3 John 1

3 John 1:1-99

NOTES ON 3 JOHN

— — — —

1. ὁπρεσβύτερος ] Cf. 2 John 1:1 note.

Γαίῳ ] Three persons of this name are mentioned in the N. T. (1) Gaius the Macedonian, who is mentioned together with Aristarchus in connection with the tumult in the theatre at Ephesus (Acts 19:29). They are described as Macedonians, fellow travellers of S. Paul. (2) Gaius of Derbe, one of S. Paul’ s companions on his last journey to Jerusalem. (3) Gaius of Corinth. Cf. Romans 16:23, Γαίοςὁξένοςμουκαὶὅληςτῆςἐκκλησίας : 1 Corinthians 1:14, ΚρίσπονκαὶΓάιον , whom S. Paul mentions as the only Corinthians, besides the household of Stephanas, whom he had baptized himself.

Of this Gaius, Origen says that according to tradition he was the first Bishop of Thessalonica. Cf. Origen, Comm. in Ro. x. 41, “ Fertur sane traditione maiorum quod hic Gaius primus episcopus fuerit Thessalonicensis ecclesiae.” Dom Chapman’ s ingenious attempt to connect the Epistle with Thessalonica on this ground is not convincing (see Introd.). Coenen (ZWTh., 1872, p. 264 ff.) has attempted to show that Gaius of Corinth is intended in the “ fictitious” address of this Epistle, on the ground of the similarity of the conditions prevailing here and at Corinth, as testified by the Pauline Epistles. The similarities are of too general a character either to compel identification or even to make it probable. Coenen’ s interpretation of ὁἐρχόμενος (2 Corinthians 11:4) as a “ pillar apostle whom S.

Paul’ s opponents threatened to invite to Corinth to overthrow his authority,” is certainly not helped by the statement in our Epistle of the Elder’ s intention of paying a visit to the Church of Gaius. But perhaps it is not necessary now to spend time in dealing with the theory that the two smaller Johannine Epistles owe their origin to the desire of the “ great unknown” to gain credence for the view that his more important forgeries (the Gospel and First Epistle) were really the work of the son of Zebedee.

As Windisch says, “ III. (i.e. 3 Jn.) fü r Fiktion zu erklä ren, widerspricht allen gesunden Sinnen.” The statement in Const. Apostol. vii. 46, that Gaius was the first Bishop of Pergamus, is of too slight historical value to guide our conjectures as to the recipient of this Epistle (vid. Introd.). Bartlet’ s suggestion of Thyatira does not claim more than relative probability. But all such attempts at identification of the Church or the individual addressed are mere speculation. Where our knowledge is inadequate the building up of hypothesis is of the nature of pastime rather than of serious work.

Truer scholarship is seen in Harnack’ s less interesting judgment, “ Gaius, to whom (the Epistle) is addressed, receives no title of honour. That he occupied a prominent position in his Church is clear from what follows.” In Commentaries, if not in periodicals, the rule should be remembered that “ there is a time to keep silence.”

τῷἀγαπητῷ ] A favourite word of the writer of these Epistles, in which it occurs ten times, though it is not found in the Gospel. For its use in salutations, cf. Romans 1:7, Romans 1:16:5, Romans 1:8, Romans 1:9, Romans 1:12; Colossians 4:9, Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:2; Philemon 1:1.

ὃν … ἀληθείᾳ ] Cf. 2 John 1:1 (notes).

εγω ] om. boh-cod.

2. περὶπάντων ] must be taken with εὐοδοῦσθαι . The writer prays for the prosperity of Gaius in all respects, and especially in the matter of health. There is no need to alter περὶπάντων into the conventional πρὸπάντων of epistolary introductions. The converse change would be far more likely to have taken place.

εὐοδοῦσθαι ] Bartlet’ s ingenious conjecture that the other name of Gaius may have been Euodias, is again outside the sphere of commentary. The word is part of the common and conventional language of Epistles. For its use in the N. T., compare Romans 1:10; 1 Corinthians 16:2. Cf. also Hermas, Sim. vi. 3, 5.

