It is not unusual for businesses and enterprises to have “mission statements” to outline their objectives, goals, philosophy, and proposed impact their products or services are intended to have.
When you think about it, the “statement” is a great way to bring focus to an image about an outcome, or the goal of an organization. It is also a way for there to be creative control over how we would like people to envision us, our message, and our ethics and values as we seek our mission. In short, our mission statement holds us accountable for what we seek to accomplish and it includes the culture we seek to generate in the process of reaching this mission.
What’s Your Mission?
Do you have a mission statement? Are you involved in something where you have “bought-in” to its image, message, and mentality? If you are employed then to a degree you share something of the company’s “mission” whether it be in baby care, athletic activewear, intellectual property law, or even that entrepreneurial zest.
Being on Mission at Work
When I worked at NikeTown, San Francisco in the Union Square of San Francisco, CA, as a sales floor associate, I was all in. Everything was Nike. Socks, shoes, T-shirts, jackets, watches, even my gifts were Nike. I was all in on the apparel, the knowledge of our products, and its work culture. What was my mission? To find out what our customer’s athletic needs were and match them with the proper activewear so they can achieve their goals. So when I had track and field athletes, we went over to running wear, and when I worked with the head coach of a major league soccer club we went over soccer wear. I was all in on our mission and committed to it. I loved my time there.
Then there were those jobs I had no investment in its mission. It was just a job, just a paycheck, and I did as little as possible. I came in late. I
It is not even about personal aspirations.
So the question posed here again is: Do you have a “mission statement”? Yes, this is a spiritual double entendre – I have another meaning in mind.
A Line of Thought on the Mission
First, let us begin with a few ideas. Everything around us that we see on Earth and in the universe is the result of a Creator. It is unfortunate that some do not acknowledge this truth but suppress it (Rom 1:18).
To this point, the apostle Paul writes:
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Romans 1:19–20 ESV)
The world is evidence within itself that there is a creator of limitless power and intelligence, and he is to be acknowledged by us – the product of his creation (Psa 8:3–8) – in the way we live.
The quote ends with the strong indictment that if we do not acknowledge His existence we are “without excuse” (Rom 1:20). The word has a litigious background, and essentially means that in the cosmic courtroom such are “without defense” (Gk. anapologetos).
No words, no smooth arguments, no loopholes, nothing will be grounds for a mistrial; there is simply no excusable rationale for rejecting the existence of a Creator as revealed in nature which bears the marks of intelligent design and infinite power.
Moreover, such a Creator by virtue of His very nature has the right to demand faithful service from His creative progeny – humanity (Gen 1:26–30, Rom 1:18, 21–23; 9:19–21). If we mortal parents may expect by virtue of our position to hold authority over our children, how can we expect the Father of all to hold any less authority?
Second, every expectation to obey God’s will (= Law/commandment) is a reflection of His holiness and the expectation that humanity will take upon themselves the freedom to make a choice to obey or to disobey.
This freedom of choice is reflected very clearly in the historical narrative of Adam and Eve as they are given everything in the Garden of Eden save the right to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The stated consequence should such an infraction occur, the Lord said, is “death.”
It is not told to us how long or short the first family lived in compliance with this expectation of behavior in the garden; however, it is revealed to us that unfortunately Eve gave in to temptation as did Adam. As the initial consequence, the first couple was expelled from the Garden and lost access to the Tree of Life (Gen. 3).
Sin it is said by John, the apostle, is the rejection of God’s law (1 John 3:4). In fact, it is an expression of a lack of love and a lack of fidelity to God (1 John 5:2). Hence, what we have been given in this freedom of choice is an ability to decide our relationship with God – will we show love and fidelity, or will we show a lack thereof?
Freedom of choice is a powerful instrument of human behavior. With it, we fall from grace and the stature of one made in the image of God (Rom 3:9–18, 23), and by it we return to God and submit our powers of decision into the hands of a forgiving and holy God (Rom 2:4; 3:26).
At every instance, then, we have a choice. Will we make those choices that inherently become less as we expend more earthly time on His service or our own selfish ambitions? Surely, our plans can only be enhanced by submitting to the Mind of God (Prov 16:25; Isa 55:8–9).
Third, while we may enjoy the blessing of freedom of choice it is a privilege that swings two ways. Much like the tongue, by our choices, we may praise God or reject him (Jas 3:45). As a consequence of our decisions, sin is a common problem to all accountable individuals (Ezek 18:20). And yet, in Jesus we are given the saving message of rebirth (John 3:4), of salvation (1 Thess 1:10), and a new creation (2 Cor 5:17).
If in our sinful choices, we have lost our identity as the image of God, then surely our choices which reflect our recreation in Christ amount to a new plan of action in our lives. Paul, the apostle, writes that when we are saved we are remade to walk in certain works He has assigned us to accomplish (Eph 2:10).
Back to Our Question
What’s your mission statement? While we have freedom of choice, when a person chooses to become a Christian that person has committed to live as God directs, as Christ reflects, so that our living connects His mission with our mission in this world.
The Lord’s mission was to reconcile the world back to Himself:
[I]n Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. (2 Corinthians 8:19–20 ESV)
Notice how Paul acknowledges that his mission is the same as God’s mission: to appeal to others through the message of the Gospel to announce how God is reconciling the world to himself.
Christians are those recreated in Christ, and our “mission” is to help other people see God’s abundant love found in the Gospel. Our mission matters because our mission is supposed to be His mission. So how does your “mission” add up?
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are four stories about Jesus that offer four broad perspectives from which they tell specific stories with a “powerful realism” about his ministry, teaching, healings, rejection, crucifixion, and resurrection.[1] This much is very clear. Questions emerge about the genre, historicity, chronology, stages of oral transmission, and history of literary dependence (e.g., “did Matthew and Luke rely on Mark?”), but at the heart of what the gospels are is Jesus and the stories told about him.
I have been reading and studying the four gospels for about a quarter-century, first, as a young Christian, then in my on and off again academic pursuits, and as a local preacher. During this time I’ve arrived at some important conclusions about them:
The genre of “gospel” is historical narratives comparable to the Greco-Roman bios.
The gospels are a blend of theology and history.
This blend of theology and history does not undermine their historical reliability.
The gospels provide a holistic view of Jesus, we cannot pick and chose what is the “authentic” Jesus.
But there was a time I was unaware of Rudolf Bultmann’s (1884–1976) demythologizing existential approach to redefining the meaning of the supernatural elements from the Gospels, and other approaches birthed by liberalism and modernism to reading them. It was a time when I was oblivious of the historical/grammatical-critical approach to studying them with the tools of form criticism, oral-tradition criticism, literary criticism, and so on. I’ve benefited deeply from the types of questions they raise and the kinds of answers they seek to provide.
This essay is not about this process, however. Instead, I am sharing what I can recall from my experience of reading the Gospels as “a knucklehead from the streets” searching for God. I want to share this personal journey while I can still remember how reading the gospel lead me to find God in Jesus Christ and how Jesus’ life and teachings made me want to follow him.
My Background
Here are my “credentials” for the spring of 1996 when I was seventeen: A high school dropout, a three-year freshman, most days starting with cutting school, drinking, smoking weed, and roaming the parks or streets (in that order). In the columns for attendance and absences on my report cards, my poor mom thought they made an error because the numbers looked swapped.
Then there was my street life in a gang. Street fights and violence, jumping over backyard fences running from the police (and dogs), plotting to hurt “heads” from other gangs, all-nighters, drug use, sex, and on and on it went. I am not proud of it, but I ran with my homies and we were “tighter than a glove,” I had my “street-cred,” I earned my stripes, and many can vouch for that.[2] They called me, “Gorilla.”
I grew up in Roman Catholicism. I was christened as a baby at St. Charles on South Van Ness in the Mission District of San Francisco, CA. Although my family is from the Mission, my Abuela brokered a deal so I could attend an Irish Catholic parochial K-8 school in Noe Valley. I wish I could tell you anything I learned in religion class to help me read scripture but I can’t. I can say, the rituals really stuck. I was an altar boy. I know the “Our Father,” the “doxology,” the two “Hail Marys,” parts of the Catholic Apostle’s Creed, and I can genuflect with the best of them. I did my confirmation. I prayed my penance prayers after confession.
I do not however recall ever being taught how to read Scripture, that was the priest’s job. So when I started reading the Bible years after leaving the Roman Catholic Church following 8th grade and diving right into drug use that summer with acid, I had no strategies to work with except my basic education and common sense. I was seventeen years old, getting sober, and walking away from vice and violence. I cried out to God in prayer on the corner of 24th and Mission Streets: “I don’t know how to do this, but I’m going to look for you…. Can you meet me halfway?”
Things did not immediately change for me outside of me stepping away from the streets until one night I went out with my boys. While I was scrambling to get my outfit right, I looked under my bed to find my shoes: Air Griffey Max 1. Behind my shoes, under my bed, was a small Gideon New Testament I had no idea was sitting there amidst the dust and trash. I took the discovery as God prodding me, in effect saying, “I just did my part, now you do your part and start reading it.” I grabbed it. Looked at it with a smirk. Looked upwards and said, “Okay, God, I’ll start reading it.”
