Chapter 21 3 John 5–8

Literary Context

The elder now moves quickly into the purpose for which he is writing to Gaius. In the modern world we would send a note requesting hospitality in advance of showing up. But without email, telephone, or a public postal system in the ancient world, the elder must request hospitality via this letter; it was probably carried by those standing on Gaius’s doorstep who needed it.1

Rhetorical analysis suggests that vv. 5–6 function to give background information that sets up the main point(s) that follow(s).2 In epistolary rhetoric this section (the narratio) of a letter specifies why the letter is being written. If the narratio mentions a person, praise is given if the person is considered to be on the side of the writer, which illuminates the reconstruction of the situation.3 In 3 John the transition to the narratio is marked by the vocative form of the adjective “dear friend” (ἀγαπητέ) and the praise of Gaius’s previous hospitality and loyalty. This probably indicates that the elder assumes Gaius to be on his side and not persuaded by Diotrephes or others who would alienate Gaius from the elder. There is no lead-in discussion of background information, which suggests that the relationship between the elder and Gaius is relatively current. This reference to past hospitality prepares Gaius for the central request of the letter in vv. 7–12, namely, the urgent need to extend hospitality to those sent by the elder because Diotrephes refuses to do so.

I. The Letter’s Address and Greeting (vv. 1–4)

II. The Reason for Writing (vv. 5–8)

A. An Affirmation of Gaius’s Hospitality (vv. 5–6a)
B. An Exhortation to Do Right (vv. 6b–8)

III. The Problem with Diotrephes (vv. 9–11)

IV. Introducing Demetrius (v. 12)

V. Closing (vv. 13–15)

Main Idea

The plea in v. 6, “Please send them on their way in a manner worthy of God,” is the main point of this passage. This no doubt refers to Christian workers sent by the elder who have arrived in the vicinity of Gaius’s home, probably led by Demetrius (v. 12).

Translation

Structure

These verses open the body of the letter (vv. 5–12) and focus on Gaius and his faithful hospitality in the past. The esteem and affection of the elder for Gaius are emphasized by the repetition of the vocative “dear friend” that appears in both the opening (v. 5) and closing (v. 11). The next section (vv. 9–10) focuses on Diotrephes and contains five assertions describing his behavior. The elder’s troubles with Diotrephes is sandwiched between the implicit exhortation for Gaius to provide hospitality on this occasion (v. 6b, 8) and the command that Gaius do what is right in order to remain on the side of truth and love (v. 11). This structure invites Gaius to see himself in contrast to Diotrephes and to be persuaded not to follow his example.

Exegetical Outline

II. The Reason for Writing (vv. 5–8)
1. A. An affirmation of Gaius’s hospitality (vv. 5–6a)
2. B. An exhortation to do right (vv. 6b–8)

Explanation of the Text

5 Dear friend, you are doing a faithful deed in whatever you do for your fellow Christians even [if they are] strangers (Ἀγαπητέ, πιστὸν ποιεῖς ὃ ἐὰν ἐργάσῃ εἰς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς καὶ τοῦτο ξένους). “Dear friend” (Ἀγαπητέ), the second of three occurrences of this vocative adjective, opens a new discourse unit. The verbs switch from the first person singular in vv. 1–4 to the second person singular as the elder begins to present his request to Gaius.

The elder emphasizes his esteem and affection for Gaius because what Gaius is doing for the “brothers” reflects his faithfulness. What’s more, Gaius has been extending hospitality not on the basis of personal friendship, but even for fellow believers unknown to him personally. The elder’s acknowledgment of Gaius’s reputation as a generous host based on previous hospitality to Christian brothers prepares Gaius to respond favorably to the request to host Demetrius also, whom he apparently does not know personally. The repetition of terms of affection and friendship might be intended both to confirm the elder’s belief that Gaius has been a good friend and to express his hope that Gaius will not turn from his friendship with the elder because of the growing tensions with Diotrephes or the confusion caused by the apparent problem in the elder’s church (see 1 John 2:19).

