Original Meaning
THE THEOLOGICAL AND historical controversy outlined for 2 John (see the introductory comments in the commentary on 2 John) is likewise applicable to this short letter (the smallest in the New Testament).1 The entire Johannine community likely knew about the temptations to false doctrine, and this small congregation would have been no exception. Now, however, the challenge to John’s leadership is becoming acute.
The literary and historical connection between 2 John and 3 John is almost impossible to establish. Clearly they stem from the same author, who in each case refers to himself as “the elder,” uses similar terms (e.g., “truth,” “love,” “welcome”), and employs identical closing sentences (see 2 John 12; 3 John 13). There is no reason to doubt that this author could be John the apostle (likewise the author of 1 John).
The letter’s recipients are more difficult to determine. Was this letter sent to the same church as 2 John? Some think that the earlier correspondence mentioned in 3 John 9 (“I wrote to the church”) must be the letter 2 John. If this is true, Diotrephes read John’s denunciation of the false teachers in the earlier correspondence, did not like it, and is now retaliating. But this is speculative and remains unproved. It is probably best to see this earlier letter, likely sent to Diotrephes, as lost or even destroyed. This much we know: The church of 3 John belonged to the wider Johannine community, read the publicly circulated 1 John, and lived at some distance from John himself.
Because 3 John is highly personal, it mentions several names that are now only names to us and presupposes a setting now lost to us. In fact, some have viewed it as the most nontheological letter in the New Testament. For instance, it is the only New Testament book that does not mention “Jesus” or “Christ” (but see v. 7). Rather than outlining a number of theological doctrines, 3 John is a brief note dashed off to one heroic Christian who is standing firm while a community near him is struggling under the pressure of a single antagonist. Rather than outline its themes (as we did in 2 John), if we sketch the setting of the letter, its various parts fall into place.
Rebuilding the Scene
IMAGINE A HOUSE church located some distance from John’s primary ministry. It is in the grips of the theological struggle described in 1 John and confronted in 2 John. John himself once wrote to the church, but an influential man named Diotrephes rejected his letter (3 John 9)!2 John then sent emissaries to the church, but Diotrephes stepped forward and refused to acknowledge the traveling ministers (v. 10). He even repudiated John publicly (v. 9), spreading rumors about his character (v. 10). In fact, Diotrephes forcefully stopped anyone who showed sympathy to the visitors or tried to speak with them. “Anyone who sides with these men from John,” Diotrephes threatened, “gets thrown out with them” (cf. v. 10).
The missionaries found a courageous host, however, in a man named Gaius. We cannot tell if Gaius belonged to Diotrephes’s house church or if he lived some distance from it. Perhaps he was a leader of another house church located nearby. Clearly Gaius knows Diotrephes, but he does not feel threatened by that man’s power. It was Gaius’s habit to offer hospitality to traveling Christians and help finance their journeys (vv. 5–6). Thus he not only gave these emissaries from John rest and refreshment, but sent them “on their way” (v. 6)—that is, gave them money—and they returned to John with their report about the rebellion of Diotrephes’s church and about Gaius’s faithfulness (v. 3).
What should John do in response? He wants to visit the church personally but cannot at the present (v. 14). Yet he knows that he must shore up the true believers and encourage their faithfulness—people like Gaius, who still walk in the truth, whom he calls “friends” (v. 5), and whom he loves dearly (v. 1). He must also keep a foothold in the congregation. So John plans a strategy. In verses 5–8 he commends Gaius for his hospitality and encourages him to continue. The practical side of this is clear: When John himself comes for a visit, he will need allies who stand for Christ and against Diotrephes. Gaius will be one of those allies.
It is significant that John does not ask Gaius to intervene in the controversy by confronting Diotrephes himself. Christians are called to different roles, and Gaius has done enough if he stands firm for Jesus Christ and provides John and his couriers an entrée into the community.
John therefore writes this letter in anticipation of his upcoming visit. Verse 12 introduces the courier of the letter, a Christian named Demetrius. No doubt, John assumes, the hospitality and financial support shown to other Christian travelers will be extended to Demetrius, who is well known by the Johannine community and a personal friend of John himself. Moreover, John says, even “the truth” speaks well of him! Does this reference to “the truth” mean Jesus, the truth (cf. John 14:6)? Or does it mean that Demetrius’s discipleship is in such harmony with the truth that his reputation is well known? We cannot know for sure.
This strong affirmation of Demetrius surely anticipates what Diotrephes will say about him. Demetrius bears the authority of John himself, and since Diotrephes rejects John, he will likewise reject Demetrius. This echoes Jesus’ warning in John 15:18–19 about rejection and hatred, particularly by those who have “gone over” to the world (cf. 17:16):
If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.
John’s testimony should strengthen Gaius’s confidence in Demetrius, but the problem will only be resolved when John confronts Diotrephes personally.