I started reading the Gospels and after a few months of reading the stories about Jesus, in December 1996, just after Christmas, I gave my life to Jesus and submitted to baptism in an outdoor hot tub (to learn more read: “Leaving a Street Gang for Jesus“). Up to this point, I had not entered a church, I had not participated in any evangelistic study material outside of some creepy Jack T. Chick (1924–2016) “Gospel” Tracts. I simply read the Gospels and they were sufficient to guide me to obey God.
So here are some things I recall from this several-month journey as a street gang knucklehead,[3] with an eighth-grade education, working through a period of “getting clean.”
Reading the Gospels at Face Value
Let me be clear, I have always been a believer even when I left God and did my thing. If I ever was going to return to religion it was either going to be Christianity (starting point) or Islam (due to some of my closest Egyptian, Palestinian, and Persian friendships at the time). If God exists, then the miraculous is possible. When I read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, then, I believed the miracles contained in them were possible. I read them at face value.
Today, naturalism may be how many more approach a book like the Bible. For them, the door is closed to anything miraculous in the literal sense (i.e., the blind will never see, the cripple will never walk, demons are not exorcized, water is not turned to wine, the resurrection of a corpse does not happen). I did not approach the Gospels with this assumption. How could I, I called on God to find me!
Today, I recognize such an approach may be called a supernatural naivete (superstitious), but after studying worldview, the logical consequences of naturalism/materialism on ethics and morality, and dealing with the dismal outlook of living in an indifferent universe, keeping the door open to the possibility of the miraculous continues to make the most sense of the evidence in this world.[4]
Today, having worked through issues surrounding the critical study of the Scriptures, along with its anti-supernatural biases, its “mythology” and de-historicizing its narratives, it is clear that such a folklore Jesus would be a dead end. If the Jesus of the gospels does not exist then there are plenty of other historical fictional, or sci-fi, figures of virtue on their own “hero’s journey” I can enjoy instead. A fictional gospel reveals a powerless Jesus.
I believed God was working through Jesus in reality, and it led me to believe that his power could be applied to my own life in some healing way.
Jesus was Compassionate and Morally Firm
I had never read the gospels. I grew up on liturgy and tradition. Liturgy and tradition can be helpful as a tool for theological reinforcement, but it has significant limitations. For the most part, I just “knew”–as best I could know–Jesus loved me and died for me. But why, and why the cross? And is this what Christianity is all about, the story of an executed man? What about this has to do with me? And what would I learn about Jesus?
Again, I was, in the words of Ben Witherington, III, living a “Jesus haunted and biblically illiterate” life.[5] At the time, Jesus was the guy that died for me. I grew up reciting the “Stations of the Cross” every year in Mass. These 14 liturgical meditations commemorate the condemnation, death, and burial of Jesus (though I distinctly remember meditations of his resurrection).
So, I opened up that little New Testament with the small print to see where it would lead me.
I wasn’t sure what to expect. I was however truly surprised by the Jesus I was reading about. He drew me in. I was slightly expecting Jesus to be like the street preachers on my block. Those “bullhorn guys” yelling at the top of their lungs, telling us all that we are sinners, that we are all under the judgment of God, that regardless if you were eating donuts, McDonald’s, a burrito, going to the market, or selling weed, it didn’t matter because God hated us until we repented.
That is not at all what I found!
The Jesus of the gospels did not shy away from pointing to sin in people’s lives, but when he did so you knew he cared about you, you knew he had spent days with the sick to heal them, with the crippled making them walk, with the demon-oppressed liberating them of these evil spirits. He spent time with the kind of people the “really religious” types pushed aside, like the prostitutes and tax-collectors who wanted God.
In one instance, a woman from the city, known as a “sinner” (she likely had a bad reputation as a violator of the law of Moses), came to Jesus to show gratitude because he had forgiven her of her sins (Luke 7:47–48). The Pharisee who hosted Jesus in his home for dinner when this happened, reacted: “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner” (Luke 7:39). She was undesirable, not to be engaged. Jesus however acknowledged her morally troubled past, accepted her, and forgave her of her sins.
Like a protector walking among his people, Jesus offered those that would listen to him a better way of life.
Again, Jesus healed a man who could not walk and had been that way for thirty-eight years (John 5:1–9). Later He ran into him when the man was under scrutiny by some Jews because it happened on the Sabbath. “Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, ‘See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you’ ” (John 5:14 ESV). Jesus heals the man, helps the man, forgives the man (implied), but is morally firm: sin no more.
I really needed and wanted a guide out of all the darkness and evil I was in. I knew I had dug a deeply immoral hole. I said to myself, “Jesus has gotta know my situation… and he knows what it’s going to take to get out of it.”
Meeting Jesus in the Gospels was a real turning point for me. I was moved. Reading that Jesus was the type of person that got to know you, your life, your darkness, and was not afraid to touch it as he embraced you, and then led you out of the sin in your life so you can live a liberated life before God. He was compassionate and morally firm.
Jesus’ Inspiring Inner Strength
The 1990s rap scene was flooded with “gangsta rap.” It was not the only form of rap, but like the “consciousness” of hip hop, this movement provided a peek into the mind and mental of street life. It spoke to what many of us were living through to different degrees. In 1995, the Westcoast hip-hop artist Coolio released the massively successful commercial single, “Gangsta’s Paradise” the theme song for the film, Dangerous Minds (Buena Vista Pictures). I recall me and my homies could not get enough of it. In fact, I called the hip hop station 106.1 KMEL on the request line just to hear it again. It was “the jam.”
It was more than just music, it was a mirror of our experiences. I say that because Coolio says what we all understood about respect in the street. Respect and honor were set on a hairpin trigger. When Coolio dropped this line, it was “gospel”:
But I ain’t never crossed a man that didn’t deserve it Me be treated like a punk, you know that’s unheard of You better watch how you talkin’ and where you walkin’ Or you and your homies might be lined in chalk
Coolio, “Gangsta’s Paradise”
This was not mere poetry this was street truth. Outside of joking around, you don’t cross your boys or disrespect people. Did it happen? Sure, but there were consequences.
So when I read the gospels, I brought this attitude with me. Call it machismo, call it pride, call it hubris. Somebody hurts your kin, the next time you see that person you confront them, punk them (embarrass them), and flex your muscle.
I was impressed with Jesus. When he interacted with the religious leaders of his day–the Pharisees, scribes, and Sadducees–who constantly poked at his school, his teaching, his methods, and his compassion, I stood amazed at how he handled these tests with an inner strength of truth and grace.
I definitely rallied behind him when Jesus flipped over the moneychangers’ tables at the temple, they had turned the place into a “den of robbers.” That language made sense to me. But Jesus was mild compared to what power he clearly had.
And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold access to God, saying to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a den of robbers.” (Luke 19:45–46)
He made a statement. He didn’t end them. That’s the difference.
But for every other challenge, every criticism, every rejection, every attempt on his life, every time Jesus was made out to be crazy, a fraud, a violator of the Scripture, or liable as an ally of Satan, Jesus responded with words to clarify, words to unite, words bluntly stating the obvious, and words that demonstrate the faulty logic, scriptural inconsistency, or the like.
Basically, Jesus was full of zeal but kept his cool nonetheless (John 2:17).
Consider the fact that the gospels report that Jesus could walk on water, make water into wine, give people their sight back, restore the skin of leprosy, and revive the dead.
A man with that kind of power could be tempted to abuse it, but as the temptation in the desert points out, Jesus’ power did not outpace his character (Matt 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–12). When Jesus was rejected by the Samaritans, he rebuked his disciples for suggesting he retaliate with fire from the sky.
And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, “Lord, do you want us to tell fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” But he turned and rebuked them. And they went on to another village. (Luke 9:54–56)
Jesus showed strength in order to protect people, in order to speak truth to error, and authenticity to hypocrisy. I was captivated by his ability to hold it together when he was betrayed by Judas, when he was lied about in his Jewish “trial” before Caiaphas, when he was publically humiliated by the Romans, publically rejected by the Jewish mob with their frenzied chant, “crucify him, crucify him.” Jesus clearly stated he had the power and authority to be delivered by an overwhelming show of heavenly force (John 18:1–19:16a), but he did not.
I stood in awe at Jesus’ character. Jesus was dismissed by those who knew the Scriptures until the only way they thought they could silence him was to kill him. Here’s the part that really put this strength in context: Jesus predicted his betrayal, his rejection, and his death. John foreshadowed this in his prologue: “He [Jesus] came to his own, and his own people did not receive him” (1:12). He walked right into the fire.
I never heard of anyone who lived like that. Jesus was street-level “hard” (tough) in a way I had never seen. Jesus’ inner strength told me I could trust him. That’s the point.
In describing Abraham Lincoln, Robert G. Ingersol (1833–1899), was recorded in Wisconsin State Journal (16 January 1883) saying,
If you want to find out what a man is to the bottom, give him power. Any man can stand adversity — only a great man can stand prosperity. It is the glory of Abraham Lincoln that he never abused power only on the side of mercy. [Applause]. He was a perfectly honest man. When he had power, he used it in mercy.[6]
Robert Ingersol, Wisconsin State Journal (1883)
Whether that was always true of Abraham Lincoln, I’ll never know. But I trusted what I saw in Jesus’ use of power and in the realism of the stories of the gospels. I needed to trust him. I grew to trust him. I trust him still. And in the quarter-century of serving him, he has done no wrong.