The neuter singular accusative adjective “faithful” (πιστόν) functions as a substantive object fronted before the verb for emphasis, “a faithful deed you are doing,” affirming that what Gaius had previously done for the brothers was indeed a faithful deed—should there be any question about that. Bauer’s translation followed by Bultmann, to “act loyally” is ad sensum, for he offers only 3 John 5 as evidence for this sense.4 The Venerable Bede comments, “Gaius’s loyalty is the result of his faith. What John means is that Gaius is doing all these things because he is a believer and wants to show faith in the things that he does.”5

The phrase “whatever” (ὃ ἐάν) implies an unspecified number of instances where Gaius has acted for the benefit of fellow Christians, showing his faithfulness to love and to truth. The aorist subjunctive “you do” (ἐργάσῃ) is used because of the contingency of “whatever” and therefore means “whatever you do” on behalf of fellow Christians—in the past, the present, or the future. In the Johannine corpus the verb ἐργάζομαι refers to works done either by God (John 5:17) or by those serving God (6:27, 28, 30; 9:4; 2 John 8), though this sense is difficult to capture here in smooth English.

The preposition translated “for” (εἰς) in the phrase “for your fellow Christians even [if they are] strangers” (εἰς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς καὶ τοῦτο ξένους) bears the sense of “with reference to” or “for.”6 The phrase raises the question of the relationship between the “strangers” (ξένους) and the “brothers” (ἀδελφούς). Are these two categories of people whom Gaius has done good deeds for—brothers and strangers? Or are they one category composed of brothers some of whom are strangers to Gaius?

The syntax is further complicated by the neuter, singular demonstrative pronoun “this” (τοῦτο). While this word might at first glance be taken as an accusative object of the elided but implied verb “you do,” it almost certainly is one of the twenty-two instances in the NT of an adverbial use of the pronoun. BDF (§290 [5]) considers the construction “even this” (καὶ τοῦτο) to have the concessive sense “although,” which would mean Gaius has extended hospitality to one category of people, fellow Christians, although they were strangers to him. Wallace also takes “this” (τοῦτο) to have an adverbial sense meaning “especially,” but he takes the conjunction (καί) to be copulative, applies an extension of the Granville Sharp rule, and defines the second substantive, “strangers,” as a subset of the first (“brothers”).7 Wallace’s construal conveys the sense that Gaius was hospitable to fellow Christians, especially to those who were strangers to him.

The syntax does not allow for certainty, but either way it is read, the point is clear that the elder considers it a good and faithful deed for Gaius to extend hospitality, not just to fellow Christians he knows but even to those he doesn’t. Given that the elder apparently needs to introduce and commend Demetrius (v. 12), who is probably the bearer of the note, the concessive sense of “even this” (καὶ τοῦτο) may be a somewhat better fit. The elder wishes Gaius to welcome Demetrius although he is a stranger, as he has apparently welcomed other fellow Christians in the past.

The elder’s emphatic commendation of Gaius for extending hospitality to strangers suggests that hospitality to strangers was not a commonly expected practice in the Greco-Roman world.8 Extending hospitality to strangers was considered a virtue in ancient societies as reflected in both the OT and NT (e.g., Gen 18 and 19; Rom 12:13; Heb 13:2). However, the fact that Joseph and Mary did not find shelter in Bethlehem, that hospitality to strangers had to be instructed, and that it was highly praised when it did occur suggests that it was not practiced by the majority of the population.

Hospitality in Greco-Roman society had a somewhat different form and function than the English word connotes in our times, and the practice was governed by different values and expectations. To us, “hospitality” usually refers to entertaining family and friends for a meal or brief overnight stay. Such customs are good and right, but that isn’t what hospitality involved as referred to in 3 John. Hospitality in the ancient world generally meant taking a visiting stranger under one’s temporary care, thereby transforming their social status from stranger to guest in the community and consequently giving them a social status that reflected one’s own standing in the community.9 A stranger could become part of the community even temporarily only through a personal bond with a member of the community.