Reconstructing John’s Struggle with Diotrephes
WHAT WAS THE nature of the problem with Diotrephes? Why was he so antagonistic to John? The tense of the Greek verb in verse 9 translated “will have nothing to do” is present. This construction means that John is not referring to a single event but to an enduring attitude. The verb itself can mean two things, both of which are at work here. (1) Formally, it means “to receive or welcome” someone. Diotrephes was simply refusing to be hospitable to the missionaries. (2) But the verb also has a figurative meaning, carrying the idea “to accept or recognize” someone. Diotrephes was rejecting not merely his obligation to be hospitable, but John himself as elder. This rejection of the missionaries was his way of refusing to acknowledge the authority of John, and this attitude was going to continue.
Scholars have offered much speculation regarding the nature of the tension in 3 John, and this letter has been made to serve theories of what was happening in the late apostolic period when leadership was shifting to a second generation. If we distill these theories, two general orientations emerge.
(1) Some believe that Diotrephes represents an argument centered on church government, authority, and leadership (known as polity). In the period after the apostles, elder-bishops emerged, who enjoyed independent authority over their local congregations.3 Perhaps Diotrephes was one such leader who coveted control. He may have hosted the house church in his home for some time and now desired more influence.4 He did not like the extended authority of John and thought that an independent body should go its own way, under his direction.
A variation of this theme suggests that Diotrephes was not trying to rearrange structures of church government, but represents a charismatic leader who enjoyed the freedom promised in the Spirit to be spontaneous and creative. Perhaps he had held an office and was now enjoying a following. Perhaps he had usurped his power. In any case, it was the power of his personality that had won the day and intoxicated this man with dreams of authority. From his side, John represents a controlling ecclesiastical office that sought to limit Diotrephes’s dreams.
(2) The problem of Diotrephes had to do with doctrine, not polity. He may have aligned himself with the secessionists mentioned in 1 and 2 John. Or perhaps he was a rival missionary working in the church or a member converted away from Johannine orthodoxy. In any case, he was an intellectual leader who had embraced a movement and a teaching contrary to John’s defense of Jesus. On this accounting, he represents the opponents described in 2 John.
These two views are difficult to defend since 3 John gives us so little information about the struggles in this early period. To suggest that here we have a mutiny against apostolic government presses the evidence too far, and to suggest a formal affiliation between Diotrephes and the secessionists is strained when we find virtually no theological argument in the letter concerning right faith in Jesus or obedience. Diotrephes is not called the “antichrist,” a “deceiver,” or a “false prophet,” nor is he labeled with the criticisms John frequently uses (see 1 John 2:18; 3:10; 4:1; 2 John 7). On the other hand, the literary similarities between 2 and 3 John suggest that these letters are addressing similar contexts. Furthermore, note that 3 John continues to emphasize “the truth,” as if orthodox belief is the subject of the struggle. First John also implies that the Christological controversy is widespread. To be sure, the rejected missionaries stood for “the Name” (v. 7), and one wonders if this is the basis of their rejection.
It is best to exclude grandiose schemes for this letter. Diotrephes was simply a powerful lay leader who had gained control and rejected John’s authority. Possibly one way to undercut John’s influence was to exploit the theological controversy that was circulating in the Johannine community. But there does not seem to be sufficient evidence to say that John viewed Diotrephes as a leading opponent in the secession.
Bridging Contexts
WHEN WE LIFT this letter into the twentieth century, the same concerns that controlled 2 John must dictate our interpretation here. To some degree the context of our setting must parallel that of John in the first century. Third John is private correspondence, and we must be cautious as we seek to apply all of its concerns to our church when this was not John’s intention.
An excellent example of a “bridging” of this letter that has gone wrong comes to us from Oral Roberts, the charismatic preacher and founder of Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Third John played a pivotal role in his spiritual life. In the midst of personal suffering and agony, Roberts felt that God had spoken to him personally and powerfully through the words of 3 John 2. In this verse, John seemed to be saying that God desired not simply spiritual prosperity—but prosperity in every respect. The following is how this verse is translated in the King James Version, the translation Roberts used: “Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.” Clearly, Roberts thought, God desires spiritual abundance for us; but likewise this verse affirmed that abundance was to be ours in all things, particularly in matters of health and material prosperity. David Harrell, Roberts’ biographer, chronicles the event carefully:
Oral had rushed out of his house one morning to catch the bus to class when he realized he had not read his Bible, as was his custom. He returned, hastily grabbed his Bible, opened it “at random,” and read 3 John 2. He had read his New Testament, he reported, at least a hundred times, but this verse seemed brand new. He called [his wife] Evelyn and read it to her. “This is not in the Bible,” she challenged. “It is,” Oral replied. “I just read it.” “Evelyn,” he said, “we have been wrong. I haven’t been preaching that God is good. And Evelyn, if this verse is right, God is a good God.” The idea seemed revolutionary, liberating. They had been nurtured in a belief system that insisted “you had to be poor to be a Christian.” Perhaps it was not so. They talked excitedly about the verse’s implications. Did it mean they could have a new car, a new house, a brand-new ministry? In later years, Evelyn looked back on that morning as the point of embarkation: “I really believe that that very morning was the beginning of this worldwide ministry that [Oral] has had, because it opened up his thinking.”5
This “discovery” led Roberts to pursue a world-famous healing ministry, and today 3 John 2 has become a favorite verse among Pentecostal and charismatic believers. Those committed to the so-called “prosperity gospel” know it well and use it frequently.