δγιαίνειν ] The word may possibly suggest that Gaius’ health had caused his friends anxiety; but it certainly does not necessarily do so. Its use in letters is conventional. Cf. Oxyrh. Pap. ii. 293 (p. 293), ΔιονύσιοςΔιδύμῃτῇἀδελφῇπλειστὰχαίρεινκαὶδιὰπαντὸ [ς ] ὑγιαίνειν , and ii. 292 (p. 292), πρὸδὲπάντωνὑγιαίνεινσεεὔχομαιἀβασκάντωςτὰἄρισταπράσσων .

καθὼς … ψυχή ] Cf. Philo, Quis rer. div. heres, p. 514 (Wendland, iii. p. 65). Philo is commenting on “ μετ ʼ εἰρήνηςτραφείς ” (Genesis 15:15). Πότεοὖντοῦτοσυμβήσεταῖ ; ὅτανεὐοδῇμὲντὰἐκτὸςπρὸςεὐπορίανκαὶεὐδοξίαν , εὐοδῇδὲτὰσώματοςπρὸςὑγίειάντεκαὶἰσχύν , εὐοδῇδὲτὰψυχῆςπρὸςἀπόλαυσινἀρετῶν .The reference is to be found in Wettstein.

καιῦγιαινειν ] om. boh-codd. | καθως ] + και Ic 364 (137).3. ἐχάρην ] Cf. 2 John 1:4; Philippians 4:10.

ἐρχομένων … καὶμαρτυρούντων ] The tense almost precludes the reference of the words to a single occasion, and their evidence should not be so interpreted in attempts to discover the historical setting of the Epistles. They suggest rather the means by which the Elder kept himself in touch with the Churches for whose welfare he regarded himself as responsible, and over which he exercised his supervision.

σουτῇἀληθείᾳ ] As always in the Johannine writings, “ truth” covers every sphere of life, moral, intellectual, spiritual. Those who visited Ephesus had from time to time borne witness that Gaius’ whole life corresponded to the highest standard of life and conduct.

περιπατεῖς ] Cf. note on 1 John 1:6.

εχαρηνγαρ A B C K L P al. pler. boh-codd. syrbodl et p Thphyl. Oec.] om. γαρ א 4. 5. 6. 13. 25. 65. 100 dscr vg. boh-ed. sah. arm. aeth. | σου ] σοι Ia 64 (328) sah. (uid.) | τηαληθεια ] τηναληθειαν Ia 158, 1100 (395): caritati boh-cod. | συ ] pr. και 22. 56. 80. 98 arm-codd. (uid.): om. A 37.

4. μειζοτέραν ] Cf. ἐλαχιστοτέρῳ , Ephesians 3:8; Deissmann, Bibel Studien, p. 142, who quotes Pap. Lond. 130, μεγιστότατος .

τούτων ] explained by the clause introduced by ἵνα . The plural is used instead of the singular, as the writer is thinking of more than one occasion on which he had experienced the joy of which he speaks. If this explanation of the plural is correct there is no need to correct the text by supplying ἤ before ἵνα , as Wilamowitz suggests (Hermes, 1898, p. 531). In his interesting note on the Epistle he does not offer any explanation of τούτων . Cf. John 15:13, μείζοναταύτηςἀγάπηνοὐδεὶςἔχει , ἵνατιςτὴνψυχὴναὐτοῦθῇ . The ἤ is actually found in one Greek cursive.

χαράν ] The variant χάριν is probably due to scribe, who substituted a commoner phrase. Cf. 2 Corinthians 1:15. For χαρά , cf. 1 John 1:4; 2 John 1:12; Philemon 1:7.

τὰἐμὰτέκνα ] Those over whom he exercises his fatherly supervision, whether actually his “ children in the faith” or not. The bearing of this phrase on the meaning of τέκνα in the Second Epistle should not be overlooked.

μειζοτεραν ] μειζοτερον Ib 78-157 : μειζονα 137 | τουτωνουκεχω ] post χαραν H 257 (33) Ia 505. 192 (69) O 46 (154) | τουτων ] ταυτης 27. 29. 31. 40. 66**. 68. 69. 73 dscr al. fere. 10 sah. boh-ed. syrbodl Dam. | ουκεχω ] post χαραν C 31. 68 aeth. | ουκ ] om. Ic 364 (137) | εχων B* | χαραν א A C K L P al. pler. cat. tol. arm. sah.] χαριν B 7. 35 vg. cop. | ινα ] pr. η 69 vg. (maiorem horum … quam ut) vid. sup. | ακουσω Ia 216 δ 355 (301) | τεκνα ] σπλαγχνα Ic 114 (335).