This practice had the potential of putting the host at some risk, because one’s own social standing and reputation could be affected, depending on the behavior and character of the stranger to whom one extended or refused hospitality. Thus, hospitality was not a casual matter, and although it was considered a virtue in Greco-Roman society, the motive for it contrasted with Christian hospitality. For the moral philosophers such as Cicero, the “houses of illustrious men should be open to illustrious guests.”10 Rather than creating a social advantage for the host, Christian hospitality was to be offered to even lowly people without expectation of benefit (cf. Rom 12:13; 1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:8; Heb 13:2; 1 Pet 4:9).

The form of hospitality that welcomed overnight guests into one’s home was needed in Roman society because there was ample opportunity for travel on an extensive system of roads by land and on large fleets of ships by sea, but inns were not pleasant places to stay.11 It was common for travelers to seek shelter with the mutual acquaintances of family or friends. Because the earliest churches were most often located along the major travel routes, Christian travelers sought hospitality from fellow believers through the local house churches. Because the practice involved some risk for the host, a letter of introduction from a mutual acquaintance was often written to put the host’s mind at ease and to avoid abuse of the practice.

6 They speak well of your love before the church. Please send them on their way in a manner worthy of God (οἳ ἐμαρτύρησάν σου τῇ ἀγάπῃ ἐνώπιον ἐκκλησίας, οὓς καλῶς ποιήσεις προπέμψας ἀξίως τοῦ θεοῦ). This subordinate clause (cf. the relative pronoun translated “they” [οἵ]) joins this thought to the preceding clause, thus forming one sentence in Greek, but preserving it as one sentence in translation makes the English too unwieldly. The antecedent of this relative pronoun refers to those fellow Christians to whom Gaius has previously extended hospitality (“your fellow Christians even [if they are] strangers”) and who have testified before the elder’s church(es) of Gaius’s love.

Some have argued that the verb ἐμαρτύρησαν (often translated “they testified”) has a connotation that suggests a more formal public report, but the verb can mean simply “to affirm in a supportive manner” or “speak well of.”12 Moreover, the recipients of a favor given as the result of a letter of recommendation often acknowledged their appreciation by speaking well of their benefactor to the person who wrote the letter.13 Therefore, this verb says less about the circumstances behind the letter than some interpreters wish to make of it. For instance, it puts too much weight on the verb to suggest that the elder had sent out a delegation to all the churches to determine which ones had fallen to the antichrist heresy (cf. 1 John 2:18–23) and had formally received their testimony.14 Since the circumstances that gave rise to this letter are knowable only in broad strokes, the verb should probably be construed only with the degree of specificity appropriate to our lack of knowledge. The point is simply that the elder had heard good reports about Gaius’s hospitality, with perhaps an implication that should Gaius refuse hospitality to Demetrius, that refusal would also become known to the elder and the church. Malherbe observes that in some extant letters of introduction, the subsequent testimony of those being introduced is noted as partial motivation for the host’s compliance.15

The prepositional phrase “before the church” (ἐνώπιον ἐκκλησίας), found instead of a dative indirect object, may suggest the testifying was during the gathering of the church, even as many churches today have times of “testimonies” in their services when members share thoughts and experiences with the congregation. Brooke observes, “The anarthrous phrase [ἐνώπιον ἐκκλησίας] denotes a meeting of the Church at which the witness was borne.”16 Notably 3 John is the only Johannine work to refer to the “church” with the Greek word ἐκκλησία (vv. 6, 9, 10; see comments on v. 9 for further discussion of this term in 3 John).

The hospitable deeds of Gaius are referred to here as expressions of his love (τῇ ἀγάπῃ). This alludes to the conundrum Gaius faced, wanting to express love for Christ and for fellow Christians on the one hand but also facing questions of authority and truth on the other. Third John offers guidance on holding love and truth together. The very fact that this note was written suggests the elder feared that Gaius would be influenced to abandon such expressions of love in the face of contested truth about the authority of the elder and his proclamation of Christ (cf. 1 John 2:19; 2 John 9). This close relationship between truth and love in the Johannine tradition is attested in the variant reading here, “testifying of your truth and love” (ἀληθείᾳ καὶ ἀγάπῃ) in a few manuscripts from the twelfth through fourteenth centuries.

