Like the second letter, the third is brief enough to have been written on a single sheet of papyrus. A similar problem lies behind both letters, namely the visits of itinerant teachers and what treatment is to be given to them. Both letters are therefore concerned with Christian truth and love and with their relation to hospitality. There are differences, however. In the second letter ‘the elder’ writes to a local church, personified as ‘the chosen lady and her children’, whereas in the third letter he addresses by name one of the leading members of a local church, and refers to two others. This mention of Gaius (1), Diotrephes (9) and Demetrius (12) makes the third letter more vivid than the second and gives us a clearer glimpse into the inner life of a first-century church. The message differs also. In the second letter the church is warned not to extend hospitality to false teachers who deny the doctrine of the incarnation, while in the third ‘the elder’ commends Gaius for the hospitality he has shown to teachers of the truth, urges him to continue it, and sharply rebukes Diotrephes for his refusal to welcome them and for his opposition to those who wished to. In this way the positive instruction of the third letter is complementary to the more negative instruction of the second. The two letters must be read together if we are to gain a balanced understanding of the duties and limits of Christian hospitality.
The Didachē, the first-century church manual to which reference was made in the introductory comments on the second letter, shows that early Christian hospitality was sometimes abused. Instructions are given that an ‘apostle’ may not stay beyond one day or, ‘in case of necessity’, two. ‘If he stays three days, he is a false prophet’ (11:5). On departing, he may receive enough food to last him his journey. But ‘if he asks for money, he is a false prophet’ (11:6). Again, if a prophet, apparently speaking under the inspiration of the Spirit, says ‘give me money, or something else’, he is not to be heeded unless the money is ‘for others in need’ (11:12). It is recognized that true prophets have a right to stay and be supported (13), but an ordinary Christian traveller must not be entertained free for more than two or three days (12:2). If he wants to settle, ‘he must work for his living … If he refuses to do this, he is trading on Christ’ (12:3–5).
The third letter contains messages to or concerning Gaius (1–8), Diotrephes (9–10), and Demetrius (11–12), with a conclusion and greeting (13–14).
1. The writer again announces himself not by his personal name but by the title by which his readers evidently knew him, the elder. See commentary on 2 John 1. The recipient of the letter is called Gaius. Several men named Gaius appear in the pages of the New Testament – Gaius of Corinth, who after his baptism by Paul became host to the apostle and to ‘the whole church’ (1 Cor. 1:14; Rom. 16:23), and who, according to Origen, was traditionally thought to have been the first Bishop of Thessalonica; Gaius of Macedonia, linked with Aristarchus of Thessalonica as one of Paul’s companions, who suffered in the riot at Ephesus (Acts 19:29); and Gaius of Derbe, who travelled with Paul on his last journey from Greece through Macedonia at least as far as Troas and was probably his church’s delegate for the transmission of the collection for the poor in Judea (Acts 20:4). According to the fourth-century so-called ‘Apostolical Constitutions’ (7.46.9), it was this last Gaius of Derbe to whom the third letter of John was sent and whom John appointed the first Bishop of Pergamum. This latter suggestion has attracted some commentators. Indeed ‘there is nothing unlikely about it, but the document is late and there is no early support for its statement’ (Dodd).
Since ‘Gaius’ was ‘perhaps the most common of all names in the Roman Empire’ (Plummer), it is safer to resist the attempt to identify the Gaius of this letter. We do not know who he was. It is clear, however, from the terms in which John writes, that he occupied a position of responsibility and leadership in the local church. Visiting evangelists seem to have stayed with him rather than with others, and the elder would hardly have written so outspokenly of Diotrephes to any but a church leader. Although we can only guess his identity and his position, John leaves us in no doubt of his personal affection for him. He calls him his dear friend (1), and three times addresses him directly by the same term agapēte, ‘beloved’ (RSV) or ‘my dear friend’ (NEB). See verses 2, 5 and 11. John’s love for him was in the truth. As in 2 John 1 there is no definite article in this phrase. Dodd quotes two letters from an Egyptian farmer in AD 110 in which he sends greetings to ‘all who love you (or us) truly’. Nevertheless, the RSV and NIV are certainly right to translate the expression here not ‘in truth’ (RV), or ‘sincerely’, but in the truth, the truth being the sphere in which their mutual love existed and flourished. Perhaps their relationship to each other was more personal even than this, and the reference to ‘my children’ (4) hints that Gaius owed his conversion to John.