5. ἀγαπητέ ] Cf. vv. 1, 2.πιστὸνποιεῖς ] either (1) “ thou doest a faithful thing,” an action corresponding to the faith that is in thee, which is the natural meaning of the word, if we consider the general usage of the writer, though there is no exact parallel; or (2) “ thou makest sure whatsoever thou mayest do,” thou doest that which shall not “ fail of its true issue,” shall receive its due reward. Cf. Xen. (quoted by Wettstein) ἂνμὲνδέῃταῦταποιεῖνπιστά , ὁμήρουςδοτέον .

ὃἐὰνἐργάσῃ ] The judgment is expressed absolutely, the present tense being used. The ὃἐὰνἐργάσῃ covers both the past action, to which the recipients of Gaius’ hospitality have borne public witness before the Ephesian Church, and the future benefits, which the Elder feels confident that Gaius will confer at his request.

καὶτοῦτοξένους ] For καὶτοῦτο , cf. 1 Corinthians 6:6, ἀδελφὸςμετὰἀδελφοῦκρίνεται , καὶτοῦτοἐπὶἀπίστων : Philippians 1:28, ἔνδειξις … ὑμῶνδὲσωτηρίας , καὶτοῦτοἀπὸθεοῦ : Ephesians 2:8, τῇγὰρχάριτιἐστὲσεσωσμένοιδιὰπίστεως · καὶτοῦτοοὐκἐξὑμῶν . Its use in Romans 13:11 is rather different.

The recognition of the duty of φιλοξενία among Christians is fully testified, 1 Timothy 5:10; Romans 12:13; Hebrews 13:2; Heb_1 P. 4:9, as also the special duties of the leaders in this respect, 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:8. Cf. also Herm. Sim. ix. 27, ἐκδὲτοῦὄρουςτοῦδεκάτου , οὗἦσανδένδρασκεπάζονταπρόβατάτινα , οἱπιστεύσαντεςτοιοῦτοίεἰσιν · ἐπίσκοποιφιλόξενοι , οἵτινεςἡδέωςεἰςτοὺςοἴκουςἑαυτῶνπάντοτεὑπεδέξαντοτοὺςδούλουςτοῦθεοῦἄτερὑποκρίσεως … οὗτοιοὗνπάντεςσκεπασθήσονταιὑπὸτοῦκυρίουδιαπαντός . Justin, Apol. i. 67, αὐτὸςἐπικουρεῖ … καὶτοῦςπαρεπιδήμοιςοὖσιξένοις .

πιστον ] pr. uenim et boh-cod.: πιστως Ia 175 (319) |εργαση א B C K L Pal. omnuid cat. etc.] εργαζη A | τους ] om. H δ 6 | καιτουτο א A B C 17. 27. 29. 33. 66**. 68. 81. 97. 126mg vg. syrbodl et p sah. cop. arm. aeth.] καιταυτα Ia 200f (83): καιειςτους K L P al. pler. dscr cat. Thphyl. Oec.

6. οἳἐμαρτύρησανκ .τ .λ .] The ἀγάπη to which they bore witness was clearly manifested in the hospitable reception of those who were strangers to him, some of whom must subsequently have visited Ephesus. It is natural to interpret this verse as referring to one of the occasions mentioned in ver. 3, or more than one if the witness is to be regarded as a single fact, though including a series of acts.

ἐνώπιονἐκκλησίας ] The absence of the article is significant. The anarthrous phrase denotes a meeting of the Church at which the witness was borne. Cf. 1 Corinthians 14:19, 1 Corinthians 14:35, ἐνἐκκλησίᾳ : John 18:20, ἐνσυναγωγῇκαὶἐντῷἱερῷ : also 6:59.καλῶςποιήσειςπροπέμψας ] The reading ποιήσαςπροπέμψεις is probably a correction. καλῶςποιήσεις is a common phrase in letters, and no special stress should be laid on it. It is a conventional expression. In many papyrus letters the double future occurs. Many letter writers would have written καλῶςποιήσειςπροπέμψεις .