The elder states his specific request in the relative clause translated here as a separate sentence, “Please send them on their way in a manner worthy of God” (οὓς καλῶς ποιήσεις προπέμψας ἀξίως τοῦ θεοῦ).17 The phrase (lit.) “you will do well” (καλῶς ποιήσεις), followed most often by an aorist participle as here, is an idiom used from the third century BC through the NT period as a polite introduction to a request, much as “please” functions in English.18 It should not be construed as a commendation (“you do well”), any more than the English idiom “good-bye” should be understood etymologically as “God be with you.”19

The future tense “you will do” in the idiom shifts the discourse from affirming Gaius’s past practices to introduce a request that Gaius once more do (for Demetrius et al., v. 12) what he has a reputation in the church for doing—extend generous hospitality. The relative pronoun οἵ subordinates this clause grammatically to the main clause in v. 5, “you are doing a faithful deed in whatever you do for your fellow Christians.” The aorist participle “send on their way” (προπέμψας) functions adverbially as probably modal, specifying an instance of “doing a faithful deed.” In this context the verb “send forth” (προπέμπω) refers to a request for assistance with food, money, arranging transportation, and so forth.20 The object of the participle is the plural accusative relative pronoun “them” (οὕς), the antecedent of which is “fellow Christians” in the main clause of the sentence. This clause is a hinge looking back to the good report of previous recipients of Gaius’s hospitality while making a polite request for the practice to continue in the immediate future. Since the next opportunity to extend hospitality is probably to Demetrius, who brought this letter to Gaius, the plural of the relative pronoun implies either that the request extends to all future occasions for hospitality or that Demetrius was not alone (for which one would expect the relative pronoun ὅν).

The exact meaning of the adverbial phrase “worthy of God” (ἀξίως τοῦ θεοῦ) is debated, but it specifies the manner in which the assistance is to be provided (cf. Col 1:10; 1 Thess 2:12). It may echo the custom that those carrying the gospel in the ancient world were to be received as the Lord Jesus himself, though for this one might expect “worthy of the Lord” (ἀξίως τοῦ κυρίου). Reflecting this concept, Didache 11:4–6 comments:

Let every apostle who comes to you be welcomed as if he were the Lord [δεχθήτω ὡς κύριος]. But he is not to stay for more than one day, unless there is need, in which case he may stay another. But if he stays three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle leaves, he is to take nothing except bread until he finds his next night’s lodging. But if he asks for money, he is a false prophet.21

Alternatively, the phrase may refer to providing for visitors in such a way that God would approve22 or treating the travelers in a manner that respects and validates the dedication to God that moved them to leave the safety and comfort of their homes (v. 7).23 While none of these ideas is mutually exclusive, this last one seems likely given the explanation for this exhortation that immediately follows in v. 7. In any case, Gaius’s Christian hospitality is to reflect the gracious and generous character of the God he worships.

7 For they set out on behalf of the Name, taking nothing from those who are not Christians (ὑπὲρ γὰρ τοῦ ὀνόματος ἐξῆλθον μηδὲν λαμβάνοντες ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνικῶν). The elder now gives the basis for his request to Gaius (γάρ)—because the travelers set out from their homes “on behalf of the Name,” and they will receive no help from unbelievers along the way, as was the practice of disciples of Jesus. Given that Christians were relatively few, it was especially important for believers to be willing to feed and shelter Christian workers as they traveled.

The reference to “the Name” (τὸ ὄνομα) occurs also in Acts (Acts 5:41; 9:16; 15:26; 21:13) and in Paul’s letter to the Romans (Rom 1:5). Ignatius uses the phrase in his letter to the Ephesian church: “For even though I am in chains for the sake of the Name” (Ign. Eph. 3:1). Clearly, the “Name” is a metonymy for Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 15:26, which refers to men who have risked their lives for “the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”). This mention of “the Name” is the closest the elder comes to mentioning Jesus in 3 John; this makes it clear that these travelers are Christian workers. Far from calling into question whether 3 John is actually a Christian letter, this unqualified reference to “the Name” shows that the elder and Gaius must have been familiar with this way of referring to Jesus.

