Chapter 23 3 John 12

Literary Context

After praising Gaius for his previous faithfulness and hospitality, and after describing the evil Diotrephes has done by refusing hospitality to those sent by the elder, the elder introduces Demetrius, the one who most likely brought the letter to Gaius. This letter, therefore, is a letter of introduction.

I. The Letter’s Address and Greeting (vv. 1–4)
II. The Reason for Writing (vv. 5–8)
III. The Problem with Diotrephes (vv. 9–11)
IV. Introducing Demetrius (v. 12)
1. A. Demetrius Is Affirmed by All Who Know Him (v. 12a-b)
2. B. Demetrius Is Affirmed by the Truth Itself (v. 12c)
3. C. The Elder Personally Recommends Demetrius (v. 12d)
4. D. The Elder Reasserts the Reliability of His Knowledge of the Truth (v. 12e-f)
V. Closing (vv. 13–15)

Main Idea

Gaius apparently does not know Demetrius personally, and so the elder gives a glowing recommendation of the man who most likely brought this letter to him. Although Demetrius needs hospitality, the letter is not about Demetrius. The main point is about Gaius and the decision put before him.

Translation

Structure

Demetrius has been confirmed as an honorable Christian in good standing with the elder’s church. Two prepositional phrases with “by” (ὑπό) give the means by which the confirmation has happened. The elder as writer of the letter also adds his own personal testimony, which was required in a letter of recommendation. The verse refers to three character witnesses: “everyone,” “the truth itself,” and “we also.”

Exegetical Outline

IV. Introducing Demetrius (v. 12)
1. A. Demetrius is affirmed by all who know him (v. 12a-b)
2. B. Demetrius is affirmed by the truth itself (v. 12c)
3. C. The elder personally recommends Demetrius (v. 12d)
4. D. The elder reasserts the reliability of his knowledge of the truth (v. 12e-f)

Explanation of the Text

12a-c Regarding Demetrius, he has been affirmed by all and by the truth itself (Δημητρίῳ μεμαρτύρηται ὑπὸ πάντων καὶ ὑπὸ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀληθείας). The name “Demetrius” is in the dative case, likely a dative of respect or reference, hence “regarding Demetrius.” This does not follow the convention in extant letters of introduction, where the name of the person being introduced is given in the nominative case followed by an articular participle further identifying the person (usually a present or perfect form of ἀποδίδωμι, ἀναδίδωμι, κομίζω, παρακομίζω, φέρω, προσφέρω, or καταφέρω). The formula is completed by a form of the verb “I am” (εἰμί) with a predicate that identifies the relationship of the person being introduced by the writer.1 However, there is considerable variation among the extant letters. This verse is clearly meant to introduce and recommend Demetrius to Gaius. It makes sense only if Demetrius is present to Gaius, probably as the bearer of the letter from the elder.

It is interesting that the name “Demetrius” is also found together with the name “Gaius” in Acts 19:23–41. There, a silversmith named Demetrius living in Ephesus caused uproar over the preaching of Paul, Gaius, and Aristarchus. Because the name was common, these two are probably not the same man, though the ancient interpreter Andreas wrote: “In my opinion this Demetrius is the same man who made silver idols of Artemis and who once led a riot against the apostle Paul.”2 Ephesus was a large city of about 200,000 people, and there were probably many men named Demetrius and Gaius. But if Demetrius is the same person as in Acts 19, one could certainly understand why Gaius would need a letter confirming Demetrius’s Christian faith! And it would be evidence of contact between the Pauline mission in Ephesus and the later ministry of John.3 Even so, it is a curiosity that both a Demetrius and a Gaius are referred to in both Acts 19 and in 3 John, and that both texts are associated with the city of Ephesus.

The verb “has been affirmed” (μεμαρτύρηται) means to be thought of good reputation and spoken well of, in this case, “by all” (ὑπὸ πάντων).4 Together with “by the truth itself,” it forms a phrase used in law and later adopted by Christians. Citing the early Greek orator Aeschines (mid-fourth century BC, Against Timarchus 90), Lieu explains that this is “the language of the law court, where the case for or against someone is—so it is argued—beyond questioning.”5 The phrase was taken up in early Christian literature to refer to someone who was beyond reproach and deserving to be imitated or given church office. The perfect passive form here indicates that Demetrius has attained that good reputation in the past, which stands unquestioned in the present. Demetrius has a reputation for fidelity to Christ in his way of life.

