in Jesus that is
expressed in words of faith, you should be living in perfect health, with
all material prosperity. I do
not see this verse saying any such thing.
John
was not guaranteeing that Gaius, or anyone else, should expect to live in
good health and be materially rich if he, or others, have sufficient
faith. That is only his prayer
for Gaius. It is only his
hope. It is not a certain
fact, and I believe the Greek present, middle, infinitive verb tense
suggests this to be true. I
believe we should understand John's primary view of prosperity, not our
western-worlds' cultural view of prosperity.
I don't believe he viewed prosperity only in financial terms.
First and foremost, he would have viewed prosperity in spiritual
terms, and here is why. John
would have heard what Jesus said about the issue of abundance, as in, the
abundant life as seen in John 10:10. John
10:10 is a verse that is often quoted by those in the Prosperity Movement
and Hyper Faith Movement to support their thinking.
That verse reads: "A
thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I have come so that they
may have life and have it in abundance." Those
in the Prosperity Movement and the Hyper Faith Movement tell us that Jesus
was speaking of material prosperity or abundance when He guaranteed
prosperity in the above verse. I
strongly disagree with this assessment.
Take Peter for example. He
heard these words spoken by Jesus. He
had a prosperous fishing business, which, Jesus asked him to forsake.
From then on, Peter was not financially prosperous.
The same was probably true for every other disciple who heard Jesus
talk about prosperity in the context of the abundant life of John 10:10.
If Peter understood Jesus to tell him that he would be materially
prosperous, really rich, then he would have been severely disappointed.
Peter never became materially wealthy.
He actually ended up being executed on a cross.
Beyond
Peter, few New Testament believers were wealthy.
Some were already wealthy when they became a Christian, but if they
followed the Biblical mandate, they would have used their wealth in the
service of the Lord. Material
wealth is never guaranteed in the New Testament.
For further details concerning Christians and money, you can read
my book entitled, "Should I Tithe."
Above
all that I have said, verse 2, according to scholars, is just a common
Greco-Roman way to introduce a letter in the first-century Note
the English word "soul" in verse 2.
The word "soul" is translated from the Greek word
"psyche." It is this
Greek word where we derive our English word "psychology" and
other related words. Verse
3 "For
I was very glad when fellow believers came and testified to your fidelity
to the truth — how you are walking in
truth." John
was exceedingly joyful when he heard the news that Gaius was walking, or
was living, in the truth of God. Such
joy always accompanies a true leader of God's people when the people are
living what they claim to believe, and, what they have been taught by the
leader. This was Gaius.
He was indeed a great example of one living in obedience to the
Word of the Lord. The
Christian Standard Bible, from which I quote, uses the word
"fidelity" in relation to Gaius' relation to the truth of God.
This simply means that Gaius was faithful to the truth.
He lived a life of godly faithfulness that was evident for all to
see. We know this because other believers testified, or confirmed, that to
be the case. If
we claim to live a godly life according to God's truth, our claim should
be attested by others. We can
make all of the claims we want, but unless others actually see the claims
in action, there is a good chance that our claims are false claims. Verse
4 "I
have no greater joy than this: to hear that my children are walking in
truth." As
I have said earlier in my commentary on 2 John, we cannot say for sure if
the words "my children" in this verse refer to John's biological
children or spiritual children. We
have no written documentation whether John was ever married, let alone if
he had any children. That
being said, I do believe, as most do, that John was speaking in terms of
his spiritual children, as was often the case when it came to the
relationship between a church leader and those to whom he cared for. I
believe the context concerning the word "children" should cause
us to believe John was thinking of spiritual children here.