Spending Time with Nobodies
In the 1991 urban drama, Boyz n the Hood (Columbia Pictures), director and writer John Singleton (1968–2019) presented a raw depiction of urban violence, racism, and gang culture as the backdrop for the coming of age stories of a group of childhood friends, notably two brothers (“Doughboy” and Ricky) and their close friend Tre. The impact of drugs and violence on the black community of South Central Los Angeles is seen as we follow these friends who grow up fast to survive–only to become victims of their own turbulent world.
After a confrontation between Ricky–a high school football star on track to receive a college scholarship– and a local gangster, the matter escalates into Ricky being gunned down in an alley while coming home from the liquor store. Doughboy and his own crew retaliate that night by killing the gunmen and his posse for killing his brother. In the next scene, the next morning, Doughboy comes out of his home, sells some crack as he crosses the street, and sits with his friend Tre.
In one of the most memorable moments in the film Doughboy says:
Turned on the TV this morning. Had this s— on about how we’re living in a violent world. Showed all these foreign places. How foreigners live and all. I started thinking, man. Either they don’t know… don’t show… or don’t care about what’s going on in the ‘hood. They had all this foreign s—. They didn’t have s— on my brother, man.
“Doughboy” in Boyz n the Hood
Although I was twelve when the movie came out, the movie has the proven realism of its era. What Singleton is voicing through Doughboy is that even though there is violence in the street of our communities, nobody cares about it. It is happening over there, not in our backyard. We put a spotlight on global violence but not in our own communities. We know it happens and the police are doing “something” about it. But it is not worth talking about or getting involved with.
Here’s my point: street life is a very different world. No matter what your starting point is, once you commit to it you live a life on the fringe. The police are not your friends. You can easily lose trust with your own people. You’re the boogeyman parents warn their kids about, “come home soon so nothing happens to you.” You are the reason they need to be careful.
For example, one day I was detained with a group of “us” by the San Francisco Police Department on 24th Street. Officer Callejas who put the twist on me was the father of a childhood friend. A bunch of us were thrown into a “patty wagon,” taken to the Mission station on Valencia Street. You really get a sense of how you are thought of in situations like this. Any mistreatment was seemingly justifiable because we were thugs who likely assaulted a little boy for his shoes. No one really cares when you are a thug. I get why, but it is still the truth.[7] We were probably guilty of something and the pain was just part of the business of the street: we felt like nobodies cause we were treated like nobodies.
Liberal New Testament scholar John Dominic Crossan (1934–) once described the “kingdom of God” Jesus focuses on as “a kingdom of nuisances and nobodies.”[8] That description really gets the point across. Crossan points to the fact Jesus spends a lot of time with the kinds of people the “clean” religious people would not associate with. The tax-collectors, the prostitutes, the sinners, the Gentile-tainted, the Samaritan, the lepers, the poor, etc., are all the kinds of people Jesus spend time with at the expense of criticism. This really spoke to me.
German theologian, Helmut Thielicke (1908–1986), really puts into words what I saw in Jesus:
[A]n ineffable love radiated from him, a love that quite obviously attracted from their usual haunts the very people whom nobody else cared for: people with loathsome, repulsive diseases, sinners who cowered before the contempt of society, the dejected and dismayed who normally concealed their misery from the eyes of others.[9]
Helmut Thielicke, The Waiting Father (1959)
Reading how Jesus ate with sinners just made me think that there was hope that he would share a seat with me at the dinner table. That he would come to my house and eat with me and my friends. Jesus put to those that criticized him for eating with sinners. He said,
Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. (Luke 5:31–32)
Would Jesus visit with me so he could heal me? I believed he would. He did. He continues to do so.
I am always amazed at the power of grace that allows us to be “other than we are.” God’s grace and forgiveness have empowered me to live a different life. No story Jesus told tells it better than the parable of the two sons:
“What do you think? A man had two sons. And he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ And he answered, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he changed his mind and went. And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And even when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe him. (Matt 21:28–32)
Fringe people have an opportunity to be at the heart of what Jesus does. I wanted that.
Jesus Taught about Loving People
Sometimes I would leave the Mission and go with some of my fellas to the Tenderloin District of San Francisco at night. We had a friend with a car and we had a friend with a shop out there. The “TL” is a neighborhood district right in the heart of downtown. It’s the part of the city no one wants to get lost in, but so many people do. Legend has it that the name goes back to the largest bribes and police corruption, big cuts. In reality, it’s the home of “outcasts and outlaws, but it has also served as a welcoming home to the downtrodden and out of luck.”[10] It has been that way for a long time.
You always had to be on your guard in the streets but it felt that way even more so in the TL. I got into plenty of fights over misunderstandings. Sometimes you had to “knuckle up” to prove your point. Every now and then, something would happen that would disarm you. One time a parade of prostitutes hurried single-file by me into the back of the pizzeria I was eating at because the police were cracking down outside. That stuff makes you want to lose your appetite. Sadly, I eventually saw a few girls I went to high school with, out there in the TL “walking” the streets.
One situation really struck me. One night I watched a young girl call home to tell her folks that she was not coming back. A pimp had flipped her, she was gonna become of his girls. I can see her standing in a MUNI bust stop phone booth, surrounded by a bunch of guys as she said the following words:
Momma, don’t worry, I’m fine and I’m gonna make a lot of money…. No, tell dad I’m gonna be fine… he’s gonna take care of me, I’m going to be just fine… No, I’m not telling you where I am… he’s gonna take care of me…
Jane Doe calling home
“No, girl,” I said to myself, “No, he’s not.” You learn to get cold to things like this. I didn’t want to get played but if someone else did, that was on them. This moment, though, would eventually make me really question what it is I was becoming. One thing was certain, I was losing my humanity piece by piece I just did not know it yet.
So when I asked God to find me, and I started reading the Gospels, I learned that Jesus was all about loving his neighbor. What surprised me the most, and continues to be the challenge, is how Jesus applies the “love your neighbor” ethic. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus said:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matt 5:43–48)
When Jesus applies Leviticus 19:18 (“you shall love your neighbor as yourself”) to life, he said my neighbor was not just people I know but even people I hate, and people that hate me. That was a bitter pill to swallow. Looking back, even now, I have learned that this love even protects the vulnerable people in society (the poor, the blind, the deaf; cf. Lev 19:13–14). In a world where hate and anger were the fuel that drove my choices, I thought about how different my choices were going to have to be. I realized that I could not follow Jesus and stay in the gang, that I could not be in a “me vs. them” world. Most of the time I did not even know who the people I hated were.
I was starting to see that the world could be different. That I could be different. God was good to me despite all the things I had done. He gave me the sun, the rain, the wind and rain, different escapes from certain death, and my close trusted cholos over Frisco. I did not know it then, but I had just opened my heart to a very different way of living. Of all the things that changed my life nothing so drastically changed it as learning to love my enemies, people who hurt me, people I had come to hate, and learning to have grief and shame for the joy I got out of hurting people.
Here’s another significant point, Jesus was not teaching some kind of fluffy love. It is a rugged love. It is a love that is independent of what others do. We wait for people to love us and never hurt us, in order for us to love them back. That’s not the kind of love Jesus talks about. We treat people with love even when it might cause hatred, persecution, or attempts on your life. Jesus went through all of that when he lived out God’s love by dying on the cross for all humanity.
That type of love motivated me to learn to forgive those who hurt me, molested me, abandoned me, fought me, or betrayed me; positively, I learned to feed hungry people, give money to needy people, to care for those that struggle, treat people with kindness and patience. Most importantly, I learned to forgive and love myself. Remember, Jesus said the second great commandment is to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt 22:39)–as yourself, as myself. It was a new day in my life when I received Jesus’ words to love my neighbor.
Jesus inspired me to look at loving others in such a way that challenged what it means to love, who are the others and even to love myself.
Ready for the Next Step
Reading the Gospels lead me to take the next step to follow Jesus. While I no longer remember how each Gospel spoke to me, I remember the example of Jesus already making a big impression on me. I also began to see how it affected other people when I quoted Jesus or imitated Jesus, often without even telling them I was. A homeless lady on the BART even asked me, “are you a Christian?”[11] I didn’t even know what that meant. She had to tell me: someone who follows Jesus. I was that “unchurched.”
Still, I was still wrestling with drinking, smoking cigarettes and weed, and I was building my fortitude against sleeping with anyone. Over the months of reading the Gospels, I desired but I didn’t exactly know what the next step was. After all, I had not entered a church during this time. There was no preacher or evangelistic crusade that was guiding my journey. It was quite literally, me and the Gospels, and me and my demons.
I remember talking to Mormon missionaries at this time and they said, “Cry out to God for an audible answer that the Book of Mormon was true, and you will hear him.” I spent many nights crying out to God in tears, scared that I was so close but so far. Never heard a voice. I remember receiving a bunch of creepy Chick tracts that told me to give my heart to the Lordship of Jesus or I would be roasted by Satan in Hell. I wandered into books and advice from outsiders.