One purpose of this letter of introduction is to confirm to Gaius that these strangers are indeed fellow believers in the Lord Jesus Christ known to the elder and that the very reason for their travel is on behalf of the Lord. The exact nature of their work is unknown, though most likely they were sent from the elder for evangelization and discipleship through preaching and teaching. This situation created a dire need for believers like Gaius to extend hospitality even to those Christians who were strangers. This was such an important practice in the early church that beginning with Jesus himself, both the NT and other early Christian writings provide instructions for the practice (e.g., Matt 10:8; 1 Cor 9:14; 2 Cor 12:14; 1 Thess 2:9; Did. 11:4–6).

8 Therefore, we ought to support such people so that we might be fellow workers for the truth (ἡμεῖς οὖν ὀφείλομεν ὑπολαμβάνειν τοὺς τοιούτους, ἵνα συνεργοὶ γινώμεθα τῇ ἀληθείᾳ). The request for hospitality in v. 6b is restated here as an assertion of moral obligation—“we ought [ἡμεῖς … ὀφείλομεν] to support” the Lord’s work; note the switch to a first person plural and the emphatic use of a personal pronoun.

The verb translated “support” (ὑπολαμβάνειν) has a broad semantic range in the NT (“suppose, take up, reply”), but here means to take someone under one’s care as a guest.24 The adjective “such” (τοιούτους) refers to those mentioned in v. 7, namely, the sort of people who travel for the sake of the gospel not knowing ahead of time where, or even whether, they will find lodging and provisions among the Christian communities. Such people are deserving of the hospitality of their brothers and sisters in Christ.

The hina clause expresses “purpose-result,” indicating “both the intention and its sure accomplishment.”25 The purposeful intent of Christians who support traveling gospel workers should be to share in the work of truth and hospitality extended, so that, as a result, they share in the work of the gospel.

In v. 7a the travelers are said to have gone out on behalf of “the Name” (i.e., Jesus Christ); here in v. 8 they are further called “fellow workers for the truth [τῇ ἀληθείᾳ].” This confirms that the elder uses the word “truth” to refer to the gospel of Jesus Christ, who is himself the Truth sent by God the Father (John 14:6) (see “In Depth: ‘Truth’ in John’s Letters” at 1 John 1:6). The elder’s choice of “truth” to refer to the gospel was probably motivated by the situation in which he was writing, when many so-called Christians had gone out with false teaching contrary to the truth (1 John 2:19). Consequently, when the elder claimed to love Gaius “in the truth” (v. 1), he was referring to that bond of Christian love shared by those who are joined to Christ and consequently to each other.

This love is not an emotion—though emotional bonding may be involved—but is a commitment to treat others, as Jesus himself taught, in a manner that one would be wish to be treated (Matt 7:12; Luke 6:31). When the elder affirms Gaius’s faithfulness to “walking in the truth” (v. 3), he is recognizing that Gaius embodies both the love and truth of the Lord Jesus Christ. It gives the elder greatest joy to see his spiritual children “walking in the truth,” that is, living out the gospel with love and truth (v. 4).

The verb “we might be” (γινώμεθα) does not have the sense of becoming fellow workers for the truth; rather, it means to show oneself to be a fellow worker in the gospel.26 The original setting of the letter bears this out, for the elder has sent Demetrius (and his entourage) to Gaius with this note. The implication is that should Gaius refuse to provide the hospitality requested, his intent of continuing as a fellow worker for the gospel of Jesus Christ would, in the elder’s judgment, be called into question. This implicit test is put into stark relief by vv. 9–10, where Diotrephes is reported to have recently done just that—refused hospitality to traveling Christians sent by the elder. One can almost feel Gaius’s tension rising as he reads the note.

The elder stipulates only one qualification for traveling Christian workers to receive support—they must be “workers for the truth,” and those who aid and abet their work by providing provisions for their travel also share in that work. Not only does support make the work possible, but the fact that someone supports those who preach and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ also validates the gospel message in the eyes of unbelievers, making them more open to receive it.

