Grace Orientation vs. Arrogance
In the first four verses of
this epistle the emphasis was on walking in the truth. There was praise for
Gaius personally because of his relationship to the truth. It is crucial to understand
what truth is in order to understand what is going to happen by way of contrast
in verses 9-12. In the first eight verses there is the example of Gaius who is
walking in the light and then the switch from light to darkness in the example
of Diotrephes in the second half of the epistle. The
difference is the response to truth. This is what makes the difference between
a believer who is advancing in the spiritual life, a believer who is going t0
be rewarded at the judgment seat of Christ, a believer who is a success in the
spiritual life compared to a believer who is just an absolute failure. The
difference is their relationship to the truth.
Jesus prated in His
high-priestly prayer in John 17: “Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.” That gives us our basic definition of
what truth is; it is the Word of God. It is absolute truth, it is not relative
truth. Gaius has a positive response to the truth of God’s Word and is learning
it, responding to it, and he is advancing in his spiritual life. So John begins
by emphasising the importance to it in the first eight verses, concluding that
section with a reference to being fellow workers of the truth. He praises Gaius
for his personal priorities and putting doctrine above everything else. In verse
5 he praises Gaius because he lives faithfully; what he does he does in as faithful manner.
In verse 7 there is an
explanation. 3 John 1:7 NASB “For they went out
for the sake of the Name, accepting nothing from the Gentiles.” This is
an independent sentence, it is not connected to the previous verse, and it
begins in the Greek with the explanatory particle gar [gar] which indicates that he is giving a reason, an
explanation for Gaius’s behaviour—why Gaius is so grace oriented and so
generous, so open and warm with these travelling evangelists and missionaries.
The explanatory gar could be
translated “because.” Then “they went out [or, forth]” is the verb exerchomai [e)cerxomai]
which means to go out, to travel, to go on a journey, a mission. They were sent
out from a local congregation, “for the sake of the Name,” the Greek
preposition huper [u(per] plus the genitive which usually has the idea of “on behalf of, for
the sake of,” and in many passage it has the idea of substitution or instead
of. It recognises the fact that they had gone forth for the sake of “His name.”
Name here refers to character. When we read passages about the name of God or
the name of Christ it is emphasising who He is and what He did. He went to the
cross and died for our sins as our substitute. Gaius recognises that these
missionaries have a mission, a cause, a purpose. He recognises that their cause
is his cause. “Accepting nothing” or “receiving nothing” is the present active
participle of lambano [lambanw], meaning simply to receive. They weren’t even going
to let the unbelievers give them anything, they did not want their ministry
tainted by anyone saying they were there just to make money, to get what they
can take from us. So they ran on a strictly grace oriented basis and didn’t
even take what was offered because they did not want finances to somehow
confuse the issue.
3 John 1:8 NASB
“Therefore we ought to support such men, so that we may be fellow workers with
the truth.” All believers ought to receive such mean as these, evangelists and
teachers. The word translated “support” is huperlambano
[u(perlambanw] and it has the idea of receiving warmly, receiving
with hospitality. “Ought to” is the present active indicative of opheilo [o)feilw] which means here that it is an obligation. As
believers we have a certain obligation to support missionaries and evangelists.
When we do this, when we participate with them, we become a fellow worker, a joint
worker, a participant, part of a team “with reference to the truth” – the definite
article with aletheia [a)lhqeia].
So the conclusion is, first
of all, is that the motivation for the evangelist, the pastor-teacher, the
missionary, is to explain the gospel and to teach the truth. That is what
motivates. It is for His name’s sake, it is not for financial gain, prestige,
power, approbation or recognition. Missionaries doing evangelism and evangelists
should never ever seek financial support or even receive money from unbelievers.
Believers back home are to financially support the missionary. This makes the
believer part of the team.
There is a tremendous
contrast in this epistle between Gaius on the one hand and Diotrephes
on the other. Gaius is humble, positive and praiseworthy. On the other hand, Diotrephes is self-absorbed and arrogant; he is trying to
build his own little empire and he rejects the truth.
Gaius is a man who loves the truth, he loves the Word of God. He wants to learn the Word
of God and apply the Word of God. He is consistently applying doctrine and
walking by means of the truth. There is application of doctrine in his life; he
is a man who has character transformation because of the Word of God. Therefore
as a result of that we know that there is doctrinal orientation there, he is
thinking biblically. As a result of thinking biblically he has grace
orientation and is demonstrating hospitality and generosity.
3 John 1:9 NASB
“I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who
loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say.” Gaius is just a
member of the local church. He is not a pastor and not in the leadership. Now
we find out why John has had to write Gaius this letter. [10] “For this reason,
if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing
us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive
the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire {to do so} and puts {them}
out of the church.”
Gaius received the brethren
and strangers; Diotrephes doesn’t receive the brethren,
he has no vision for missions, no involvement with missions,
is not generous, not hospitable. He is a tightwad, is self-absorbed, and
just the opposite of Gaius. So we see this contrast wet up
between the two.
Diotrephes rejects authority and rejects truth. He rejects John’s
authority. Gaius submitted to the authority of John, he had true humility and
teachability, and he was grace oriented. He welcomed the truth; Diotrephes rejected the truth.
Diotrephes is arrogant, he loves to
have the pre-eminence and wants to be out there getting all of the attention. Gaius
is operating in the background. He is hospitable and supportive of the
missionaries but he is not doing it to draw attention to himself.
3 John
Diotrephes is ejecting people from the congregation. He doesn’t
receive the brethren and he forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the
church. He is imperious, cold, and authoritarian. He doesn’t care about people, he just cares about power and his own agenda. He is
involved in sins of the tongue, maligning, slandering and gossiping about the
apostle John. So rather than welcoming the truth and those who support the
truth, walking in the truth and supporting those who promote the truth, he is
self-serving. That makes him antagonistic to missionaries who are supporting
the truth.