My big brother, however, brought me back to the Gospels. “Have you read the Gospels?,” he asked. “Yes,” I responded. “What does Jesus tell his disciples when he sends them out at the end of Matthew?” I opened the text and it was right there:
Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28: 16–20)
That told me everything I needed to know and do next. I knew I wanted to be a disciple, this text told me how. I knew I wanted to submit to the Lordship of Jesus, this text told me how. I knew I wanted to keep having a relationship with Jesus even though he was not “here” anymore, this text showed me he was still with us. And I wanted to still study under Jesus, and he showed me that it was in the teaching of the disciples. So, I knew I would have to change my life and I made that commitment in a personal hot tub a few days after Christmas in December 1996. The “Gorilla” was “gone” and Jovan was reborn.
Endnotes
See Leland Ryken, How to Read the Bible as Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Academic Books, 1984), 132. I highly recommend Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2007).
As you may see in this essay, rap lyrics speak for me at times and so it is here. In Eazy-E’s comeback response album, It’s On (Dr. Dre) 187um Killa (Woodland Hills, CA: Ruthless, 1993), to Dr. Dre’s The Chronic album (Beverly Hills, CA: Death Row Records, 1991), the song “Real Muthaphukkin G’s” features Dresta who says, “I did dirt, put in work, and many n—- can vouch that; So since I got stripes, I got the right to rap about [gangsta life].” I wasn’t the worst thug out there, and I can only speak for myself, but I did my thing.
I use the “knucklehead” phrase because that’s what Mr. Cee from the RBL Posse said in his rap rhyme: “I’m just a knucklehead from the streets, All I want is a mic and some of that funky a– beat” (“A Part of Survival,” A Lesson to be Learned [Oakland, CA: In a Minute Records, 1992]).
One should read the opening chapter of William Lane Craig’s The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus (1981; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2000). Consistently, atheist Richard Dawkins wrote, “…if the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies like the crashing of this bus are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music” (River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life [New York: Basic Books, 1995], 132–33; bold added).
The actual quote is, “In America we live in a Jesus-haunted culture that is biblically illiterate. Jesus is a household name, and yet only a distinct minority of Americans have studied an English translation of the original documents that tell us about Jesus, much less read them in the original Greek. In this sort of environment, almost any wild theory about Jesus or his earliest followers can pass for knowledge with some audiences, because so few people actually know the primary sources, the relevant texts, or the historical context with which we should be concerned” (What Have They Done With Jesus? Beyond Strange Theories and Bad History–Why We Can Trust the Bible [New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2006]).
I can only think of one organization that was brash enough to try to disrupt our comfort with street life, and that was RAP. Unfortunately, there were not a lot of encounters.
John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (New York: HarperCollins, 1994), 61–84. While I am critical of many of Crossan’s proposals about the historical Jesus and his trance and mythic theory of the resurrection appearances of Jesus, he rings true here. See my, “Did Paul Hallucinate the Resurrection?“
Helmut Thielicke, The Waiting Father: Sermons on the Parables of Jesus, trans. John W. Doberstein (New York: Harper, 1959), 159.
BART stands for the Bay Area Rapid Transit system. It was a subway/train system that connects various cities in the San Francisco/Oakland/East Bay/North Bay areas.
It is a staggering thought when you think about it. Christians have gifts to share with their neighbors. Much like the old nativity hymn of the three orient kings, who came from the far east with rich gifts for the newborn king Jesus, Christians have gifts to share with the people they come in contact with every day. In a word, we have a calling. It is greater than Toys for Tots, it is greater than Secret Santa, it is greater than the presents carefully wrapped and laid under the Christmas tree. The gifts Christians have are those which come from God, they are packaged by him and must be shared.
When the apostle Peter wrote to the beleaguered Christians in the northeastern Roman provinces of Asia (1 Peter 1:1), he wrote to encourage them to embrace the slander and the social persecution with the reminder that they walk in the footsteps of Jesus (1 Peter 2:21). For example, should they suffer unjustly —as did Jesus— the suffering will bring about the opportunity to extend grace to the world. Furthermore, the Christian must not focus on the momentary suffering but instead upon God’s validation and vindication. As God vindicated the suffering servant Jesus, so will He vindicate his suffering people (4:1).
As You Have Received God’s Gift
As an extension of this moral encouragement, the apostle goes on to address very practical aspects of Christian living in chapter 4. Here is an excellent moment to pause and reflect upon the truth that doctrinal purity is important, but these Christians are called to practice godliness in the face of persecution. In one of the summarizing passages of this exhortation, Peter writes the following:
As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace: whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies—in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. (1 Peter 4:10–11 ESV)
A point that is not readily notable from the English version is the connection between gift (charisma) and grace (charitos) in verse 10. They are built on the same word root, which was interconnected at the social level. It portrays God as a benefactor —a gift giver— for his people and asks them (us) to also be gift-givers (benefactors) as well.
This makes the term “good stewards” (oikonomoi) equally enlightening. It is a word that has domestic and political usage, and this usage is seen in the New Testament documents. In the ESV, the word is translated as “manager” of domestic affairs (Luke 12:42, 16:1, 3, 8; Gal 4:2), and once as “treasurer” which would have been a political office in Rome (Rom 16:23). As here in 1 Peter 4:10, “steward” in passages that emphasizes a conservatorship over a given responsibility (1 Cor 4:1-2, Tit 1:7). It was a well known Greco-Roman phenomenon that members of a benefactor’s household were also “brokers” of the gifts of the head of their household. The imagery of Peter’s message is parallel to this type of behavior.
Christians as members of God’s house are blessed by their Father’s gifts so that they may be brokers of God’s grace. We are in a very real way representatives of God’s house and what we offer in a variety of ways is the very gift of God — Jesus Christ and the gospel message. We are to teach it, we are to proclaim it, but most importantly we are to live it. Below, we will consider the points left behind in this section by the Spirit through Peter in verse 11.
Whoever speaks…
One of the overarching themes of the film, Waiting for Superman, a 2010 documentary on the American education system, is that many within the system are waiting for someone to fix it, to do the hard work to shore up its failures. Instead, such systemic problems will only be fixed by teachers and educational leaders working together and initiating helpful and creative programs. There is no one person who can fix the educational system of America, all resources must come together. The same is true with sharing the gift of Jesus and His gospel.
Every Christian (woman and man) must remember that our gift is a gift of words. Not just words, but words of God. For this reason, when a Christian shares the gospel it truly is God’s gift of grace we are sharing. We must not speak our words. We must not speak from our own anger. We must not speak our theories of the word. We must not speak our “pet” religious opinions. We must not speak from any other basis other than from the depository of God’s word — found only in the Scriptures. Our words must be as if it were God talking. God’s word is the only true gift (1 These 2:13).
Whoever serves…
Christian activity is always dramatically presented as services rendered as one who waits on tables, doing as told by their superior (Acts 6:2; John 2:5). Every Christian (woman and man) must remember that our gift is also a gift of action — of service. Christians broker God’s grace with others with the service we render to other people. Edgar Guest was spot on with this passage when he penned the opening lines of his poem, “I’d rather see a sermon than hear one any day; I’d rather one should walk with me than merely tell the way” (“I’d Rather See a Sermon Than Hear One Any Day”). Indeed, there is no greater opportunity in life than to serve as an example of God’s grace to others.
Words can be misunderstood. Actions, however, are less so. But, serving others often comes with a tall price. Service is not convenient emotionally, or physically. It is perhaps for this reason that Peter says that Christians who serve others do so and are empowered by the strength supplied by God. We do not serve others based on our own merits. It is a hard lesson for so many of us, but we need to trust in God for Him to be God when we are serving others. Whether it is food, clothing, or shelter that we offer as expressions of God’s varied graces, we do so, trusting that God will make our service His gift and that alone should empower us to serve.
Concluding Thoughts
Whether it’s the best of times or the worst of times, Christians can make a mark in the world and in the times in which they live. My prayer for all of us is to be the Christians we are called to be. Be the best gift you can be to your family and friends in word and service. Let it be the kind that brings glory to God and not to self. Remember, to say, “it’s not about me… it’s about Him.” “To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen” (4:11).
To be clear, this is not really a commentary on 3 John. It is a study which at times ranges from the devotional to an exploration of a few technical details. In fact, the present material originally appeared in a serialized format and has been sewn together here in the hopes that it be helpful to anyone studying through “3 John.” This little letter, along with 2 John, is a perfect specimen of what many recovered 1st Century letters look like in form. But it is always astonishing to me how God employed 1st Century communications technology (i.e., the letter) to be the vehicle of His prophets. Today in our ethereal world, I hope we have learned how to employ our communication technology as a vehicle to share the words of His holy prophets.
I hope the following exploration into 3 John will be of use and of illumination to all those who wish to ruminate over Johannine literature. I wish to thank the Livingston church of Christ for their indulgence as I shared these studies with them first. They are a fellowship of God’s children whom I “love in truth” because they “walk in the truth.”
Introduction
The New Testament letter of 3 John is arguably the smallest document in the canon associated with the apostle’s letters (1 John, 2 John), his Gospel account (John), and the final document of the New Testament, the Revelation.