But the textual evidence does not justify our attributing such a solecism to the author. For the phrase, cf. Tebtunis Pap. i. 56, p. 167, καλῶςοὖνποιήσῃςεὐχαριστῆναιπρῶτονμὲντοῖςθεοῖςδεύτερονδὲσῶσαιψυχὰςπολλάς : 57, p. 168, καλῶςοὖνποιήσειςἀπολύσαςαὐτούς : Oxyrh. Pap. ii. 294 (p. 294), εὖοὖνποιήσιςγράψαςμοιἀντιφώνησιν : 297 (p. 298), καλῶσποιήσειςγράψειςδιὰπιττακίων : 299 (p. 300), καλῶςποιήσειςπέμψειςμοιαὐτάς : 300 (p. 301), καλῶςποιήσειςἀντιφωνήσασάμοιὅτιἐκομίσου : i. 116 (p. 182), καλῶςοὖνποιήσαντεςδότεπαράμμωνι . It is so common that a schoolboy uses it sarcastically, ii. 119, καλῶςἐποίησεςοὐκἀπένηχέςμεμετὲσοῦεἰςπόλιν . Cf. also ps.-Aristias, 39, καλῶςοὖνποιήσειςκαὶτῆςἡμετέραςσπουδῆςἀξίωςἐπιλεξάμενοςἄνδραςκ .τ .λ .: 46, καλῶςοὖνποιήσεις … προστάξας .

προπέμψας ] Cf. Titus 3:13, σπουδαίωςπρόπεμψονἵναμηδὲναὐτοῖςλείπῃ . It is also found in Acts and the earlier Pauline Epistles (Ro.; 1, 2 Co.).

ἀξίωςτοῦθεοῦ ] Cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:12, εἰςτὸπεριπατεῖνὑμᾶςἀξίωςτοῦθεοῦτοῦκαλοῦντοςὑμᾶςκ .τ .λ . The adverb is also found with the following genitives: τῶνἁγίων (Romans 16:2), τῆςκλήσεως (Ephesians 4:1), τοῦεὐαγγελίουτοῦΧριστοῦ (Philippians 1:27), τοῦκυρίου (Colossians 1:10).

οι ] o K | σου ] σοι Ia 64 (328): om. Ib δ 309 (35) | τηναγαπην H 162 (61) Ic 364 (137) | εκκλησιας ] pr. της Ia 200. 175. 101 (83) O46 (154): ecclesiarum eorum boh-ed. | ους ] ου B* | ποιησειςπροπεμψας א A B K L P etc. (ποιεις 7. 18. 27. 29. 68 demid. tol. al.) am. fu. tol. demid. boh-sah.] ποιησασπροπεμψεις C vg. (benefaciens deduces) arm. (deducis) | αξιως ] αξιους Ia 70. 175 (505) | τουθεου ] τωθῶ Ia 70.f (505) O46 (154): om. Isa_55 (236).

7. ὑπὲργὰρτοῦὀνόματος ] gives the reason why they deserve such help. For the phrase, cf. Acts 5:41, χαίροντες … ὅτικατηξιώθησανὑπὲρτοῦὀνόματοςἀτιμασθῆναι . We may also compare Romans 1:5, ὑπὲρτοῦὀνόματοςαὐτοῦ . Dom Chapman’ s interpretation of the phrase as hinting at “ withdrawal from the scene of persecution,” or even banishment, at a time when the mere fact of being a Christian was enough to procure condemnation (cf. 1 P. 4:14, εἰὀνειδίζεσθεἐνὀνόματιΧριστοῦ : 15, μὴὡςφονεύς … εἰδὲὡςΧριστιανός , μὴαἰσχυνέσθω ) is wholly unnatural. As Bartlet has pointed out, it might be possible if the phrase used were διὰτὸὄνομα .The absolute use of τὸὄνομα , which is found in the passage quoted from Acts (cf. also Philippians 2:9), is also to be found in Ignatius (ad Eph. iii. εἰγὰρκαὶδέδεμαιἐντῷὀνόματι : vii. εἰώθασινγάρτινεςδόλῳπονηρῷτὸὄνομαπεριφέρεινἄλλατινὰπράσσοντεςἀνάξιαθεοῦ : ad Philad. x. δοξάσαιτὸὄνομα ).