2. Three of the first eleven Greek words with which the letter opens refer to love. The love of ‘the elder’ for Gaius is genuine and now expresses itself in a ‘wish’ (AV) or prayer (I pray) for his material well-being. The verb translated that all may go well with you (euodousthai) means literally ‘to have a good journey’ (Dodd), and metaphorically to ‘succeed’ or ‘prosper’ (Rom. 1:10; 1 Cor. 16:2). The other verb rendered enjoy good health (hygiainein) is used by Luke the physician to describe those who are ‘fit and well’ or ‘safe and sound’ (e.g. Luke 5:31; 7:10; 15:27). Taking the words together, ‘the elements of progress and vigour are combined’ (Westcott). Both verbs belonged to the everyday language of letter writing. ‘So regular was this sort of thing in Latin letters’, comments Bruce (p. 147), ‘that it was customarily expressed by the use of initials SVBEEV (si uales, bene est; ego ualeo, “if you are well, that is good; I am well”).’ John’s wish for Gaius’ body and estate, however, although expressed in conventional terms, is doubtless a sincere one. There is no need for him to express a similar desire for Gaius’ spiritual well-being, because he says he knows that his soul is getting along well. There is biblical warrant here for desiring the physical as well as the spiritual welfare of our Christian friends.
At the same time, those who have recently developed the so-called ‘prosperity gospel’ (viz. that God means all his children to enjoy health and wealth in abundance) can find in this text only the flim-siest foundation for their position. Consider these points: (1) they depend almost entirely on Old Testament promises of prosperity, which were spoken to the nation Israel and were not repeated in the New Testament to either Christian individuals or the Christian community; (2) they are insensitive to the poverty and hunger of many believers in developing nations, to whom the prosperity gospel evidently does not apply; and (3) they overlook the New Testament emphasis on adversity rather than prosperity as the chief mark of the followers of the Suffering Servant.
3. The evidence of Gaius’ spiritual well-being, which had caused John great joy, had been brought to him by certain brothers. They are mentioned in this verse and in verse 5. They had visited the church in which Gaius held a responsible position and had seen certain things about him which enabled them, on their return to ‘the elder’, to bring him a good report. Two characteristics of Gaius’ spiritual prosperity are mentioned, namely your faithfulness to the truth (3), literally ‘your truth’ (RV), and ‘your love’ (6). To both the travelling brothers had ‘borne witness’ (3 and 6). Gaius was a balanced Christian. He held the truth in love (cf. Eph. 4:15). He also loved in truth. For the relation between these two qualities see commentary on 2 John 1 and 3. Since testimony can be borne only to what has been seen (see commentary on 1 John 1:2), it is clear that Gaius was a transparent, open Christian who was letting his light shine and not hiding it. His truth and love were known to all. Even ‘strangers’ (5) could see his sterling worth and bear witness to it. For the meaning of your faithfulness to the truth, see commentary on the next verse.
4. ‘The elder’ regarded Gaius as his child, much as all those to whom he addressed his first letter were his ‘dear children’. He had a fatherly affection for them (cf. 1 Cor. 4:14–16; 1 Thess. 2:11) and his joy as a parent was bound up in their welfare (cf. 1 Thess. 3:1–10). In particular he rejoiced if his children were continuing to walk in the truth (cf. the similar statement in 2 John 4). This expression, which has the definite article (en tē alētheia), explains the meaning of the two earlier phrases in the previous verse, ‘your truth’ (‘the truth of your life’, RV, RSV; ‘your faithfulness to the truth’, NIV) and ‘how you continue to walk in the truth’ (which has no definite article). To walk in (‘follow’, RSV) the truth is more than to give assent to it. It means to apply it to one’s behaviour. Whoever ‘walks in the truth’ is an integrated believer in whom there is no dichotomy between profession and practice. On the contrary, there is in him an exact correspondence between creed and conduct. Such conformity of life to the truth on the part of his children brought John greater joy than anything else. To him truth mattered. The alternative reading of charin, ‘favour’ (meaning ‘no greater favour from God’), for charan (joy), followed by the Vulgate, and adopted by Westcott and Hort perhaps because it is found in the Codex Vaticanus, is almost certainly a copyist’s error. ‘Joy’ is much more strongly supported.