But sadly, this was not John’s intention. Good health and success were themes that accompanied personal letters throughout the Greek world (cf. Rom. 1:10). The words found in 3 John 2 were not written as biblical promises, but were mere literary formulas one might use to greet a reader. At the Pentecostal Church of God School of Theology in Cleveland, Tennessee, New Testament scholar Chris Thomas uses this verse as a case study in all of his introductory interpretation classes. According to him, 3 John is the ideal example of an ancient letter, and interpreting it rightly avoids the misuse of verses such as verse 2. A quick examination of the first few verses in Paul’s letters shows how that apostle used customary formulas to open his correspondence. Today we greet one another with a formula saying like, “How are you?” but we rarely have in mind receiving an inventory of someone’s health. For this reason, “Fine” is the acceptable answer, regardless of how we may feel! For someone to construe John’s ancient greeting as a theological affirmation misses his entire point; his serious concerns about the church and its well-being are to follow in subsequent verses.
The elder John is trying to work with a congregation—a house church—that is being led by a man who has rejected his pastoral authority. Because of distance or some other problem we do not know, John is unable visit the church yet and thus is doing his best by sending letters and representatives. This problem of leadership at a distance must have been common among the early apostolic leaders. Paul’s churches, for example, were built around the Mediterranean world, and when controversies arose, distance and the inconvenience of travel in that day made correspondence essential. He used letters and emissaries for his churches in Galatia, Colosse, and Thessalonica in the same way. Titus, Timothy, and Silas were all men who no doubt served the apostle in this capacity. Demetrius is one such emissary for John in the current setting.
Third John suggests that the Johannine community was made up of scattered congregations (tradition suggests that they were all in western Asia Minor, near Ephesus). As they grew, they brought in converts who had no knowledge of the history of the church or the importance of apostolic tradition. Imagine young Christians believing in Jesus and not knowing much about his followers or their teachings! The names given in 3 John (Gaius, Diotrephes, and Demetrius) are all Greek; this fact suggests a cultural context far removed from Judea and Galilee. Thus when a traditional source of authority steps forward—an apostolic elder—some chafed at the thought of submission. “Our religion is working for us! It feels right! Why should we conform to a foreigner, someone who represents traditions and people we don’t even know?”
Therefore, 3 John raises some interesting questions about conflict resolution and pastoral leadership in the church that have an immediate value for us today. John knows he has a problem here. This letter is evidence of his strategy to solve it. Consequently, I will use 3 John successfully when I can adapt his strategy for my own.
Contemporary Significance
CONFLICT IS NO stranger to the church. Strong persons like Diotrephes often become leaders and teachers. In fact, they are generally invited and encouraged in those roles and quickly enjoy a wide following. But what happens when the views of people like this conflict with pastoral leadership? Perhaps it is not disagreement about views at all but a conflict of personalities, some form of competition, or even a loss of respect for each other. In some cases (rare ones, we hope), such lay leaders pose an overwhelming threat to pastoral authority. I have known cases where a “Diotrephes” has successfully worked to remove a pastor or where such a person has actually split the church in two, sometimes making an irreparable fracture within the congregation and sometimes leading parishioners out to form a second congregation.
(1) John’s first strategy. I am intrigued by the way John did not let go of this situation. He persisted, first by sending a letter (that was tossed out) and then by sending emissaries (who were rejected). But he did not allow this to discourage him. Third John is his second letter, sent with another emissary, Demetrius. I sense that John is determined not to let this church—or Diotrephes—go.
John’s first strategy for resolving this conflict, therefore, is not to retreat but to remain in contact. This should be our strategy too. All too often our impulse when we must confront people of strong will and ambition is to retreat. The prospect of losing or of being shamed is so apparent that it seems better to “wait and see” what will happen, to stay on the sidelines, or to keep away from the perpetrators. Others will muster support against someone like Diotrephes and be passive-aggressive, sabotaging him at every turn and discrediting his standing in the church. Those to take this approach use the very tools criticized in 3 John 10: “I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us.”