I
have already noted that Paul viewed both Titus and Timothy as his sons in
the Lord. I will repeat those
verses again. 1 Timothy 1:2
reads: "To
Timothy, my true son in the faith. Grace,
mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord." Titus
1:4 reads: "To
Titus, my true son in our common faith. Grace and peace from God the
Father and Christ Jesus our Savior." One
reason why elders in the church might view those to whom they have been
given the responsibility to care for to be children is seen in Paul's
instructions to Timothy concerning the qualities an elder must possess
before he can be officially ordained, or acknowledged, as being an elder
in the local expression of church. 1
Timothy 3:4 compares an elder to a father who has great loving care for
his children. That verse
reads: "He
[the elder] must manage his own household competently and have his
children under control with all dignity." I
tend to view the word "manage" in the above verse as being
somewhat a cold-hearted word. I
believe the point Paul was making is that as a father has loving concern
for his biological children, in like fashion, an elder has the same loving
concern for those God has appointed him to lead.
For this reason, the early church understood elders to be
care-givers, much like a father cares for his children.
This
is where Catholicism finds its thinking concerning calling priests
fathers. The fact of the matter is that there is no Scriptural support for
using the word father as a title for a church leader, as we do with the
words elder, pastor, overseer, or shepherd.
These are legitimate New Testament titles for a church leader.
John and Paul personalized their relationships with certain younger
men, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that.
They were not making a New Testament ecclesiastical doctrine
concerning the word "father" as being a leadership title in the
church. Verse
5 "Dear
friend, you are acting faithfully in whatever you do for the brothers and
sisters, especially when they are strangers."
Verse
5 might suggest that Gaius is an elder in a local expression of church,
although as I often say, that is speculative because no where does the
text confirm this. Whatever
the case, Gaius for one reason or another has some kind of ministry for
caring for his fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
This might well be a valid ministry for him, or, it just might be
who he is as a person. That is
to say, by virtue of who he is, he just naturally cares for the needs of
others, which really, should be a godly character trait in all Christians.
Remember what John wrote in his first letter. 1 John 3:16 reads:
"This
is how we have come to know love: He laid
down his life for us. We should also lay down our lives for our brothers
and sisters." The
specific brothers and sisters that John is talking about here will be
named later. They are
obviously traveling missionaries, apostles, or those with some kind of
Christian ministries. We know
this because John wrote in the next two verses about them being sent on
their way. Versed
6 and 7 "They
have testified to your love before the church. You will do well to send
them on their journey in a manner worthy of God, since they set out for
the sake of the Name, accepting nothing from pagans." Note
the word "testified" in our English Bible.
As in other places in John's letter, the word "testified"
is translated from the Greek word "martyreo."
This Greek word is where we derive our English word
"martyr." Those who
testified to Gaius' love, were in fact, living witnesses to his
sacrificial love. We
know these visitors, these strangers, were on some kind of Christian
mission since John wrote that they set forth on their trip for the sake of
the Name. Of course, the Name
is in reference to the name of Jesus.
We
should understand the word "Name" to mean more than Jesus'
earthly name. His name
represents who He is. I remind
you that the angel Gabriel told Mary to call her son Jesus.
Luke 1:31 reads: "Now
listen: You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus." The
name Jesus means God is Saviour, or, God saves.
Jesus' very name speaks to the Deity of Christ.
It speaks to Jesus being God in a human form while on earth, and,
Jesus being God in some kind of super human form right now in heaven.
The name Jesus tells us that it is He, God in human form, who has
saved those who have put their trust in Him.
John's
instructions tell us something about the normal routine of local churches
when it came to travelling ministries.
If they were valid ministries, and not all who claimed to be valid
traveling ministries were actually valid, the local church would provide
that which was necessary for them to take the next part of their journey.
There
are some second-century writings that give some precise and specific
instructions how a local church should respond to traveling ministries.
This was due to the fact that by the second century there were
false traveling ministries infecting the church, and they, should not be
supported. Verse
8 "Therefore,
we ought to support such people so that we can be coworkers with the
truth." As
a result of what John has just written, John said that "we," not
Gaius only, ought to support godly traveling ministries.
The pronoun "we" is important here.
John is making a universal, ecclesiastical statement here.
We, as in the church, must support valid traveling ministries in
whatever way is possible. The
reason John gave Gaius this instruction was due to the fact that both the
godly traveling ministries and the local church are co-workers in the
truth. The word
"co-workers" is important when it comes to church.