The “ name” is clearly that of Christ. The fact that their having gone out on behalf of the name is put forward as the reason why they deserve hospitality, certainly does not carry with it the necessity of regarding the “ name” as that of “ brother.” Missionaries no doubt proclaimed the brotherhood of believers, but their first duty was to proclaim the name of Christ.

ἐξῆλθαν ] probably from Ephesus, though Dr. Westcott’ s more cautious statement, “ from some Church well known to the Apostle and Gaius,” is alone completely justified by the facts known to us from the Epistle and by the language used.

μηδὲνλαμβάνοντες ] The form of the sentence states more than the bare fact. It was their custom, a custom which emphasized the character of their work, to carry out the spirit of the Commission to the Twelve , and the tradition established by Paul (cf. 2 Corinthians 12:14, ἑτοίμωςἔχωἐλθεῖνπρὸςὑμᾶς , καὶοὐκαταναρκήσωοὐγὰρζητῶτὰὑμῶνἀλλ ʼ ὑμᾶς : 1 Thessalonians 2:9, νυκτὸςκαὶἡμέραςἐργαζόμενοιπρὸςτὸμὴἐπιβαρῆσαίτιναὑμῶνἐκηρύξαμενεἰςὑμᾶςτὸεὐαγγέλιοντοῦθεοῦ . They carried out as their rule of mission work the Pauline custom of refusing support from those amongst whom they were working as Missionaries. They had therefore a special claim on the hospitality and help of the Churches in places through which they had to pass. There is an interesting parallel to the sentence in the Didache xi. 6, ἐξερχόμενοςδὲὁἀπόστολοςμηδὲνλαμβανέτωεἰμὴἄρτον , ἕωςοὗαὐλισθῇ , ἐὰνδὲἀργύριοναἰτῇψευδοπροφήτηςἐστίν . It is hardly necessary to deal at length with the interpretation which connects ἐξῆλθαν with ἀπὸτῶνἐθνικῶν , and bases their claim to help on the fact that they had been expelled from their home because of their faith, “ eiecti erant propter religionem ab extraneis, nihilque secum apportauerunt” (Carpzov quoted by Poggel).

ἀπὸτῶνἐθνικῶν ] For λαμβάνειν with ἀπό , cf. Matthew 17:25, ἀπὸτίνωνλαμβάνουσιντέλη ; and for the contrast between Christians and ἐθνικοί , cf. Matthew 5:47, ἐὰνἀσπάσησθετοὺςἀδελφοὺςὑμῶνμόνον ,τίπερισσὸνποιεῖτε ; οὐχὶκαὶοἱἐθνικοὶτὸαὐτὸποιοῦσιν ;

τουονοματος א A B C K L P al. plu. cat. am. fu. sah. cop. syrp txt armed. Thphyl. Oec. Bed.] + αυτου minusc. mu. vg. demid. syrbedl et p armed. aeth. | λαμβανοντες ] λαβοντες Ib 157 (29) | απο ] παρα 5. 13. 29. 118 dscr Rev_5 | εθνικων א A B C Rev_12 fu. tol. (gentilibus) boh-ed.] εθνων K L P al. longe. plu. boh-codd.: gentibus vg. am. demid. sah.

8. ἡμεῖςοὖν ] In view of their policy of refusing support from the heathen to whom they minister, we Christians are under a special obligation to do what we can to forward their work.

ὀφείλομεν ] Cf. 1 John 2:6, 1 John 3:16, 1 John 4:11, and John 13:14.ὑπολαμβάνειν ] The ἀπολαμβάνειν of the Textus Receptus must be merely a scribe’ s error; the word is always used in the sense of receiving or getting, or getting back what is due . ὑπολαμβάνειν occurs elsewhere in the N.T. only in the Lucan writings, in the various senses of answer, suppose, receive (νεφέληὑπέλαβεναὐτὸνἀπὸτῶνὀφθαλμῶν , Acts 1:9). The usage of the LXX is similar. But in other Greek it is often used in the sense of receiving with hospitality, and especially of supporting. Cf. Strabo, p. 653, οἱεὔποροιτοὺςἐνδεεῖςὑπολαμβάνουσιν . It suggests support as well as welcome.