5–6a. ‘The elder’ again addresses Gaius as dear friend and proceeds to write not now of his truth but of his love. He was ‘given to hospitality’, as all Christians (Rom. 12:13; Heb. 13:2; 1 Pet. 4:9) and particularly widows (1 Tim. 5:10) and presbyter-bishops (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:8) are commanded to be. In each of these verses the Greek word is either the noun philoxenia or the adjective philoxenos, which indicate literally a love for strangers. In welcoming such, we may not only entertain angels without knowing it (Heb. 13:2), but will be receiving the Lord Jesus himself (Matt. 10:40–42; 25:35, 38; cf. Didachē 11:2, 4, ‘welcome him as the Lord’). This love for strangers is just what Gaius possessed, for his ministry had been exercised towards the brothers, even though they were strangers to him. ‘The brethren and the strangers are not two classes, but one and the same’ (Plummer). Gaius’ philadelphia (love of the brothers) and philoxenia (love of strangers) were combined. Cf. Hebrews 13:12, where these words occur together. He must have received them into his house and entertained them at his own expense. He was faithful, ‘the elder’ comments, in what he was doing. This may signify that John recognized in the hospitable practice of Gaius a token of his loyalty to himself and his principles. He could ‘still be counted on’ (Dodd); cf. RSV, ‘it is a loyal thing you do’ and NEB, ‘you show a fine loyalty’. Or, as Westcott suggests, the phrase should perhaps be rendered: ‘thou makest sure …’ i.e. ‘such an act … will not fail of its due issue and reward’. But it is noteworthy that what Gaius is said to be faithful in … doing is his ‘work’ (ergasē). His work was the outcome of his faith; it was ‘a faithful work’ (RV). The word ‘faithful’ seems to link together the truth and the love of Gaius. His practical ministry to strangers was true to his profession. His love was consistent with the truth which he believed. The verb they have told is an aorist (emartyrēsan, ‘have testified’, RSV) and must refer to some particular occasion when before the assembled congregation, of which John was leader, the returned travellers had spoken appreciatively of the love Gaius had shown them, and of his truth (3).
6b. ‘The elder’ now turns from the past to the future, from ‘what you are doing’ (5) to what you will do (6). John is perhaps anxious lest the vociferous Diotrephes (9–10) should succeed in persuading Gaius to change his policy of keeping open house. So he urges him to continue to entertain travelling teachers. The implication of extending hospitality to itinerant missionaries is now clear. They are not just to be received when they arrive, but to be so refreshed and provided for (no doubt with supplies of food and money) as to be sent forward on the next stage of their journey in a manner worthy of God (cf. Col. 1:10; 1 Thess. 2:12). They are the servants of God and represent him. They must be treated accordingly. Such thoughtful sending forth of missionaries on their journey is not only ‘a loyal thing’ (5, RSV), but a ‘beautiful’ thing (kalōs poiēseis, you will do well). Cf. Mark 14:6 for another deed of love which is recognized as ‘a beautiful thing’ (RSV).
Dodd suggests that the verb translated send them on their way (propempsas) was ‘something like a technical term of early Christian missions’, implying ‘the assumption of financial responsibility for the journey’ of departing missionaries. This is probably the case for, although in Acts 20:38 and 21:5 it seems to mean no more than to ‘accompany’ or ‘escort’, in other places, as here, it indicates to receive and entertain travellers in preparation for the next stage of their journey (Rom. 15:24; 1 Cor. 16:6, 11; 2 Cor. 1:16) and possibly to supply them with provisions when they leave (as in Titus 3:13 and possibly Acts 15:3). Cf. verse 8 here.
