The Epistles of John, verse-by-verse

Session 21 | 3 John 1-8

3 John 1-2 | Greetings

Verse 1 -- The author again introduces himself as the elder, as in 2 John. In 1 John he makes no introduction at all. Thus, as we have mentioned before, it is best to conclude that we have an unknown author. The style is so similar in all three that it would be a natural conclusion to assume the same author throughout. Church tradition has always attributed these to John the Apostle, but such tradition is not without some weakness. I would say the author is likely either John or Lazarus.

The author writes unto the well-beloved Gaius. There is a Gaius mentioned in three other places of Scripture; Acts 19:29, 20:4, Romans 16:23, and 1 Corinthians 1:14. If we assume that these are all the same man, then Gaius was baptized by Paul (1 Cor. 14:1), was Paul's host when he wrote Romans (Rom. 16:23), and was Paul's traveling companion in Ephesus (Acts 19:29, 20:4). We could not assume that because he was Paul's companion that he was not Jewish and living Kingdom principles (compare Silas, Barnabas, and Timothy, for example). There is also the possibility that it is not the same Gaius at all. In the end, all we can conclude is that he was well-beloved. The elder says that he loves Gaius in the truth“truly" (as in the KJV margin) or taken in a connection to the truth of the Messiah.

Verse 2 -- The elders wish (or prayer, see KJV marginal note) is that Gaius would prosper and be in health to the same degree as his **soul **prospereth. The words **prosper **/ prospereth are from a Greek word with the literal meaning of good way, εὐοδόω [euhodo], thus is is broader than financial prosperity.

3 John 3-4 | The Author's Joy

Verse 3 -- We have no way of knowing why the testimony that Gaius was walking in the truth caused the author to have such rejoicing. Had he strayed from the truth? Was he new to the truth and of such influence that his witness would be great? We do not even know who ***the ***brethren that came and testified are, nor from whence they came.

If Gaius was Paul's host and traveling companion (see notes on verse 1), then that would have been in the late 50s or early 60s. If, as tradition holds, this letter was written sometime after AD 90, then why is the author rejoicing to hear that which has been happening for decades? Was this a different person altogether, or there had been a straying from the faith? Or do we misinterpret the date of 3 John? Unfortunately, all scenarios involve speculation.

Verse 4 -- Clearly the author has a close relationship with Gaius, and a closer relationship with truth. The phrase my children is almost certainly meant to be figurative.

3 John 5-8 | Fellowhelpers of the truth

Verse 5 -- The word faithfully is an adjective, likely describing Gaius rather than the work. The unnamed work itself is directed to the brethren, and to strangers. The brethren are presumably those in the church (see note, next verse) while strangers are not part of the church but seem to be part of the truth.

Verse 6 -- Either the strangers or both the brethren and the strangers are they which have borne witness of thy charity (that uniquely Christian expression of love). This witness was shared before the church. The word church does not imply Body of Christ but could be any assembly. In this context, it is likely a Jewish assembly that had recognized Jesus as Messiah and was walking faithfully in Him.

The word whom refers to those who have borne witness, not to the church (as it is plural and church is singular). Gaius is encouraged to assist them (bring forward) on their journey and to do so after a godly sort (i.e.: in a godly manner).

Again, we have no details about the journey except what we have here and what we can responsibly conclude.

Verse 7 -- “missionaries" were going for his name's sake“Great Commission"?), there were taking nothing of the Gentiles. This phrase should immediately alert the right divider that the context is Jewish,“missionary message" is one of the Kingdom.

For those who fail to rightly divide, the phrase is unbelievably problematic. For example, the New International Version changes Gentiles into pagans. The Lexham English Bible {LEB) also uses pagans“That is, Gentile unbelievers (as opposed to Gentile Christians)." Not only is the translation to pagan unsupported, but the LEB footnote is simply creative thinking (i.e.: Evangelical Garbage). The NET Bible (out of Dallas Theological Seminary) also uses pagans“Since the issue here is support for the traveling missionaries, and there is no indication that the author would want to forbid receiving support from Gentile converts to Christianity, the word pagans must refer to Gentile unbelievers, i.e., pagans. The traveling missionaries sent out to combat the false teaching of the secessionist opponents have been accepting nothing by way of support from non-Christians." The Christian Standard Bible (a creation of LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention) also uses pagans“Or Gentiles."

As stated earlier, it seems to make much more sense to take this passage in the plain sense“missionaries" were going forth with a Messianic / Kingdom message that was not germane to the Gentile population (Christian or Pagan), and thus they were taking nothing of the Gentiles. “pagan" interpretation, one wonders if there were any missionaries, even those of the Grace message, who supported themselves with pagan offerings?

Verse 8 -- The author encourages Gaius and the broader fellowship to receive such to be fellowhelpers to the truth. These are self-explanatory words and could be applied to many contexts.

About this episode