We offer a study of this brief note to Gaius, a church leader under fire for his commitment to evangelism. The major theme has been admirably summarized as follows:
The basic message of the epistle is that a congregation of the Lord’s people is to support faithful missionaries in their proclamation of the gospel, and that anyone who prevents such support and who otherwise disrupts the orderly and faithful conduct of the congregation’s work by attempting to exercise tyrannical control is a troublemaker who should be rebuked and set down.[1]
John H. Parker in The Biblical Messages of the Books of the New Testament
Aside from this explicit controversy, not much else is known about the key personalities involved (e.g. Gaius, Demetrius, and Diotrephes) outside of 3 John.[2]
Yet the letter showcases the power of faithful saints supporting full-time evangelism:
The same sort of Christians are needed in the church today. Such disciples are not necessarily those who are going out to teach and preach the Word or to establish churches in difficult areas of the world. Instead, they include the people who are supporting such workers—supporting them financially, supporting them emotionally, and supporting them personally.[3]
Luke T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation
The Greeting (v.1)
The elder to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth.
(Unless otherwise noted the translation text is the English Standard Version of The Holy Bible [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001])
First, it is important to observe, that “letters in the ancient world had their appropriate form, just as they do today.”[4] Though there were considerable alterations in the format, the following is a basic form of an ancient letter:
A [Sender] to B [Receiver]
Greetings
Thanksgiving and wishes for good health
Body of Letter
Farewell
Second, notice that a letter was sent by “the elder”; hence, 3 John is explicitly anonymous. Yet, Gaius knew who “the elder” was, and ancient testimony attributes this letter to the Apostle John. In fact, it has been suggested that John’s use of the term “the elder” is a reference to his unique situation as being both an elder and the last surviving apostle; hence, he is “‘the elder’ par excellence.”[5]
Third, what may be surmised from the context of the letter about Gaius is that he is definitely a leader in the church, and perhaps is a house-church leader. That he is loved “in truth” and “walks in truth” may either hint at doctrinal discord in his church setting or may refer to the spiritual division on receiving the emissaries of “the elder.”[6]
But what we do know is that Gaius is regarded in high esteem for his appropriate conduct during this controversial time. Furthermore, the use of an emphatic form for “I” in Greek (ego), suggests an inference that someone, or some “ones”, did not appreciate Gaius in the same way.[7]
The Prayer and Blessing (vv.2-4)
Beloved, I pray that all may go well with you and that you may be in good health, as it goes well with your soul. For I rejoiced greatly when the brothers came and testified to your truth, as indeed you are walking in the truth. I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth.
First, part of the greeting naturally flows into a blessing to fall upon the reader; much like, in modern times we find a parallel in: “How are you? I hope well.” But here we find a wonderful Christian thought, “I pray […] that you may be in good health, as it goes well with your soul.” This was a well-known conventional prayer for wellbeing, but John adapts it to stress his desire for Gaius’ health to match his well-developed spiritual fortitude.[8]
Second, John rejoices “greatly” as a result of the testimony made on behalf of Gaius’ “truth.” The term “for” makes a clear connection between verses 2 and 3,[9] transitioning from a hint to a clear example of Gaius’ spiritual fortitude. In other words, it is a fact that he is “walking in truth.”
This is clearly a heartfelt expression of the “stand for truth” that Gaius is currently making. It implies of course that some in the church context of Gaius are not “walking in truth.” This is a practice that began in the past and is extended to the time of the writing of this letter.[10]
This is quite a commentary on the quality of character evidenced in Gaius – a church leader of strength and fidelity to truth. Quite clearly, then, we see why John rejoiced so greatly.
Third, we must observe that the apostle describes Gaius as his child (Grk. to ema tekna). John calls Gaius “my child” (literally, pl. children) employing an emphatic form of the possessive case of ego, which means “I,”[11] which supposes that Gaius is not the spiritual child of another. This is a statement of a spiritual union bound in truth.
Edmond Hiebert observes that “my children” may be understood in two senses: (a) his specific converts; or, (b) those under his spiritual care. We agree with his remarks however that “in either view… [John] regarded and treasured them as his own.”[12]
In Praise of Hospitality (vv.5-6)
Beloved, it is a faithful thing you do in all your efforts for these brothers, strangers as they are, who testified to your love before the church. You will do well to send them on their journey in a manner worthy of God.
First, Gaius evidently works with Christian strangers, and some who had been blessed by their association with Gaius had reported back to John (cf. vs. 3). As will be shown below, these are missionaries that have been blessed by Gaius’ faithful efforts (cf. vv. 7-8).
As a result, recipients of his generosity have given reports of his love before John’s congregation – and perhaps beyond. The term “church” could suggest the variety of congregations, including John’s, where testimony on behalf of Gaius has been made.
Second, Gaius had established a reputation for being hospitable to missionaries (v. 6). As Everett Ferguson writes:
The traveling teachers had reported to the church what he had done. The Elder [John] assures him he has been doing the right thing (v. 5) and wants him to continue on a regular basis.[13]
As will be seen later in the letter, activity like this was the focus of censorship by Diotrephes – the “missions” killer (vs. 10). F. F. Bruce observes, “the ministry of traveling teachers […], was a well-known feature of church life in Western Asia at the end of the first and beginning of the second century.”[14]
Third, when John encourages Gaius to “send them [the missionaries] on their journey,” he employs a term of unique significance in the New Testament. The Greek term for “send them on their way” is propempsas, meaning:
[T]o assist someone [here, the itinerant preachers] in making a journey, send on one’s way with food, money, by arranging for companions, by means of travel, etc.[15]
Bauer, et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (2000)
There is no shortage of evidence to suggest that it is a technical term in the New Testament, meaning to provide missionaries with the appropriate means of support for their work and travels (cf. Acts 15:3; Rom 15:24; 1 Cor 16:6, 11; 2 Cor 1:16; Tit 3:13).
The Obligation to Missions (vv. 7-8)
For they have gone out for the sake of the name, accepting nothing from the Gentiles. Therefore we ought to support people like these, that we may be fellow workers for the truth.
First, it is important to stress that these individuals are already on the road “for the sake of the name.” There is a deliberate decision that is in view for they have “gone out” for the sake of the only name that can be exalted (Phil 2:9) –that of Jesus.[16] This is their motivation for missions; especially, since “the name” would summarize “the saving message which the missionaries proclaimed.”[17]
One of their policies, says the Elder, 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.”[18]
John Stott demonstrates the distinction this truly was for the early church:
Christian missionaries were not like many wandering non-Christian teachers of those days […], who made a living out of their vagrancy … a Christian congregation supporting its minister is one thing; missionaries begging money from unbelievers is another.[19]
John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John (2002)
There is an example of how the early church had become so abused by would-be missionaries, that an early catechetical document, known as the Didache, made excessive rules for hosting traveling teachers:
Let every apostle who comes to you be welcomed as if he were the Lord. 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 says 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. (Did 11:4-6)[20]
As will be seen below, John has already sent a document to “the church” but it has been rejected, as have his apostolic authority, the traveling missionaries, and those who would – like Gaius – assist these honorable individuals (9-10).
Second, the church was under an obligation to support these individuals in order to be a part of their work. The longevity and amount are not the issues, what is at stake is the responsibility of a congregation to provide care for the missionaries and assist them on their way.
As Everett Ferguson observes:
For a household to receive missionaries, provide for them, and then to send them forward with provisions for the next stage of their journey was the regular method in early Christianity for supporting missionary work.[21]
Everett Ferguson, The Letters of John (1984)
And as mentioned above, this hospitality had received considerable abuse.
One of the safeguards against abuse was a letter of recommendation (cf. 2 Cor. 3.1-3). “In order to assist travelers in securing aid while exercising some control,” explains Abraham Malherbe:
[A] special type of letter, in which the writer recommended the bearer to friends or associates, had been developed. Some Christians also wrote such letters (e.g., Acts 18:27; Rom. 16:1-2), and some churches evidently demanded them of travelers.[22]
Abraham J. Malherbe in The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck (1995)
The letter was to authenticate that these were honorable missionaries (including Demetrius cf. v.12), needing assistance as they traveled the world preaching the gospel.
Third, the obligation, as Hiebert observes, “involves more than giving them a personal welcome by lodging them; it also involves supplying their needs so they can continue their ministry.”[23]
Because of their lack of resources (cf. “taking nothing”), “believers therefore have the moral obligation to ‘undertake’ for them.”[24] The term opheilomen (cf. opheilo) carries the meaning of an obligation – whether financial, social, or moral;[25] particularly here, there are strong spiritual and moral responsibilities in view (evangelistic efforts of destitute missionaries).
We would also reflect upon the way this divides the labor of worldwide evangelism. As David Smith observes, “If we cannot preach the Gospel ourselves, we may help others to do it.”[26]
Fourth, the end result of assisting those who have dedicated themselves to being traveling teachers is that we may become “fellow workers for the truth.” There may be a generic flavor to this phrase, addressing the overall effects of involvement in supporting worldwide evangelism. Much like Adam Clarke observes, the assistance was designed to “encourage the persecuted, and contribute to the spread and maintenance of the Gospel.”[27]
Several students believe it is difficult to understand definitively the meaning of how we are “fellow-workers” in relation to the truth;[28] however, we believe the overall judgment on how to understand this partnership is expressed in the following words:
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.[29]
Stott, The Letters of John
The activity of hosting and providing needed supplies for future travels “was a concrete expression of fellowship”.[30]
As those who welcome and support those who preach false doctrines become partakers with them (2 John 9), so those who receive and maintain those who preach the truth become fellow-workers for the truth.[31]
Guy N. Woods, A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles of Peter, John, and Jude (1973)
This concrete expression of Christian solidarity demonstrated by Gaius prepares the reader for the adverse behavior demonstrated by Diotrephes in the next few verses (vv. 9-10).