τοὺςτοιούτους ] Cf. 1 Corinthians 16:16, ἵνακαὶὑμεῖςὑποτάσσησθετοῖςτοιούτοιςκαὶπαντὶτῷσυνεργοῦντι , and ver. 18, ἐπιγινώσκετεοὖντοὺςτοιούτους . All who act on such principles have a claim on our help and support.

συνεργοὶγιν . τῇἀληθείᾳ ] The word may mean either (1) become fellow-workers with them in the cause of the truth, or (2) become fellow-workers with the Truth. In support of (1) are quoted 2 Corinthians 8:23, κοινωνὸςἐμὸςκαὶεἰςὑμᾶςσυνεργός : Colossians 4:11, οὗτοιμόνοισυνεργοὶεἰςτὴνβασιλείαντοῦθεοῦ . There is no other example of συνεργός with the dative in the N.T., the usual construction being with the genitive, either of the person or the work, or with a preposition. But the dative with συνεργεῖν is not uncommon. Cf. James 2:22, ἡπίστιςσυνήργειτοῖςἔργοισαὐτοῦ .

Cf. also 1 Est 7:2, συνεργοῦντεςτοῖςπρεσβυτέροιςτῶνἸ .: 1 Mac. 12:1, ὁκαιρὸςαὐτῷσυνεργεῖ . In view of this usage, and the writer’ s use of ἀλήθεια , which he often almost personifies, the second is more probably the correct interpretation. Cf. ver. 12, ἀπ ʼ αὐτῆςτῆςἀληθείας .

υπολαμβανειν א A B C * 13, 16. 27. 29. 46. 66**. 68. 73. 126mg Oeccod] post τοιουτους Ia 56 (316): απολαμβανειν Ccav K L P al. pler. cat. Thphyl. | γινωμεθα ] post αληθεια Ia 251 (326): γενωμεθα K 42. 69. 105 al. fere.10 cat. Thphyl: γινομεθα C 100 | αληθεια ] εκκλησια א * A.

9. ἔγραψα ] The addition of αν is clearly an attempt to remove the (supposed) difficulty of admitting that a letter written by an Apostle has not been preserved, or could have failed in its object. It must have been added at a time when the supposed reference to the Second Epistle was unknown, or at any rate not accepted.

τι ] Cf. Matthew 20:20, αἰτοῦσάτιἀπ ʼ αὐτοῦ . It must be taken as strictly indefinite. It suggests neither something great nor something insignificant. Its omission in the Textus Receptus is probably due to error.

τῇἐκκλησίᾳ ] The local Church of which Gaius and Diotrephes were members. Cf. S. Paul’ s usage in his earlier Epistles (1, 2 Th.; Gal.; 1, 2 Co.) and the usage of the Apocalypse (1:4, 2:1, etc.).In spite of the close resemblance in form between the Second and Third Epistles, which certainly favours the view that they are companion Epistles, and the many points of similarity in the circumstances of the Churches to which, or to members of which, they are addressed, the context of ver. 9; makes it almost impossible to see in the words ἔγραψάτιτῇἐκκλησίᾳ a reference to the Second Epistle. (Cf. Introduction, 83.) It must, of course, be admitted that Diotrephes probably favoured, or at least condoned, the Gnostic or other teaching which the writer condemns in the Second Epistle. And in spite of what Harnack has said, it is doubtful whether that Epistle “ must have contained a reference to the sins of Diotrephes if it had been addressed to the Church of which he was a member.” But ver. 9; must be read as it stands, between verses 8 and 10.

The reception, or the refusal to receive, the Missionary brethren is the subject of both these verses. The letter to which reference is made in the intermediate verse, and which the writer fears that Diotrephes will suppress or persuade his Church to neglect, if, indeed, he has not already done so, must have contained some reference to the question of the hospitable reception of these brethren. If we add to this the totally different aim of the two letters, on which Harnack rightly lays stress, the warning not to receive false brethren in the Second, and the exhortation to welcome the true brethren in the Third Epistle, the case against the supposed reference is convincingly strong. The most natural interpretation of the words is that the Elder wrote to the Church a letter of similar content to the private letter to Gaius, exhorting them to show hospitality to Demetrius and the brethren whom he commends to their care: but knowing the power of Diotrephes to oppose his wishes he wrote a private letter to Gaius, a member of the Church on whose loyalty he could thoroughly depend. The Second Epistle, with its sharply expressed prohibition of any intercourse with those who claimed the rights of brethren, but who had forfeited them by their false teaching, fails altogether to correspond to the requirements of the case.