If
you read Paul's instructions to the Corinthians that are recorded in 1
Corinthians 12, you will note that church is the Body of Christ.
Since Jesus is no longer here on earth in physical form, and, since
the individual believer as well as the corporate expression of church, are
indwelt by the Spirit of Jesus, the church is Jesus' replacement body on
earth. The
common consensus about church in the West seems to be that it is an
organization that has been set aside by God to do His will, and that is
obviously true, but there is more to church than that.
More than an organization, you could say that church is an
organism. Church, due to the
indwelling Spirit of God is actually Jesus' present-day earthly physical
body. It is for this reason
that Paul called the church the Body of Christ in 1 Corinthians 12.
1 Corinthians 12:27 reads: "Now
you are the body of Christ, and individual members of it." Paul
did not say that the church is like a body, as in, the Body of Christ.
No, he said that "you are" the Body of Christ.
I take that to mean that the church is indeed the present-day,
physical, living Body of Jesus on earth.
1
Corinthians 12 tells us that as a human body has a multitude of different
body parts, each having its own sphere of responsibility, so, each
individual Christian in Christ's body, then, has his or her specific
sphere of responsibility to carry out for the sake of the body as a whole.
In other words, as each part of a human body is a co-worker with
other body parts, so it is with the Body of Christ, the church.
Each Christian has his part to play in the church, and he or she
does so in relation to those to whom he or she has been called alongside
in the Body of Christ. We
must see those to whom Jesus has placed us alongside in His earthly body
as co-workers in carrying out the will of God.
Far too often in the western-world church we simply see ourselves
as isolated believers in an organized structure we call church.
If that is your view of church, you fail to understand the New
Testament's understanding of church. Each
and every believer, none excluded, are co-workers in the truth of God that
He has revealed to us. The
word "truth" is also important here.
We are not just co-workers of our own plans or our own version of
truth. If that is the case, we
are not the church as defined in New Testament terms.
Our working together must be based on God's truth that He has
reveal to us in Scripture. We
work together in accordance with His truth, not our truth, and especially
not the truth of our surrounding secular culture, which seems to often be
the case in today's western-world church. Verse
9 "I
wrote something to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have first
place among them, does not receive our authority."
First
of all, this man named Diotrephes is unknown to us.
There is much speculation over who this man was.
John does not tell us who he was so there is no use speculating.
You can't build an argument on speculation or silence, so there is
no use trying. That being
said, we do know a couple of things about this man that we do know from
what John did write. The
man named Diotrephes, who some think might have been an elder, liked what
we would call the limelight. He
liked being the one, and maybe, the only one, in charge.
He loved to be the preeminent one in the church.
John had heard all about such a person directly from the mouth of
Jesus. Jesus said that the one
who is first will end up being last and the one who is last will end up
being first. Look at what
Jesus said, as recorded in Luke 13:30. "Note
this: Some who are last will be first, and some who are first will be
last." Look
also what Jesus said about how Christians should view themselves in
relation to political leaders. Luke 22:25 through 27 reads as follows. "But
he [Jesus] said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles
lord it over them, and those who have authority over them have themselves
called Benefactors. It is not
to be like that among you. On the contrary, whoever is greatest among you
should become like the youngest, and whoever leads, like the one serving.
For who is greater, the one at the table or the one serving? Isn’t it
the one at the table? But I am among you as the one who serves.'" Clearly,
Diotrephes was in the wrong. He
was not acting as a servant, and, he failed to submit to ecclesiastical
authority. The
New Testament does teach submission to church leaders.
Paul wrote about the apostolic authority he had received from God. That
being said, Paul did not use his authority in a dictatorial way, and
neither should anyone else. He
expressed his God-given authority as a servant.