Interference of Sin (vv. 9-10)
I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church.
First, though some students find that John regards his previous letter (not 2 John) of little importance, we find the reasoning upon which this perception is based to be quite weak. It is argued that since John wrote, “I have written something” (egrapsa ti), he did not view his letter as relatively important.[32]
However, there are serious problems with this interpretation, specifically because Diotrephes rejected John’s authority inherent in the letter he wrote. Such an audacious rejection of apostolic communication would hardly be something to rebuke Diotrephes about if the letter was of little importance.
We believe, along with other students, that egrapsa ti describes as “a brief letter of commendation” such that would have accompanied the traveling preachers mentioned earlier (v. 3):[33]
It apparently was a brief letter, now lost, requesting assistance for the missionaries being sent out by John. If so, it is not improbable that Diotrephes suppressed the letter.[34]
D. Edmond Hiebert, “Studies in 3 John Part 2 (of 3 Parts): An Exposition of 3 John 5-10,” Bibliotheca Sacra 144 (1987)
Stott does not stop at suppression. He suggests that Diotrephes destroyed the letter and poses this as the reason why John’s brief letter is now lost (cf. Jer 36).[35]
Finally, the letter can hardly be regarded as unimportant since what John desired to occur is set at odds against the strong contrasting “but” (Grk. alla), which emphasizes the rejection by Diotrephes.[36]
Diotrephes did not just suppress a mere letter; it was an apostolic request for the support of traveling missionaries who had no other means of gaining resources (“accepting nothing from the Gentiles” v.7) for the work they set out to do “for the sake of the name.” Consequently, Diotrephes “did not acknowledge” John’s authority.
Second, there has been tremendous ink spilled to discuss the troublesome New Testament nuisance known as Diotrephes. We will consider a few lines of thought regarding this gentleman we view as an excommunicating missions-killer.
(a) It is rather obvious that he, as a gentile, had a religiously pagan upbringing. This is understood from the meaning of his name (dio + trephes), “nourished by Zeus.”[37] Perhaps this hints at the pagan background where much of his character was probably formed.
Zeus was the god-of-gods, and he was regarded as the provider who nourished both family and community life (rain, dew, good gifts, etc.), being himself the patron of the home.
As one classical scholar describes, Zeus was:
[T]he avenger of perjury, the keeper of boundaries and of property, the defender of the laws of hospitality and the rights of the suppliant.[38]
Oskar Seyffert in Dictionary of Classical Antiquities (1966)
Besides the obvious possessor of the lightning bolts and the gatherer of the clouds, it was thought that all meteorological phenomenons were the work of Zeus.
I find a hint of irony in this correspondence, due to the fact that during the early ministry of Jesus, the sons of Zebedee (James and John) were given the “nickname” of the “sons of thunder” (Mark 3:17; Matt 4:21). During an episode in the Lord’s ministry, they wished to avenge mistreatment by raining fire from heaven (Luke 9:51-56).
Now, the aged John –known more for love than vengeance (cf. 1 John) – must address a man who acts more like the thunder god, than the son of God.
(b) Diotrephes “likes to put himself first” (RSV, NRSV, ESV). Other translations render this one word in Greek (philoproteuon) more to the point: “who loveth to have the preeminence” (KJV, ASV); “who loves to be first” (NASBU, NET); “who loves to be in charge” (ISV); “He always wants to be number one” (Plain English NT); “who loves to have first place” (FHV); “who wants to be first in everything” (Phillips).
What these translations suggest about Diotrephes, along with his spiritually criminal behavior also recorded in verse 10, is that “it was not just an ambition on his part but liking of the power he had.”[39]
And with his power, he made a unilateral decision to reject the apostle John’s authoritative request for support to be given to the traveling missionaries (vs. 5).[40]
One could investigate deeply and speculate why Diotrephes was so antiauthoritarian when it came to the apostle’s letter; however, we must not assume another position for which John – the inspired author – sets forth for us:
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.[41]
Stott, The Letters of John
This sin was his craving for prominence and dominance (philoproteuon) – a word carrying both desires: “to be first” and “to order others.”[42] The range of this disposition is seen in four ways:[43]
Ambition to hold prominence.
Refusal to submit to those of greater authority (e.g. apostle John).
Slanders and oppresses those undermining his “perceived” right to prominence.
Removes those of dissenting opinions from positions of influence.
(c) Everett Ferguson calls attention to three clauses that describe Diotrephes actions toward the missionaries: he refuses, hinders, and expels.[44] He kills evangelistic fervor at every level.
Third, “the elder” forewarns Gaius regarding his own arrival to the area and promises to bring Diotrephes to justice. As Wayne Jackson observes, “The apostle is unwilling simply to ‘let bygones be bygones.’”[45]
In an era where rebukes for sinful behavior are looked down upon, the church would do well to soak up the apostolic backbone demonstrated here. Indeed, “the past actions of Diotrephes could not be explained away.”[46]
In Diotrephes, we see a person in leadership with such degenerative respect for apostolic leadership and authority. He is characterized by such a vile personality that can be only viewed as a person who “was nourished by a very poisonous, aggressive passion to be in charge.”[47]
Imitate Good Behavior (v.11)
Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God.
This is the last of four times that the apostle calls Gaius “beloved” (agapete, cf. v. 1, 2, and 5). It is no small matter that John appeals to Gaius in this fashion; the term refers to one of compelling worth and one who is dearly loved.[48]
While there is no hint that John and Gaius know each other personally (and we not excluding the possibility), at the very least Gaius has gained such high esteem with the apostle due to his longstanding history of helping traveling missionaries (v. 3, 4, 5-6).
Although the letter is brief Gaius is described in at least eight other ways emphasizing his faithfulness and support of the truth, by the financial and material support of those who preach and teach the gospel.
(1) John loves Gaius “in truth” (v. 1). Combining a few ideas and passages in this letter, “in truth” is an idiom for a framework of thinking centered on the Gospel truth and its proclamation.
This is the Christian worldview in mind; in other words, the “fundamental way of looking at things” as a Christian (cf. Col. 3.1-3).[49] Christianity for Gaius – as it ought to be for us – is not for mere “social fraternity” but for “redemptive” outreach.[50]
(2) John prays that Gaius’s health resembles his robust spiritual health (v. 2). One is immediately compelled to wonder what would our physical health appear like should it be replaced by our true spiritual status.
Indeed, God knows our failures; yet, it is also true that God knows our hearts despite our failures.
For Gaius, such a benediction was a mark of faithfulness to God in the face of certain church politics applying negative pressure upon those who desire to support evangelists.
(3) A report had been given to John regarding Gaius having the truth, and living a life consistent with that truth (v. 3). This is emphasized again in verse 4.
Consistently, Gaius is the living embodiment of faithfulness to the gospel in that he was involved with sending evangelists, seeking those who would hear the gospel, and saving lost souls with this message of redemption.
The fact that “walks” in truth is a statement that this is a lifestyle, not a “past time.” Christianity did not exist solely within the confines of worship and times of fellowship; instead, evangelism was the air that he breathed, and his conduct reflected it.[51]
(4) Because Gaius lives within the framework of Gospel truth evidenced by his support of evangelists, John calls him his “child” (v. 4). This is certainly a mark of solidarity.
Despite their distance, this statement reflects their united fellowship seen in the comforting knowledge of faithful Christians “continuing steadfastly in faith and good works.”[52]
(5) Gaius is one who does faithful deeds which is supporting traveling evangelists by providing hospitality out of his home and through his material blessings which he sacrifices in order to send these heralds with the appropriate things needed to get to the next stage of their evangelistic labors (vv. 5-6).
(6) The “beloved” (agapete) is also one who expresses “love” (agape, v. 6) through these evangelistic and hospitable deeds (v 5). Because of his love shown to others (here, the evangelists), John has made a special place for Gaius in his heart.
(7) For the above reasons, Gaius implicitly is qualified as “a fellow worker for the truth” (v. 8). Gaius understands the moral imperative to support the gospel (= the truth) by “sending” the traveling evangelists.
This should elevate the relationship of “giving” with its connection to supporting evangelism in the church. We must understand that without “supporters” and “givers,” evangelism would die. “Without missions there would be no church, for the church is the result of missions.”[53]
It is not enough for us to know that supporting evangelism is important and essential, there must be follow-through to actually “put aside something” proportionate to our prosperity (1 Cor 16:2).
(8) Finally, Gaius is even dearer to John because he has not done these deeds in isolation; instead, Gaius has done this in the face of a local dominating church leader named Diotrephes.
Understanding that John knows all of these things as he wrote this letter, one can only imagine the kind of trust, love, admiration, and appreciation for Gaius which had budded within John’s heart.
Mimic Good Behavior, Not Evil
It is an important transition to which we find the words, “do not imitate evil, but imitate good.” The reality is that Gaius is already doing good, for he is living in “truth.”
Perhaps John is cautioning Gaius to be mindful of responding to Diotrephes’s tactics with the same measure of carnality.