7. The reasons for such special hospitality are now given. ‘The brothers’ and ‘strangers’ of verse 5 are not ordinary Christians who happen to be travelling from one city to another, but missionaries. John writes of them that they went out. The verb (exēlthon) is the same as that used of the false teachers (1 John 2:19; 4:1; 2 John 7). It depicts a deliberate setting out on a mission, as when Paul embarked on his second missionary journey (Acts 15:40). Their motive is described as being for the sake of the Name. The AV had ‘for his name’s sake’ and the RSV ‘for his sake’, but the possessive adjective is not there in the Greek sentence. There is no need for John to specify whose name is in his mind. For there is only one Name, exalted above all others (Phil. 2:9). Moreover, the ‘name’ of Jesus is the revelation of his divine-human person and saving work, and ‘jealousy’ for his name (zeal that it should receive the honour due to it) is the most compelling of all missionary motives (cf. Rom. 1:5 and, for suffering for the Name, Acts 5:40–41). The pagans (hoi ethnikoi) refers here not to non-Jews, but to ‘the heathen’ (RSV) in contrast to Christian believers. The phrase receiving no help need not be pressed into meaning that these Christian missionaries would refuse to accept gifts voluntarily offered to them by the unconverted. There is no prohibition here of taking money from non-Christians who may be well disposed to the Christian cause. Jesus himself asked for and accepted a glass of water from a sinful Samaritan woman. What is here said is that these itinerant evangelists would not (as a matter of policy) seek their support from unbelievers and did not (as a matter of fact) receive their support from them. Christian missionaries were not like many wandering non-Christian teachers of those days (or even the begging friars of the Middle Ages), who made a living out of their vagrancy. Dodd writes: ‘Devotees of various religions tramped the roads, extolling the virtues of the deity of their choice, and collecting subscriptions from the public. Thus, a “slave” of the Syrian Goddess has put on record (in an inscription cited by Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, pp. 108 et seq.) how he travelled in the service of his “Lady”, and “at each journey brought back seventy bags” (that is, of money).’ By contrast, Jesus told the Twelve and the Seventy to take with them ‘no bag’ (Mark 6:8; Luke 10:4), and Paul condemned those who ‘peddle the word of God for profit’ (2 Cor. 2:17; cf. 1 Thess. 2:5–9). Christian ministers and teachers certainly have the right to be supported by those who benefit from their service, as Paul several times insisted (especially 1 Cor. 9:1–18; Gal. 6:6; 1 Tim. 5:17–18). But a Christian congregation supporting its minister is one thing; missionaries begging money from unbelievers is another.
8. This verse complements verse 7. It is because the itinerant evangelists were not supported by the pagans that we ought therefore to show hospitality to such men. We is strongly emphatic in the Greek sentence, which also contains a pun, namely that we ought to ‘support’ (the RSV and NEB rendering of hypolambanein) those who ‘receive’ (lambanontes) no help from the unbelievers. If the first reason for entertaining travelling missionaries is that they are brothers whom we should honour for setting out for the sake of the Name, the second is the much more practical one that they have no other means of support. We must do for them what others will not do. An important principle lies buried here, namely that we Christians should finance Christian enterprises which the world will not, or should not be expected to, support. Indeed, we have an obligation (ought) to do so. There are many good causes which we may support; but we must support our brothers and sisters whom the world does not support. This is a good guiding principle in Christian giving. The third reason for entertaining and providing for travelling missionaries is that by so doing we work together for the truth. This may mean that we become ‘fellow workers in the truth’ (RSV), implying that we are co-operating with the missionaries and ‘so play our part in spreading the truth’ (NEB). Or the phrase could be translated ‘fellow-workers with the truth’ (RV), ‘allies of the Truth’ (Moffatt), the truth itself being personified and regarded as the one with whom we collaborate. For this construction see James 2:22. Such a personification of the truth, the gospel or the word, is not without precedent in the New Testament (see, e.g., v. 12; 2 Cor. 13:8; Phil. 1:27; 1 Thess. 2:13). These itinerant evangelists are not ‘deceivers’ (2 John 7), bringing with them the lie that Jesus is not the Christ, the Son of God. On the contrary, they bring with them the truth. To receive one of the former is to ‘share in his wicked work’ (2 John 11); to receive the latter is to be a fellow worker with the truth. The Christian missionaries co-operate with the truth by proclaiming it; we co-operate with it by entertaining them. The Christian missionary enterprise is, therefore, not undertaken by evangelists only, but also by those who entertain and support them.