2 Corinthians 10:8 reads: "For
if I boast a little too much about our authority,
which the Lord gave for building you up and not for tearing you down, I
will not be put to shame." 2
Corinthians 13:10 reads: "This
is why I am writing these things while absent, so that when I am there I
may not have to deal harshly with you, in keeping with the authority
the Lord gave me for building up and not for tearing down." It
is clear that John had a good measure of authority in both the local
church and the regional church. Whether
this is trans-local ecclesiastical authority as being church doctrine is
debatable. I question the
concept of the local church being under the authority of a regional
pastor. You can come to your
own conclusion about that. I
do believe, though, that since John was the last of the original apostles
selected by Jesus, he was viewed by all as one having authority outside of
the locality in which he lived. Verse
10 "This
is why, if I come, I will remind him of the works he is doing, slandering
us with malicious words. And he is not satisfied with that! He not only
refuses to welcome fellow believers, but he even stops those who want to
do so and expels them from the church."
John
stated the possibility of him coming to the local church at some point
where Gaius lived. There seems
to have been a bit of hesitancy whether John would actually come to visit
or not. Remember, John was
probably quite old when he penned this letter.
Whatever the case, John was giving Diotrephes ample warning of how
things would be if he actually did make it to this church, and it is a
pretty stern warning. Depending
on the situation, some times church leaders have to be stern and straight
forward to those who are out of line in a local church. It
appears to me that Diotrephes might have had some kind of leadership
responsibilities in the local church that Gaius was a part of.
I say that because he was preventing the church from helping valid
traveling ministries to pass through this church.
Beyond that, he was expelling Christians from the church who
attempted to help these valid ministries.
It certainly appears that Diotrephes was not a servant of God.
He was a dictator, and as I have previously pointed out, church
leaders are not to be dictators. Besides
being a dictator, Diotrephes was a slanderer, to the degree that he even
slandered the apostle John. I
find that very difficult to imagine. One
would have to be very evil to slander the last living original disciple
that Jesus chose for Himself while he was on earth.
I can only imagine how divisive this situation would have been for
this local church. Many, or, I
would think most believers would be on John's side in this situation. From
all that we know of John being a loving, caring, kind-hearted man, how
could anyone do him harm in his old age?
It is beyond my capability to imagine, but it did happen.
People can be that cruel, even in church.
It is sad to say, but many times over the centuries, church has
been its own worst enemy. We
really don't need Satan to discredit us.
We can do that job quite easily ourselves.
Verse
11 "Dear
friend, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. The one who does
good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God." Note
our English word "imitate" here in verse 11.
It is translated from the Greek word "memiomai."
We derive our English word "mimic" from this Greek word.
I think we would all agree that the Christian is to imitate that
which is good, not that which is evil.
I guess it was something that John had to write to this church.
Since they had an evil leader, some of the believers might follow
the evil ways of Diotrephes. Those
who were more bent of wanting to be seen, wanting to be first, might well
have jumped on the Diotrephes bandwagon.
In
verse 11 John said that the one who does good was from God.
We need to understand this statement in its immediate context.
John was talking about Diotrephes, a very evil man.
It was he that was doing evil, which I believe John was alluding to
in the last half of the verse when he wrote that the one who does evil has
never seen God. Diotrephes was
that evil man who had not seen God. I
suggest, then, the John might have understood that Diotrephes was not a
valid Christian. This is the
context of John saying that the one who does good, that is, among you, was
of God. John was not saying
that anyone who does good was from God.
He was not suggesting that good works saves us.
He was simply writing to a congregation of believers who had some
among them that are doing evil. They
had never seen God. On the
other hand, those among these believers that were doing good, they were
valid Christians. They had
certainly seen God, that is, in metamorphic terms.
No one has ever seen God with his physical eyes. It
is what John wrote, as seen in 1 John 4:12. "No
one has ever seen
God. If we love one
another, God remains in us and his love is
made complete in us." Verse
12 "Everyone speaks well of Demetrius — even the truth itself. And we also speak well of him, and you know that our testimony is true." Like
Diotrephes, we are not sure who Demetrius was.
We see a Demetrius mentioned in Acts 19, but if this Demetrius is
that Demetrius, we do not know. The
name Demetrius was relatively common in the first-century, Greco-Roman
world. John
said that everyone speaks well of Demetrius.