ἀλλ ʼ ] The letter had been written, but the writer feared that it would fail to secure the carrying out of his wishes.φιλοπρωτεύων ] not found elsewhere, except in Patristic writings, where it is derived from this passage. A scholion in Matthaei (p. 162) explains it as equivalent to ὁὑφαρπάζωντὰπρωτεῖα . The cognate φιλόπρωτος and φιλοπρωτεία are both found. Of the passages quoted by Wettstein in illustration of the word two will suffice: Plutarch, Alcibiad. p. 192, φύσειδὲπολλῶνὄντωνκαὶμεγάλωνπαθῶνἐναὐτῷτὸφιλόνεικονἰσχυρότατονἦνκαὶτὸφιλόπρωτον : Agesil. 596 D, φιλονεικότατοςγὰρὢνκαὶθυμοειδέστατοςἐντοῖςνέοιςκαὶπάνταπρωτεύεινβουλόμενος . The word expresses ambition, the desire to have the first place in everything. It should not be pressed either to prove or disprove the possession by Diotrephes of an “ episcopal” position. It certainly does not suggest “ aspiring to a place not already obtained.”

αὐτῶν ] The members of the Church to which the Elder had written. For the construction, cf. 1 Corinthians 1:2, τῇἐκκλησίᾳτοῦθεοῦ … ἡγιασμένοιςἐνΧριστῷἸησοῦ .

οὐκἐπιδέχεταιἡμᾶς ] ἐπιδέχεσθαι is not found in the N.T., except here and in the following verse, where it is used in a somewhat different sense. Diotrephes refuses to recognize the authority of the Elder and those who side with him. Cf. 1 Mac. 10:1, κατελάβετοΠτολεμαίδακαὶἐπεδέξαντοαὐτὸνκαὶἐβασίλευσενἐκει : 12:8, ἐπεδέξατο … τὸνἄνδρα … ἐνδόξως : 12:43, 14:23. In papyri it is used for “ accepting” the terms, of a lease, etc. . For its use in ver. 10 we may compare Oxyrh. Pap. 2:281 (p. 272), ἐγὼμὲνοὖνἐπιδεξαμένηαὐτὸνεἰςτὰτῶνγόνεωνμουοἰκητήριαλειτὸνπαντελῶςὄντα .

εγραψα ] εγραψας B sah.: + αν א c 13. 15. 18. 26. 29. 33**. 36. 40. 49. 66**. 73. 180 dscr cat. vg. syrbodl et p | τι א A B C 7. 29. 66**. 68 sah. cop. arm.] om. K L P al. pler. vg. syrbodl et p aeth. Thphyl. Oec. | αλλ ] quia sah. | ο ] οτι Ia 106, 397 (179) | αυτων ] pr. τηαληθεια Ia 173 (156) | Διοτρεφης ]Διοτροφης Ia 264 (233) boh-ced.: Διατρεφης H162 (61) | οτρεφης Hδ 6 | ουκ ] ουδε H162 (61) | αποδέχεται Ia 397f (96).

10. διὰτοῦτο ] Because of his refusal to recognize our authority, and the lengths to which he has gone in opposing us in consequence.

ἐὰνἔλθω ] Those who find in the Second Epistle the letter to which ver. 9; refers naturally see in these words a reference to ver. 12 of that Epistle . They are equally well explained by the expectation expressed in ver. 14 of this letter. The writer perhaps speaks somewhat less confidently of his coming than he does of the arrival of false teachers in the Church to which 2 Jn. is addressed . But the difference between the two constructions cannot be pressed.

ὑπομνήσω ] Cf. John 14:26, ὑπομνήσειὑμᾶςπάνταἃεἶπονὑμῖνἐγώ . The Elder will recall to them the whole conduct of their leader and show it in its true light.