Of course, the chief reason for remaining connected to the “Diotrepheses” of our world is to save the church! Many times they are confusing zeal for the body of Christ with personal ambition, and as their power grows, the church itself is harmed. But there is another reason for not giving up. Diotrephes needs to be saved from himself. Diotrephes needs John. For John to show weakness by retreating is to posture himself in a way that makes it impossible for Diotrephes to respect him. Diotrephes needs John to be strong and persistent because that is the only strategy that can penetrate his heart. This courageous role is one way in which John can love Diotrephes.
This first strategy seems clear enough, but in today’s church it also may seem idealistic. When pastoral leadership is challenged by a confrontive, aggressive Diotrephes, there is a great deal of risk involved. In some cases a pastor’s job is at stake. What then? If the balance of power is possessed by his opponents, a pastor can be easily threatened. And Diotrephes knows it. Therefore, there must be leverage and support from without, from outside the congregation. There must also be proactive, encouraging support from within the church’s lay leadership. Either way, pastors cannot be left alone to slay the Diotrepheses of the world.
(2) John’s second strategy. But there is more. John has found an ally in Gaius. This man is not called to manipulate the situation or to confront Diotrephes. Gaius knows Diotrephes well and could, of course, play this role. But John chooses not to work indirectly. Gaius is simply an objective foothold in the situation, someone who lives neither in John’s camp nor in that of Diotrephes. Gaius knows the situation but is not embroiled in the crisis and certainly is not infected with Diotrephes’s peculiar form of rebellion.
When Demetrius (the courier of 3 John) came to stay with Gaius, what did he learn? Did John use this as an opportunity to get an objective “read” on the crisis? And when John himself finally came to the area and Gaius and John could talk “face to face” (v. 14), what did he ask? It will not do to think that John exploited Gaius and his position in order to discredit Diotrephes. Even though the language of verses 9–10 may sound strong to us, it is mild compared with John’s tone for the heretics who were picking off his congregations (see 1 and 2 John). None of the polemical flourishes of John’s earlier letters appear here.
Gaius becomes a point of reference that gives John pastoral objectivity in this remote congregation. Gaius no doubt could correct the apostle’s notions of the severity of the crisis, much like Titus counseled Paul during his conflict with the Corinthian church (2 Cor. 7:5–13). Wounded pastors—John included—have trouble being objective. John needs Gaius. Without him, John can have no confidence that his approach in the situation is correct. Modern crises are no different than those of the first-century world. Pastoral objectivity that is anchored in the counsel of wise elders is always superior.
(3) John’s third strategy. The final striking dimension of this letter is John’s willingness to talk personally with Diotrephes. When he cannot be there, he sends a letter. But when he has opportunity, he will come personally. This pattern is striking because the situation is clearly dangerous. Paul took this same risk when he went to Corinth on his “painful visit” (2 Cor. 2:1). And as the evidence of 2 Corinthians suggests, he was asked to leave the church against his will.6 Those in charge decided that Paul was not welcome. Fortunately, through the efforts of mediators such as Titus, the church repented and Paul returned. Nevertheless, such confrontations incur high risk.
The temptation to avoid Diotrephes and fall silent must have occurred to John. It is one thing to write a letter or even send a messenger. But it is altogether another matter to go personally and confront your opponent. We can successfully rationalize conflict avoidance in countless ways. I know Christian leaders who as children grew up with so much conflict that confronting a potentially hostile situation is virtually impossible. I know others who have an inherent sense of powerlessness that has been born through the destructive work of tyrannical parents. Such powerlessness often masquerades as Christian piety and meekness, but it is neither of these.
John is confident that he can enter this situation successfully because he is prepared. He has continued to communicate with those in the church; he has counseled with his couriers; he will talk deeply with Gaius when he gets there; and he knows that God is with him and that God’s desire is for the truth to win and for his people to walk in its freedom and joy. God wants his church—the Johannine churches and our churches—to grow in love and truth. If all parties—John and Diotrephes alike, pastors and lay leaders alike—fail to stand for the truth and to act in sincere, courageous love, the vigor of the church will be compromised.
Of course, this raises countless modern questions. How should the church plan for confrontations? What processes should be in place to make sure that concerns are heard fairly and objectively? Many denominations today have judicial structures in place that help arbitrate such confrontations, but many independent churches do not. Will the pastor then have a solo, head-on confrontation? Will chaos erupt? Moreover, congregations must wrestle with another more troubling question. Second John 10–11 suggest that John is willing to take severe measures against people like Diotrephes. Should he not repent, I feel confident that John would have chosen to remove him from the church. Note how in 1 Corinthians 5 Paul suggested such a tactic regarding an immoral man in that congregation. Should today’s church have similar resolve and courage? Are we in theory ready to reject an unrepentant Diotrephes? And would we in practice be able to do it?