9. ‘The elder’ now introduces the problem created by Diotrephes. In character and behaviour he is entirely different from Gaius. Gaius is portrayed as walking in the truth, loving the brothers, entertaining strangers. Diotrephes, on the other hand, is seen as loving himself more than others and refusing to welcome the travelling evangelists, or to let others do so. Yet Gaius and Diotrephes were probably members of the same congregation, for ‘in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good’ (Article 26 of the Thirty-Nine Articles), although Dodd thinks they were members of neighbouring churches. Matters had now come to a head, John says. I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes … will have nothing to do with us. What this letter was is not clear. It cannot be the letter he is now writing because, although the verb might grammatically be an epistolary aorist, the words Diotrephes … will have nothing to do with us seem to describe the response which the letter in question has already (in the past) received. So it must be some other letter, not a private message to Gaius, but an official directive addressed to the church. It can hardly be either the first or second letter of John, since neither recommends the entertainment of travelling missionaries, which evidently was the subject of the letter mentioned in this verse. The letter in question must, therefore, have been lost, possibly because Diotrephes destroyed it.
Whether or not Diotrephes destroyed the letter, or declined to read it to the church, he certainly rejected the elder’s written instruction (ti, ‘something’, RSV). It is noteworthy that in verses 9 and 10 John slips from the singular (‘I wrote’) to the plural (he ‘will have nothing to do with us’), then reverts to the singular (‘If I come, I will call attention to what he is doing’), but ends with the plural again (‘gossiping maliciously about us’). It is difficult to resist the conclusion that his ‘we’ is the plural of authority, that by it he is referring to himself, and that the RSV is correct to translate the end of verse 9 that Diotrephes ‘does not acknowledge my authority’. John was conscious of possessing a generally accepted authority in the church. He issued orders and expected them to be obeyed (cf. 2 Thess. 3 for apostolic commands requiring obedience). Diotrephes was the exception. He was not going to be dictated to by John. He evidently claimed an authority of his own, even to the point of excommunicating church members who disobeyed him (10).
What were the motives which prompted Diotrephes thus to assert himself against John? Several attempts have been made to reconstruct the situation. There is no evidence that their disagreement was theological. If the truth of the gospel were at stake, ‘the elder’ would surely not have hesitated to expose the error in the same uncompromising language which he had used in the first and second letters. Not doctrinal heresy but personal ambition was the cause of the trouble. Findlay points out that the name Diotrephes was as rare as Gaius was common. Since, literally translated, it means ‘Zeusreared, nursling of Zeus’ and was only to be found ‘in noble and ancient families’, he goes on to make the ingenious conjecture that this Diotrephes ‘belonged to the Greek aristocracy of the old royal city’ (of Pergamum, to which Findlay believes this letter was addressed). In this case it was social prestige which lay behind his disgraceful behaviour. Other writers have tried to trace the rivalry between John and Diotrephes to the changing pattern of church order at the end of the first century AD. The age of the apostles was drawing to a close. Indeed, according to those who deny that the elder John was the apostle, it had already closed. It is known that by about AD 115, when Bishop Ignatius of Antioch wrote his letters to the Asian churches, ‘monarchical episcopacy’ (the acceptance of a single bishop with authority over a group of presbyters) was established among them. So this letter was written at the end of the apostolic era, or between it and the universal acceptance of episcopacy – a period of transition and tension which Dodd likens to the handing over of responsibility by foreign missionaries to the indigenous church.
Some commentators believe that the monarchical episcopate was already being introduced, and that Diotrephes, as the lawful bishop of the church, was chafing under the apostolic, or (if Dodd is right about ‘the elder’; see Introduction, pp. 39f.) ‘sub-apostolic’, authority of John. Others think Diotrephes was rather aspiring to this office, while Gaius was the rival candidate favoured by John. Barclay suggests that the letter reflects the tension between the universal ministry of apostles and prophets and the local ministry of elders. He thinks Diotrephes may have been an elder who was determined to champion the autonomy of the local church and therefore resented both the ‘remote control’ of John and ‘the interference of wandering strangers’. Precisely what his position was depends on whether his excommunication of church members (10) rested on any proper authority or was arrogantly presumptuous. Dodd is prepared to consider the former a possibility, and that Diotrephes may have been understandably rebelling against the old order represented by John. It is clear, however, that John himself held a different view of Diotrephes and, if we recognize his authority as a biblical writer, we must of course accept his standpoint.