The force of the verb is that of an earnest plea, or that of a command (imperative). In either case, John is imposing his apostolic presence to compel Gaius to stop mimicking (“do not imitate”) evil (kakos),[54] which suggests that perhaps he had given in to the carnality of the combat instigated by Diotrephes.
Consequently, John had to impose on Gaius to repent (though the word is not there) and to continue his honorable work of supporting evangelists. Here we learn the lesson that when “church problems” affect evangelism we must repent so that peace may return to the congregation. Wise leadership will shield its congregation from needless battles of words with ungodly individuals, for peace is better than a war of words.
We must imitate good, and that means we must submit our passions to God (cf. Jas 1:19-20; Rom 12:9-21; 1 Cor 11:1). In this light, the apostle desires to pull Gaius away from the distractions which come from in-fighting to refocus himself so that he may support Demetrius, who was probably the letter courier (v. 12). And like Demetrius, Gaius must reflect the truth through commendable behavior.
In order to hammer this point down, an important contrast is struck. It is in many ways, “a moral test.”[55] The test is a simple one: is your lifestyle described as continuing and practicing good or evil?[56]
If your life is consistently soured by evil, worthless, base, even criminal behavior – like Diotrephes – then you have not seen God; essentially saying, you are not in fellowship with God for you do not know him (1 John 3:4-6).
A Christian cannot be consistently immoral and think they are well-pleasing to the Lord. Consequently, Gaius is called upon to be found behaving as he ought to, as a faithful benefactor in the kingdom of God. Only then can it be said that he is “from God”.
It has been well observed:
Gaius was a man of influence and he had shown a Christian spirit in all things; yet John knew that Satan is no respector of persons and it would be a great blow to the church if Satan could cause this loyal church member to behave in a n unchristian manner.[57]
Oliver B. Greene, The Epistles of John (1966)
Could this be the apostle’s loving way to bring Gaius back from the cliff of carnality, a moment where the heat of battle was changing Gaius into the very thing he had sworn to defend the church from? Possibly. Nevertheless, the lesson is ours.
A Recommendation (v. 12)
It has been said that without influence one cannot lead. John wrote his letter 3 John – the briefest document in the New Testament – to encourage Gaius in his own time of need. To influence him to do the right thing.
There is evidence within the letter suggesting that there was a concern that Gaius needed the advice of verse 11, calling upon him to imitate (Grk. mimeomai) good, civil, non-detrimental behavior.
Such strong appeals reflect that Gaius may have come to the edge in his own crisis. Missions killer, Diotrephes, and his own evil, criminal, and detrimental methods may levy their toll upon Gaius, and now he may feel compelled to enter the fray of church politics with a war of words.
John implores Gaius to maintain; despite the conflict, be a child of God – be a “doer of good” (= supporter of evangelism). In this connection, the apostle introduces Demetrius, who most likely bore the letter to Gaius, and places a stamp of approval upon him.
Demetrius has received a good testimony from everyone, and from the truth itself. We also add our testimony, and you know that our testimony is true.
It is not altogether clear who Demetrius is, and what exactly is his relationship with John, Gaius, and Diotrephes. In the light of any concrete evidence, there are a number of reasonable connections to consider.
In the New Testament, the proper name Demetrius is found in this letter (12) and in Acts with reference to an Ephesian silversmith (19:24, 38). The two are most likely different individuals.[58]
Some have observed that Demas is a shortened form of Demetrius, and may very well be a repentant detractor from among Paul’s co-laborers (2 Tim 4:10). The latter case is not probable (see below). The name, however, is quite common in the inscriptions.[59]
Demetrius in this sense is a mystery to us; however, he is a Christian known to John and Gaius, but we are blessed by his notice in this letter due to his example of faithfulness.
John sets forth Demetrius’ faithfulness by appealing to three witnesses. (1) The church bears witness of his faithfulness, (2) the “truth” as understood in this letter as that of good Christian conduct expressed in the support of evangelistic pursuits, and (3) John and his group go on record on behalf of Demetrius.
“The threefold witness to Demetrius should stir our desire to emulate his character”:the universal testimony, a good testimony from the truth itself, and a good testimony from John and his circle.[60]
(1) Universal testimony
The text begins, “Regarding Demetrius, it has been witnessed by all …”[61]; or, “Demetrius has witness borne to him by all.”[62] Unlike Diotrephes, and much like Gaius, Demetrius’ good reputation precedes him.
Demetrius has a well-known, geographically dispersed reputation within the church of faithfulness. Furthermore, this is not a new development for John uses the Greek perfect indicative which denotes a present state of affairs resulting from a past action.[63] In other words, Demetrius’ character was of good report in the past and continues to be in the present (hence, not Demas).
Consistent character is a wonderful blessing to the church! Too many times there are those who are more like shooting stars, bright shining spectacles which fade away as quickly as they emerged. The church needs steady hands, devoted hearts, and ready feet.
Demetrius was of great influence in the work of the church, and it can be seen why he would pose such a great contrast to Diotrephes (11).
(2) Good testimony from the truth itself
The second testimony which John appeals to is that which comes from truth. In fact, he compounds it with the testimony that “everyone” else makes regarding Demetrius.
Gaius lived in truth, walked in truth, and testimony of his support of evangelists had reached John (vv. 3, 6). In the same vein, then, it seems that Demetrius is so commended. Here we may learn something about Demetrius’ role in the church.
Some suggest that Demetrius is a traveling evangelist bearing this letter from John, which sets forth the principle that support for such noblemen ought to be provided (7-8). Demetrius is one such nobleman who have left for the sake of the name, needing support; in this way the truth of Christian thinking commends him.
Others observe that Demetrius may in fact be a member and leader of the local congregation (house church?), who is known to John, Gaius, and Diotrephes. He may very well have reported to John what had been going on at “home.”
Now on return, John sends a brief note designed to commend Demetrius for his faithfulness to the church there, acknowledging Gaius’ faithfulness as well, and to denounce Diotrephes from afar with the hope to address him in person.
In either case, Gaius and Demetrius have everything in common spiritually. They share the same “Christian way” of thinking which places the Gospel and missionary imperative as the backdrop for all of their actions. Would that we could capture the spirit of evangelism demonstrated by these first-century Christians.
(3) Good testimony from John and his circle
This third commendation comes more specifically from the apostolic circle. The apostle makes it abundantly clear that Demetrius is known and commended by an authoritative source.
John anticipates that Gaius knows the value of his apostolic testimony. Here we find why John appeals to Gaius to imitate good (11), instead of imitating evil behavior as expressed by mission killers.
Verse 12 suggests three criteria of commendable church leadership. Leaders in the church must reflect Christian character and behavior, perspective governed by a Christian worldview that is evangelistic at its core, and behave consistently with apostolic authority.
Missions and Prudence
As a footnote to the last point above, we must add that those who have left for the sake of the name are commendable for the reasons listed above. These traits are the result of training and development.
Can we imagine that John would send just “anyone”? Hardly. The most important work in the world to go into all the world should not be carried out by novices (Matt. 28.19-20). They were prepared before they left and well-supplied to do the work.
A Face to Face Visit (vv. 13-14)
I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink. I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face.
In John’s closing remarks, he makes it abundantly clear that this brief letter is only the beginning. The letter is to encourage Gaius to continue his support of evangelism, to denounce Diotrephes’ hostile church leadership, and commend to the local church the conduct of Demetrius.
As John sums up his letter, he reemphasizes to Gaius that there is much which cannot be solved with “pen and ink” (cf. 2 John 12).
In fact, John points to a wealth of matters to which he had a desire to write about when he began to write,[64] but under the present circumstances wisdom pressed him to refrain from a “war of words”.
This is a personal point to which John makes abundantly clear of his “present unwillingness to go on writing the other things ‘with pen and ink.’”[65] The apostle shows that church problems are not solved with ongoing writing, particularly when it can be solved with a personal visit (v. 10).
The phrase “ink and pen” (melanos and kalamos), similar to another phrase the apostle uses in 2 John 12 “paper and ink” (kartos and melanos), reflect the common tools for written communications. John literally says, with “black” and “reed-pen.”[66] Calling attention to these tools of communications – writing technologies – acknowledges the limitations of such to do the work to which leaders must avail themselves.
Church leadership is not for cowards who can hide behind the defenses of ink and pen leveling charges at a distance. The need to confront sin, or deal with matters of more delicate and personal nature is better resolved “face to face” (v. 14).
Consequently, the many things which “the elder” had the initial impulse to write to Gaius will not be developed in text form. Perhaps this is one of the greatest lessons gleaned from this letter – when to silence the pen.
One can only ponder over the kind of treatise the document would have been; it doubtless would have called into question Diotrephes’ conduct and the crisis he instigated. Nevertheless, John wanted quality time with Gaius so we should not assume all the matters at hand were negative in nature.
After all, John held “hope” in his heart to be with his “fellow worker” (v. 8) very soon. There was a planned visit in John’s itinerary to arrive on the scene with Gaius, Diotrephes, the church, and perhaps even Demetrius. His words are not threats but promises to rectify the situation.
He looks forward to a time when they can speak intimately “face to face” (lit. “mouth to mouth”). Unimpeded by the limitations of ink, pen, and paper, the “vividness” of thought and timbre would set the tone for the work to be done at the local level for which John traveled to help resolve.[67]
The Farewell (v. 15)
Peace be to you. The friends greet you. Greet the friends, each by name.