Clearly, the qualifier “who know him” is presumed after “all”; that is, everyone in the Johannine community (of Ephesus?) thinks highly of Demetrius. Lieu claims the verb “has been affirmed” doesn’t necessarily mean doctrinal fidelity, “for such testimonies have their parallels in purely secular or civic contexts of those worthy of office or of honour.”6 While Lieu may be right that the formula per se was widely used and does not mean doctrinal fidelity, its referent in any given occurrence must be determined from its context, and given the context of this recommendation, it can hardly mean anything other than Demetrius’s faithfulness to the truth as expressed in the conduct of his life and the soundness of his belief.7

The second form of approval, by “the truth itself,” moves the affirmation away from the opinions of people and focuses on the requirements of the gospel itself. “The truth” is probably not a direct reference to Jesus or to the Holy Spirit here, as we find no reference to how the ascended Jesus or the Spirit made such an approval known (cf. Acts 13:1–3). More likely Demetrius so clearly and publicly lived his life according to God’s word of truth that when measured by that standard, his faith was confirmed in the quality of his character and devotion to Christ. Demetrius’s love for others in response to the gospel of Jesus Christ speaks well of him.

12d-f And we also testify, and you know that our testimony is true (καὶ ἡμεῖς δὲ μαρτυροῦμεν, καὶ οἶδας ὅτι ἡ μαρτυρία ἡμῶν ἀληθής ἐστιν). The elder himself is the third confirming character witness for Demetrius. All letters of recommendation needed to bear the personal recommendation of the writer, who was usually a relative or close friend of the person being introduced.8 It is interesting that the social standing or personal credentials of the person being introduced are not found in extant letters of recommendation, but only the person’s relationship to the writer, so it was on the basis of trust in the sender’s credibility that the guest was to be received. But here Demetrius’s credentials are presented and related first to the Christian community and to the gospel before the elder gives a personal endorsement. It is first and foremost a fellowship with other Christians based on the truth of Jesus Christ that recommends Demetrius to Gaius.

The elder affirms his personal knowledge by adding “we also testify” (ἡμεῖς δὲ μαρτυροῦμεν). The sense of the first person plural pronoun used here is, of course, related to this characteristic mark of the Johannine corpus (see discussion of authorship in Introduction to 1, 2, and 3 John and comments on 1 John 1:1–4). If “we” (ἡμεῖς) is genuinely plural, it likely refers to those who bear the apostolic teaching of what was seen, heard, and touched during Jesus’ earthly life. More likely it refers to the elder alone, who is asserting his authority to judge Demetrius’s conformity to the truth.

Since a threefold affirmation of the person being introduced and recommended is not conventional in the letter of recommendation, it may reflect the Jewish practice referred to in Deut 19:15, “A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses” (cf. 1 John 5:8).

The statement “you know that our testimony is true” alludes once again to the confusing situation concerning the truth when this letter was written. It is an oblique exhortation to Gaius to remain committed to the truth as the elder teaches it, since the elder by virtue of his apostolic role has the authority to adjudicate what is truth and what is not, and therefore to judge who is aligned with the truth and who is not (cf. 1 John 2:18–27). The use of the first person plural “our” (ἡμῶν) is likely intended to remind Gaius that, by virtue of the elder’s role with respect to the apostles, his testimony is the apostolic testimony; therefore, the elder affirms that Gaius already knows that such testimony is true.

Note that the elder uses the first person singular eleven times in 3 John in instances that refer to him alone, but when speaking of his testimony to the truth, the plural likely ties the elder to the tradition borne by the apostles of Christ. The shift to the second person singular verb “you know” (οἶδας) functions as a mild exhortation that the elder presumes is true—that Gaius has not departed from that truth as Diotrephes has done.

Theology in Application

There is probably no better balm for one’s soul than to hear that others think highly of you. Demetrius was blessed in having won the approval of all who knew him in the Johannine Christian community. It was a high compliment that the elder could send him out in confusing times with the full confidence that Demetrius would represent the gospel of Jesus Christ well. If you were traveling to a Christian community in a foreign place with a letter of introduction in hand, what would you want it to say about you? Do you live out the gospel so consistently that everyone who knows you could affirm your commitment to Christ and love for others? Most people can even in their own strength do a sprint for Christ, but the life to which we are called is a marathon, not a sprint—that “long obedience in the same direction.”9

Demetrius was courageous to go out as an emissary from the elder into an area where his welcome was in doubt. To be refused hospitality—as Diotrephes had previously done—left a traveler in an uncomfortable, and possibly downright dangerous, situation. Yet not knowing for sure where he would sleep or where his next meal was coming from, Demetrius was willing to travel for the cause of Christ in uncertain times. He stood with the elder and those who stood with him in spite of the rejection and criticism of Diotrephes. We know virtually nothing else about Demetrius, but perhaps there is nothing more that we need to know.

To what extent are we willing to take risks for the work of the gospel? Are we willing to risk our reputations by siding with the apostolic truth found in the passages such as 3 John? Are we willing to trust and content ourselves with the generosity of other Christians? Or does our pride prevent our ability to receive from others? And what would we do if late some evening our doorbell rang and there stood a stranger bearing a letter from a distant Christian friend asking us to receive the stranger as a guest?

The letter of 3 John is brief and in some ways enigmatic, but it shows us an authentic situation in the early church and the real people involved in it. While we may not know the names and numbers of the countless, anonymous believers around the world and throughout the centuries who were faithful bearers of the gospel in confusing and risky times, we are in their debt. And we each have the opportunity today to be one of them.