To John the motives governing the conduct of Diotrephes were neither theological, nor social, nor ecclesiastical, but moral. The root of the problem was sin. Diotrephes … loves to be first or (RSV) ‘likes to put himself first’ (philoprōteuōn). He did not share the Father’s purpose that in all things Christ should have the supremacy (Col. 1:18, prōteuōn). Nor would he kowtow to ‘the elder’. He wanted the supremacy himself. He was ‘greedy of place and power’ (Findlay). He had not heeded the warnings of Jesus against ambition and the desire to rule (e.g. Mark 10:42–45; cf. 1 Pet. 5:3). His secret self-love erupted in the antisocial behaviour described in the next verse. Smith comments that ‘proagein (2 Jn. 9) and philoprōteuein denote two tempers which disturbed the Christian life of Asia Minor – intellectual arrogance and personal aggrandisement’.
10. John declares that if he comes in person to the church in question, he will call attention to (or ‘will bring up’, RSV, NEB, that is in public reproof) what Diotrephes has been saying and doing. He cannot overlook this challenge to his apostolic authority. He will be obliged to take some kind of disciplinary action. The seriousness of Diotrephes’ behaviour is now exposed in three phrases. First, he is gossiping maliciously about us. The word for gossiping (phlyarōn) means in classical Greek to ‘talk nonsense’. ‘It conveys the idea that the words were not only wicked, but senseless’ (Plummer). The noun phlyaroi in 1 Timothy 5:13 is translated ‘tattlers’ in AV and ‘gossips’ in NIV. The NEB renders the phrase: ‘He lays baseless and spiteful charges against us.’ Diotrephes evidently regarded John as a dangerous rival to his own assumed authority in the church and sought to undermine his position by slanderous gossip. It was not only against John’s person and position, however, that Diotrephes was working, but against his instruction regarding the entertainment of the missionaries. He was not satisfied with a campaign of malicious gossip about John, but went further and deliberately defied ‘the elder’: He refuses to welcome the brothers. Thirdly, he also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church. For some reason Diotrephes resented the intrusion of the itinerant teachers. He did not honour them for setting out ‘for the sake of the Name’; he was more concerned for the glory of his own name. Perhaps he had no better reason for refusing to welcome these strangers than that John had commanded it. He would not have them in his home or help them, and those who wanted to obey John and welcome them he first prevented from carrying out their desire and then excommunicated. Self-love vitiates all relationships. Diotrephes slandered John, cold-shouldered the missionaries and excommunicated the loyal believers – all because he loved himself and wanted to have the pre-eminence. Personal vanity still lies at the root of most dissensions in every local church today.
11. John turns from his description of the mischief being done by Diotrephes to give a word of personal counsel to Gaius, followed by a commendation of Demetrius. Perhaps he is anxious lest even Gaius should be influenced by Diotrephes. So he writes: Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Everybody is an imitator. It is natural for us to look up to other people as our model and to copy them. This is all right, ‘the elder’ seems to be saying, but Gaius must choose his model carefully. Diotrephes will not do, for instance. Gaius must ‘not imitate evil but imitate good’ (RSV), and John adds the reason. It is not just because of the effect which our copying others has on our behaviour, but because of the evidence which everybody’s behaviour supplies of their spiritual condition. Anyone who does what is good is from God. Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God. This is the moral test which is often applied in the first letter (e.g. 2:3–6, 28–29; 3:4–10; 5:18). Indeed an illustration of each of the three tests is given in this letter – truth (vv. 3–4), love (6) and now goodness (11). The true Christian may be described both as being from God (cf. 1 John 4:4, 6) and as having seen God (cf. 1 John 3:6). Birth of God and the vision of God are to some extent equivalent. He who has been born of God has come, with the inner eye of faith, to see God. And this vision of God deeply affects his behaviour. To do good is to give evidence of a divine birth; to do evil is to prove that one has never seen God (cf. 1 John 3:6). Perhaps in this generalization John has Diotrephes in mind and thus obliquely indicates that he questions whether Diotrephes is a true Christian at all.