Thus ends the briefest letter in the entire New Testament and the entire Bible. A common benediction is offered towards Gaius to the intent that “all felicity attend you. Those that are good and happy themselves wish others so too.”[68]
Even in the face of church dysfunction, John shows how much we must keep our perspective cool and collective; instead of being taken by the heat which pervades those so entangled in bitter words of disagreement. Instead, he wishes for peace.
And why not, they are mutual “friends” after all. The idea of “friendship” appears to be the equivalent phrase of “brethren,”[69] which is the more commonplace term for fellow Christians.
Still, it is quite possible and likely that since this is a personal letter in every aspect – from John to Gaius – the idea of “friendship” here is that which reflects the bonds of their fellowship.[70] They may have brethren in faith, but they were fraternal at heart.
Faith was the environment their relationships developed into friendships. It is true that not all Christians form tight bonds with every other Christian; however, those relationships which materialize into tender overtures of mutual affection as friends find a unique bond this side of heaven.
Zane C. Hodges writes:
The use of the term ‘friends’ twice in these closing statements is perhaps one final reminder to Gaius that Christians in every place are or should be a network of friends who are ready to help one another whenever a need arises.[71]
Zane C. Hodges in The Bible Knowledge Commentary New Testament (1983)
The readiness with which Christians must arm themselves to be a ready help to their fellow brethren is a tremendous theme within this letter.
While trouble is the main cause of the need for brotherhood reliance in 3 John, trouble should not be the only reason we rely upon each other. We must realize that we are an extension of each other.
One of the critical problems in this letter is the abuse of leadership, Diotrephes assumed a place of prominence and imposed his will on others, and gave no respect to the true authority in the form of the apostle.
We must absorb what Jesus says, “whoever would be great among you must be your servant” (Matt 20:26).
Endnotes
John H. Parker, “The Living Message of Third John,” in The Living Messages of the Books of the New Testament, eds. Garland Elkins and Thomas B. Warren (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press, 1976), 315.
Luke T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation, rev. ed., rev. Todd C. Penner (Minneapolis, MI: Fortress Press, 1999), 562.
Roy B. Ward, “How to Study the New Testament” in The World of the New Testament, ed. Abraham J. Malherbe (1967; repr. Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 1984), 170.
John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John (1988; repr. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 44.
Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament, 362-63.
J. Gresham Machen, New Testament Greek for Beginners (1923; repr. Unicoi, TN: Trinity Foundation, 2000), 48-49.
Frederick F. Bruce, The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), 147.
D. Edmond Hiebert, “Studies in 3 John Part 1: An Exposition of 3 John 1-4,” BSac 144 (1987): 62.
Daniel B. Wallace, The Basics of New Testament Syntax: An Intermediate Greek Grammar (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 222-23.
Machen, New Testament Greek, 46.
Hiebert, “Studies in 3 John Part 1,” 65; emphasis added.
Everett Ferguson, The Letters of John (Abilene, TX: Biblical Research, 1984), 99.
Bruce, The Letters of John, 149.
Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000), BDAG 873.
Stott, The Letters of John, 226.
D. Edmond Hiebert, “Studies in 3 John Part 2 (of 3 Parts): An Exposition of 3 John 5-10,” BSac 144 (1987): 199.
Stott, The Letters of John, 226.
Stott, The Letters of John, 226-27.
Michael W. Holmes, ed., The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999).
Ferguson, The Letters of John, 99.
Abraham J. Malherbe, “The Cultural Context of the New Testament: The Greco-Roman World,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1995), NIB 8:13.
Hiebert, “An Exposition of 3 John 5-10,″ 200.
Hiebert, “An Exposition of 3 John 5-10,″ 200.
BDAG 743.
David Smith, “The Epistles of John,” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (New York, NY: Doran, 1901), 5:207.
Adam Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, n.d.), 6:942.
Hiebert,“An Exposition of 3 John 5-10,″ 201-02; Stott, The Letters of John, 227-28; Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (repr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, n.d.), 2:402-03.
Stott, The Letters of John, 228.
Ferguson, The Letters of John, 99.
Guy N. Woods, A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles of Peter, John, and Jude (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1973), 362.
Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, 2:403; Charles C. Ryrie, “I, II, III John,” in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, eds. Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1962), 1484.
Smith, “The Epistles of John,” 5:207; R. W. Orr, “The Letters of John” in The International Bible Commentary, rev. ed., ed. Frederick F. Bruce (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986), 1588; Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, 2:403; Albert Barnes, 1949, James, Peter, John, and Jude, Notes on the New Testament, rev. ed., ed. Robert Frew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1949), 374.
Hiebert, “Studies in 3 John Part 2,” 203.
Stott, The Letters of John, 228-29.
Hiebert, “Studies in 3 John Part 2,” 203.
“Diotrephes,” in Zondervan’s Pictorial Bible Dictionary, ed. Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1964), ZPBD 217; Hiebert,“Studies in 3 John Part 2,” 203.
Oskar Seyffert, 1966, Dictionary of Classical Antiquities, rev. ed., rev. and eds. Henry Nettleship and J.E. Sandys (N.p.: World Publishing, 1966), 704.
Ferguson, The Letters of John, 100.
cf. Jason Jackson, “Fellow Workers for the Truth,”ChristianCourier.com, where Jackson asks the following series of questions: “Why would Diotrephes reject a legitimate request by known brothers for the spreading of the gospel? Maybe the more appropriate question is this: Why was Diotrephes making unilateral decisions?” (par. 7). Could it be that Diotrephes did not have a heart of evangelism, local or abroad? It may very well be, but the issue is most likely that of heart and self-interest of Diotrephes manifesting in the rejection of apostolic authority.
Stott, The Letters of John, 230.
Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 2d ed. (New York, NY: United Bible Society, 1989), L&N 25.110.
William E. Vine, The Collected Writings of W.E. Vine (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1996), 3:412.
Ferguson, The Letters of John, 100.
Wayne Jackson, Notes From the Margin of My Bible (Stockton, CA.: Courier Publications, 1993), 2:172
J. Jackson, “Fellow Workers for the Truth,” par. 15.
Lloyd J. Ogilvie qtd. in Hiebert, “Studies in 3 John Part 2,” 204.
BDAG 7.
Paul G. Hiebert, 1985, Anthropological Insights for Missionaries (1985; repr. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 21.
Gailyn Van Rheenen and Bob Waldron, The Status of Missions: A Nationwide Survey of Churches of Christ (Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 2002), 1-2.
BDAG 803.
Woods, A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles of Peter, John, and Jude, 360.
Van Rheenen and Waldron, The Status of Missions, 13. In fact, they go on to say, “Wherever churches exist, missionaries have overcome immense obstacles to teach unbelievers the Gospel, edify new Christians to live Christ-like lives, work together as a body of Christ, and train preachers and elders for Christian ministry” (13).
J. Gresham Machen, New Testament Greek for Beginners , 180. Machen writes, “the present imperative refers to it [i.e the action] as continuing or as being repeated.” The text literally reads, “stop mimicking the evil, instead [mimic] the good” (my translation), which would be a reference to the two opposites of Diotrephes and Demetrius – hence, the warning would suggest, “Do not imitate Diotrephes, but imitate Demetrius” (Smith, “The Epistles of John,” 208). If the rebuke and command are to make sense, it appears then we must see the good Gaius as one who has allowed the carnality of Diotrephe to get the better of him, and John is trying to bring peace back into the church setting.
Stott, The Letters of John, 232.
The words “do good” (agathopoieo) and “do evil” (kakopoieo) are common antitheses regarding causing harm (being criminal/evil doer) v. not causing harm (being good citizen/benign) in the New Testament, that they appear together four times across four different authors: 1 Peter 3:17, Mark 3:4 = Luke 6:9, and here 3 John 11 (BDAG 3, 501).
Oliver B. Greene, The Epistles of John (Greenville, SC: The Gospel Hour, 1966), 256-57.
Ronald F. Youngblood, ed., Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1989), 346.
James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1914-1929), MM 144.
F. B. Meyer, Through the Bible by Day: A Devotional Commentary (1914; repr. Franklin, TN: e-Sword, 2000-2012), comments on 3 John 1:1-14.
My translation.
John Nelson Darby, New Testament Translation (1884; repr. Franklin, Tenn.; e-Sword, 2000-2012).
Machen, New Testament Greek for Beginners, 187.
D. Edmond Hiebert, “Studies in 3 John Part 3 (of 3 Parts): An Exposition of 3 John 11-14,” Bibliotheca Sacra 144 (July-Sept. 1987): 300.
Hiebert, 1987, “Studies in 3 John Part 3,” 301.
Barclay M. Newman, Jr., A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1993), 112, 91.
Hiebert, “Studies in 3 John Part 3,” 302.
Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (n.d.; repr. Franklin, TN: e-Sword, 2000-2012), comments on 3 John 12-14.
Craig S. Keener, “Friendship” in Dictionary of New Testament Background, eds. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), DNTB 387.
Hiebert, “Studies in 3 John Part 3,” 303.
Zane C. Hodges, “3 John,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary New Testament, eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1983), 914-15.
biblicalfaith.online 