The Greek verb tense here suggests to me that the church could have
easily informed John via a letter about both Diotrephes and Demetrius, and
now, John was answering this letter.
John
wrote that even the truth spoke well of Demetrius.
How can that be? How
can a non-living thing as truth speak well of anything, let alone a
person's integrity. Well, John
was writing about the truth that comes from God.
All that comprises God's truth was seen in the life of Demetrius.
I would say that is a very powerful testimony.
Wouldn't it be great if there were more men and women like
Demetrius in the church these days? It
would be nice to have known more about this man of God.
He could be an inspiration to us all.
Verse
13 and 14 "I
have many things to write you, but I don’t want to write to you with pen
and ink. I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face." After
reading this very short letter about Diotrephes and Demetrius, John had
much more to say to this local church, wherever it was located.
I am sure, you, like me, can imagine lots of things John wanted to
say, but some things are just best said in person, or, face to face, as
John put it. When
and if John ever made it to these people is unknown, but we can be sure
that he would have encouraged them, warned them, and rebuked some of them.
Diotrephes, who had kicked some out of the church, most likely
would have been expelled from the church himself upon John's arrival.
Sometimes a person has to be removed from church if he or she is
clearly teaching heresy, causing a major division, or abusing
ecclesiastical authority.
Verse
15 "Peace
to you. The friends send you greetings. Greet the friends by name." John
closed this letter with the words "peace be to you."
This was a common expression within the Jewish community of John's
day, and of course, John was a Jew. It
was a common phrase among most all eastern people back then, and really,
is still a common phrase in the East today. When John, or anyone else,
extended peace to someone, they were extending God's blessings to that
person. Christians
have both peace with God and peace in God.
We as Christians are no longer enemies of God.
We, through the cross of Christ, are no longer alienated from God.
We live in peace with Him and because of that peaceful
relationship; we have inner peace that gets us through the struggles of
life. Note
the word "friends" in verse 15.
The word "friends" is translated from a derivative of the
Greek word "philos" which gives the suggestion of reciprocal
love. That is to say, a free
flow exchange of love that flows from one person to another and back
again. John did not use the
more common word for "love," that is agape, in this verse, as he
had previously done when he called those to whom he was writing "dear
friends." Dear friends
suggest a love demonstrated through sacrifice, whether the sacrificial
love is reciprocated or not. Friends,
as John wrote here, suggests this free flow expression of reciprocal love
between John and the other brothers and sisters in Christ.
Both
of the above expressions of loving friendship should be exhibited in the
local expression of church, but in the church John was addressing,
Diotrephes was messing that all up. Sooner
or later, each expression of a local church will have to deal with such
divisiveness, but in the end, our prayer is for all of us to be both dear
friends and friends. In
summing up this letter, I note the following important issues.
Within any expression of the local church, both philos and agape
style of love must be exhibited among those to whom are called alongside
each other in the Body of Christ. Both
sacrificial love and reciprocal love are foundational to a successful
local community of believers. Another
issue to consider is local church authority.
Ecclesiastical authority is a valid New Testament teaching.
Those in authority must view themselves as servants and not
dictators. They are
care-givers, acting on behalf of God.
Those they care for belong to Jesus, not to themselves.
Submission
to local leadership is important for the sake of unity.
That does not mean a local church leader cannot be challenged by
those they lead. They must be
open as well to correction. No
one is infallible. When
those in the local church, clearly, dogmatically, and forcefully abuse
authority or refuse to submit to authority, consideration should be given
over the need to expel such a person.
John,
in this letter, was attempting to preserve and maintain the unity that
those in the local church should have among themselves.
As Christians we understand the importance of unity, because
disunity defeats the very purpose for our existence.
That being said, we do not maintain unity at all costs.
When our attempt at unity departs from clear Biblical teaching,
that teaching trumps unity. Division
sometimes is necessary. John
ended his letter with an exhortation and hope of peace for all that would
read his letter. May the same
peace from our Lord and Saviour be both with you and in you.
|
|
|