3 John

Name, Canonical Status, and Authorship

The title given in ancient manuscripts identifies this private letter with 1–2 John, which circulated more widely. Although included in canon lists from the fourth century ce, 3 John was not widely cited, perhaps because it is addressed to an individual rather than a community. Since its conclusion is nearly identical with that of 2 John, scholars presume that the same individual composed both letters. In antiquity all the Johannine letters were attributed to John the son of Zebedee, as was the Gospel. Modern scholars distinguish the author of 1–3 John from the evangelist.

Historical Context

Third John reflects a social setting of a group of loosely associated churches of the Johannine tradition that is comparable to that of 1–2 John. But there is no hint here of the secessionist controversy that so troubled 1–2 John. The author appears to live in a city (perhaps Ephesus) that serves as a node from which emissaries were dispatched to other churches in the region. Such missionaries depended upon hospitality in the house churches when they traveled (cf. Rom 16.1–2). The elder is seeking support for his emissaries from a house-church leader, Gaius, because another well-known Christian leader, Diotrephes, refuses to accept anyone associated with the author.

Structure, Contents, and Interpretation

Third John follows the standard model for a private letter: an opening greeting from sender to recipient followed by a wish for the recipient's health (vv. 1–4); letter body (vv. 5–12); conclusion with travel plans and additional greetings (vv. 13–15). Rhetorically the body opens with praise for the recipient's well-known hospitality to traveling Christians (vv. 5–8) before addressing the issue at hand (vv. 9–12).

In ancient diplomacy, refusing hospitality to an envoy was an insult to the sender. Third John does not indicate what led Diotrephes to prohibit members of his house church from having anything to do with persons sent by the elder (vv. 9–10). Some scholars have suggested a dispute between a charismatic teacher in the Johannine tradition, “the elder,” and Diotrephes, whose leadership was based on the beginnings of a monarchic episcopate (as in 1 Tim 3.1–7). Others observe that Diotrephes could have taken the elder's rule in 2 John 10 against giving hospitality to false teachers to its logical conclusion: do not welcome any outsiders. Though Gaius may have heard about the Diotrephes incident, he does not have any direct connection with that community.

Whatever caused Diotrephes to reject envoys from the elder, 3 John provides a glimpse into the early Christian mission ca. 100 ce. Personal networks of hospitality maintained by traveling envoys linked small house-church communities together. Travelers preferred the hospitality of believers to that of outsiders.

Pheme Perkins

1The elder to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth.

2Beloved, I pray that all may go well with you and that you may be in good health, just as it is well with your soul. 3I was overjoyed when some of the friendsa arrived and testified to your faithfulness to the truth, namely how you walk in the truth. 4I have no greater joy than this, to hear that my children are walking in the truth.

5Beloved, you do faithfully whatever you do for the friends,a even though they are strangers to you; 6they have testified to your love before the church. You will do well to send them on in a manner worthy of God; 7for they began their journey for the sake of Christ,b accepting no support from non-believers.c 8Therefore we ought to support such people, so that we may become coworkers with the truth.

9I have written something to the church; but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. 10So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing in spreading false charges against us. And not content with those charges, he refuses to welcome the friends,a and even prevents those who want to do so and expels them from the church.

11Beloved, do not imitate what is evil but imitate what is good. Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God. 12Everyone has testified favorably about Demetrius, and so has the truth itself. We also testify for him,d and you know that our testimony is true.

13I have much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink; 14instead I hope to see you soon, and we will talk together face to face.

15Peace to you. The friends send you their greetings. Greet the friends there, each by name.

1–4: Letter opening and health wish. This opening follows the pattern found in routine private correspondence (contrast 2 Jn 1–3), indicating that the letter involves only the two individuals and is not to be read in the church community (contrast Philem 1–3). 4: My children is the elder's designation for Christians who share his teaching.
5–12: Letter body. 5–8: The elder uses a rhetorical strategy to enlist the goodwill of Gaius, whom he does not know personally, by praising Gaius for the reports that traveling missionaries give about his hospitality. It was an axiom in early Christian circles that those who offered hospitality shared in the good work of evangelization (see Phil 4.10–20; Mt 10.40–42). 9–11: The elder asks Gaius to supply his associates with the hospitality that Diotrephes has recently refused. 9: Does not acknowledge our authority is diplomatic language for not receiving the envoy sent by an authority. It does not mean that the elder himself claimed to have authority over Diotrephes or his house church. 12: A note of recommendation for Demetrius, who may have carried the letter (cf. Rom 16.1–2).
13–15: Letter closing. See 2 Jn 12–13.
a Gk brothers
b Gk for the sake of the name
c Gk the Gentiles
d Gk lacks for him