12. Just as the thought of Diotrephes led John to write about doing evil, the mention of doing good seems now to remind him of Demetrius. A certain Demetrius is mentioned in Acts 19:23ff., a silversmith of Ephesus; but there is no evidence that it is he who is here described. Nor can we say that he is the same as Demas in Paul’s letters (Col. 4:14; Phlm. 24; 2 Tim. 4:10), although Demas is probably short for Demetrius. According to the Apostolical Constitutions John later appointed him Bishop of Philadelphia. We know nothing for certain of this Demetrius beyond what we are told in this one verse. It has been conjectured that John thus commended him because he was the bearer of the letter, a ‘travelling assistant of the Apostle’ (Findlay), or because he was an object of Diotrephes’ malice and Gaius needed to be reassured about him. Either is possible; both are speculative. The former is, however, the more probable as John seems to be commending Demetrius to Gaius as if Gaius did not already know him. What is clear is that Demetrius is given an impressive threefold testimony (cf. 1 John 5:8). First, he is well spoken of by everyone. The perfect passive memartyrētai conveys the idea that the testimony which everybody has borne to Demetrius remains valid. Secondly, this testimony is confirmed by the truth itself. This can hardly be a reference to the Son or the Spirit, although each is ‘the truth’ (John 14:6; 1 John 5:6). It surely means rather that the Christian genuineness of Demetrius did not need human witness; it was self-evident. The truth he professed was embodied in him, so closely did his life conform to it. Then Demetrius had a third witness: We also speak well of him (martyroumen) with a present and continuing testimony. This again looks like the first person plural of authority, by which John is referring to himself (as in v. 9). The RSV rightly renders it: ‘I testify to him too.’ This would be enough for Gaius because, even if he did not know any of those who had testified to Demetrius, and even if he had not yet met Demetrius personally to see in him the witness of the truth itself, he nevertheless knew and trusted the judgment of John, as John goes on to write: and you know that our testimony (martyria) is true (cf. John 21:24).
13–14a. Compare 2 John 12 and commentary there. There are verbal differences between the conclusions of John’s second and third letters, such as the tense of the verb to write and the reference to pen and ink (kalamos, the reed used by the ancients for a pen) instead of ‘paper and ink’. But the general sense is identical. John has much to write, much more than he can include on one sheet of papyrus, but these things he prefers to communicate by word of mouth, for he is planning to visit Gaius soon, and then, he says, we will talk face to face.
14b. (RSV, 15). Peace to you, the Hebrew greeting, invested with new meaning by Jesus after the resurrection (John 20:19, 21, 26), is an appropriate prayer for Gaius if he had to exercise leadership in a church where Diotrephes was stirring up strife. In the second letter, the reference to peace came at the beginning (v. 3), but a similar greeting of peace at the conclusion of a letter occurs in Galatians 6:16; Ephesians 6:23; 2 Thessalonians 3:16 and 1 Peter 5:14. The reciprocal greeting with which the letter ends is from and to the friends. This designation of Christians is unique in the New Testament letters. Their relation to each other is normally described in terms of ‘brotherhood’, not ‘friendship’. Nevertheless Jesus called the Twelve his friends (John 15:13–14), and Paul’s friends in the city of Sidon are mentioned in Acts 27:3. There does not seem to be any hint here that friends are less intimately associated with each other than ‘brothers’ (cf. vv. 3, 5, 10), for the instruction Gaius is given is to greet the friends there by name, which the RSV interprets as meaning ‘every one of them’, and NEB as ‘one by one’. Christians should not lose their individual identity and importance in the group. God surely means each local fellowship to be sufficiently small and closely knit for the pastors and the members to know each other personally and be able to greet each other by name. The Good Shepherd calls his own sheep by name (John 10:3); undershepherds and sheep should know each other by name also.