Material support for itinerant preachers and teachers was a necessity in the early church, but it also presented a dilemma, as we glimpse in 2 John. Second John 9–11 warns that to support those who are not preaching and teaching the truth is to “share in their evil works.” Many who considered themselves Christian went out preaching and teaching a message that opposed the truth of Christ (the “antichrists” in 1 John 2:18–21). Such false teaching is a lie that did not come from the truth (2:21). The letters of John were written at a confusing time when Christians were expected to host and support traveling Christians, even those they did not personally know, but they were also expected to refuse hospitality to those who preached a false message (2 John 10–11). The consequences were dire, for extending hospitality made one a participant in the work, whether for good or evil. Therefore, the authority and standing of anyone who wrote a letter of introduction took on great significance as a guide for when to open one’s home and when not to do so. This confusing situation is the background against which to understand what the elder will say about Diotrephes in 3 John 9–10.

Will Gaius receive these strangers because he believes the elder’s teaching about Jesus Christ that Demetrius and company are spreading is the truth? Or has the truth about Christ become so confused by conflicting voices that Gaius will pull back from hospitality out of a fear of supporting the wrong message? If honor and shame were major motivators in the relationships between the elder, Gaius, Diotrephes, and Demetrius, then the stakes are higher than most modern Western readers would discern.27 Gaius has a big decision to make.

Theology in Application

Christian Hospitality

The major exhortation of this passage that we must hear today is about Christian hospitality. As Amy Oden points out,

the word “hospitality” has lost its moral punch over the recent centuries. Reduced to connoting refreshments at meetings or magazine covers of gracious living, the moral landscape in which it resides has all but faded into the background. Yet it is this moral and spiritual landscape that the early Christian voices can help us recover.28

The elder of 3 John is one of the original apostolic voices to speak on this subject. He writes in v. 8 that “we ought” to show hospitality to people traveling for the sake of the gospel so that we may work together with them for the truth. The inclusive “we” refers to all who consider themselves to be within the sphere of apostolic influence. Not all are called or gifted for evangelism, preaching, or teaching, but all can provide assistance to some extent as allowed by their means and situation.

The need for material sustenance to be provided on a person-to-person basis is not as pressing today in North American society as it was in the first-century Greco-Roman world when 3 John was written. Hotels and restaurants are plentiful now, and they do not turn away anyone because of one’s religious convictions. But in many parts of the world where Christians are few or food and shelter are not readily available, the situation corresponds more directly to that in which the elder wrote 3 John. Moreover, the Christian church in modern North America has developed many various organizations to sponsor evangelism and discipleship, and financial support for their workers is collected and disbursed from a central point. Christians are still under a moral obligation to materially support those who spend their daily lives in Christian service.

Moreover, even person-to-person hospitality continues to have a place. From time to time a local church today may ask members of its congregation to open their home to a visiting preacher or missionary. This is another modern expression of hospitality offered in faithfulness to Christ that would no doubt please the elder of 3 John.

Hospitality Is Different from Entertaining

Third John also invites us to reconsider what we mean by hospitality. Hospitality, in whatever form it takes today, should not be offered only to our friends in the Lord, but even to strangers whose faith in Christ and work for the gospel our Christian leaders have validated. The Christian church is not to be a social club of cliques. The church is composed of all who have come to faith in Jesus Christ, regardless of their race, ethnicity, social position, or economic standing. Wherever and whenever those engaged in the work of the gospel have need of life-sustaining provisions in order to continue their work, they should be able to count on the generosity of their fellow Christians, who will send them on their way “in a manner worthy of God.” Generously supporting those sent out in the name of Christ is not primarily a tax deduction; it is a spiritual work that enables one to participate in the work of the gospel. Those who spend their lives representing Christ should be supported not luxuriously but well, as a testimony to God’s goodness and as an affirmation of the truth of the gospel. To put our money where our mouth is shows the world our commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

But as Wilson observes, “Our prosperity may also undermine the practice of hospitality by enabling us to meet the needs of others without actually having to encounter them.”29 Encountering the other is a practice that is sorely absent from today’s modern life. Were the elder of 3 John alive today, he would no doubt lament the loss of community that the amenities of modern society and our prosperity have brought about. Why is it that in many churches someone could worship for years and not be invited into the home of another? And those who open their homes to someone in need of a home, with all of the risk and inconvenience that may entail, are truly exceptional in this day and age. Can you imagine your doorbell ringing late one evening and there stands a stranger with a note in his or her hand allegedly from a mutual acquaintance asking you to take the person in for a stay? Such a scenario helps us to appreciate the risk that Gaius and other Christians faced in the first century.

What we practice as hospitality today has been so redefined that it is no longer viewed as central to our lives as Christians. Although the practice of hospitality is no longer central in the life of the church, the elder of 3 John seems to be saying that it is close to the heart of the gospel. As Wilson argues, the neglect of hospitality among Christians is a reflection of a cultural resistance to hospitality in our society, a place where Christians have assimilated unbiblical values and need to hear the call of the gospel once more. “When we understand hospitality as a practice of the gospel, it is one of the primary means by which we learn and teach love.”30 Through 3 John the elder speaks as powerfully today as he did in the first century on the question of Christian hospitality as it relates to truth and love.

Alienation in Modern Living

Most of us have probably experienced living in a neighborhood, sometimes for years, and never meeting one’s neighbors, much less knowing them in any significant way. We pull into our driveways, open the garage door with a remote opener, park our car inside, and never even have to so much as wave to a neighbor. Email and voicemail have contributed to the convenience of avoiding others. In some ways modern life has become psychologically reclusive. Twenty-some years ago I had a pleasant, weekly chat with the owner of a gas station who pumped gas into my car week after week. It barely counted as a relationship, but it did add a routine person-to-person encounter to my day. Now self-service pumps have replaced such human contact.

Modern life has conspired to make us all strangers, allowing us to choose to encounter only those with whom we feel comfortable, those who are similar enough to ourselves. Such alienation breeds a suspicion of strangers, which is a tendency rooted in our fallen human nature that is reflected throughout human history.31 Rather than feeling naturally open toward strangers, most today are uncomfortable with the risks that a stranger presents, even to the extent that it deters someone from approaching the stranger at church with a friendly handshake. We often rationalize our discomfort by an appeal to our busy schedule or our perception that we would be intruding on another’s privacy.

Wilson suggests that “modernity’s stress on the dominance of individualism and the quest for autonomy has turned us all into strangers.” He continues, quoting Henri Nouwen:

Our society seems to be increasingly full of fearful, defensive, aggressive people anxiously clinging to their property and inclined to look at their surrounding world with suspicion, always expecting an enemy to suddenly appear, intrude and do harm.32

Wilson goes on to comment on Nouwen’s observation about individualism and autonomy: “If my ‘self’ is all that I have and all that really counts, then everything else is an enemy. As a result modernity is marked by attempts to control others and protect ourselves.”33 Interestingly, it was Diotrephes’s need to control others and protect his power in the church that was his fatal flaw. Whether or not modernity can be blamed for our culture’s resistance to the practice of hospitality, the attitude of autonomy and the need to be in control that destroyed Diotrephes’s Christian community are at work just as potently in churches today.

Hospitality Builds Christian Community

If such is the society in which we live, the elder of 3 John calls us to be builders of Christian community through hospitality. Hospitality begins with an attitude of openness and generosity that allows us to appropriately share ourselves and our resources with whomever God brings into our day. Rather than being the person who habitually isolates himself or herself inside their home, would it not be a better witness for the gospel to be the person who welcomes the new family to the neighborhood with a friendly introduction and a basket of muffins? We cannot love others as Jesus commanded without being open to them.

An openness to others that frees us to be hospitable does involve a degree of vulnerability and risk. Christine Pohl argues that “it is, in part, the hosts’ own sense of vulnerability that allows them to offer recognition and respect to other vulnerable persons.”34 Moreover, Pohl observes that sometimes what is offered as hospitality is really a form of condescension:

Friendship, solidarity, and commensality occur among equals, and this requires an appreciation for what the guest might bring to the relationship. Persons who have never experienced need or marginality find it easier to be hosts than guests, and the deepest condescension may be expressed in their unwillingness to be a guest, an unwillingness to allow the relationship to be mutual.35

Such “hospitality” cannot be a sure foundation for Christian community. Thus, while the amenities of our modern society may eliminate the need for the specific form of hospitality that the elder requested of Gaius, we nevertheless have ample opportunity to welcome the stranger.