τὰἔργα ] Cf. John 3:19 ff . The writer is confident that the conduct of Diotrephes will not stand the light of truth, and that the Church will recognize the fact.

λόγοιςπονηροῖςκ .τ .λ .] Two accusations are brought against Diotrephes: his boastful opposition to the Elder and his friends, and his harsh action in the matter of the Missionaries.φλυαρῶν ] Cf. 1 Timothy 5:13, οὐμόνονδὲἀργαὶἀλλὰκαὶφλύαροι (uerbosae, vg.) καὶπερίεργοι , λαλοῦσαιτὰμὴδέοντα . Oecumenius interprets ἀντὶτοῦλοιδορῶν , κακολογῶν . The word is not found elsewhere in the N.T. It emphasizes the emptiness of the charges which Diotrephes brings against the Elder in so many words.

μὴἀρκεσθεὶςἐπὶτούτοις ] Cf. 1 Timothy 6:8, τούτοιςἀρκεσθησόμεθα : Hebrews 13:5, ἀρκούμενοιτοῖςπαροῦσιν . The construction with ἐπί is not found elsewhere in the N.T. The nearest parallel to this passage is, perhaps, 2 Mac. 5:15, οὐκἀρκεσθεὶςδὲτούτοιςκατετόλμησενεἰςτὸ … ἱερὸνεἰσελθεῖν .

οὔτε . . καί ] For the construction, cf. John 4:11, οὔτεἄντλημαἔχειςκαὶτὸφρέαρἐστὶνβαθύ .

ἐπιδέχεταιτοὺςἀδελφούς ] Cf. note on ver. 9. This refusal to receive the brethren probably has special reference to some former visit of the Missionaries, when Diotrephes refused to receive them in spite of the commendatory letter which they brought with them. But the present indicates a general practice rather than a particular incident. The words may simply mean that D. will not recognize as true Christians the brethren who side with the Presbyter. He will recognize neither the Presbyter nor his followers. It is better, however, not to exclude the reference to Diotrephes’ former ill-treatment of those whom the Elder now commends to Gaius.

The question of the welcome to be given to those who went from place to place ὑπὲρτοῦὀνόματος was an important one at the time, and probably for some time afterwards. Cf. Didache 12:1, πᾶςδὲὁἐρχόμενοσἐνὀνόματιΚυρίουδεχθήτωἔπειταδὲδοκιμάσαντεςαὐτὸνγνώσεσθε , and the whole chapter, esp. 5, εἰδ ʼ οὐθέλειοὕτωποιεῖν , χριστέμπορόςἐστιν · προσέχετεἀπὸτῶντοιούτων .

τοὺςβουλομένους ] sc. ἐπιδέχεσθαι . His custom is to put every hindrance in the way of their carrying out their wishes, or he actually prevents them. The description of his action does not decide his position. The words used express action possible either in the case of a “ monarchical” bishop, or of an influential and self-willed leader.ἐκτῆςἐκκλησίαςἐκβάλλει ] John 9:34 f. is rightly quoted in illustration. But the difference in tense should also be noticed . Again a policy or practice is described rather than a single incident.

And the words cannot be used to determine the exact position of Diotrephes. Even if he had already obtained the “ monarchical” position he could not have inflicted the penalty of excommunication without the concurrence of the whole Church. And a leading presbyter might well succeed in forcing his will on the community. The words, therefore, only indicate the position of power to which he had attained. And they do not determine whether the sentence of excommunication had been actually carried out, either in the case of those who wished to receive the Missionaries to whom reference is made in this Epistle, or in any other case.

The suggestion of Carpzov, revived by Poggel, to make τοὺσἀδελφούς the object of ἐκτῆςἐκκλησίαςἐκβάλλει , involves a construction which is intolerably harsh. The writer’ s love of parenthesis, even if ὁεἰπών is the true reading in John 1:15, hardly goes so far as this. And the arguments by which it is supported are not convincing: (1) Diotrephes could not have expelled those whose only offence was the desire to show hospitality to the Missionaries; (2) if he succeeded in preventing them from carrying out their wishes, why should he go further?

υπομνησω ] ελεγξω O46 (154) | εργα ] + mala boh-cod. | πονηροιςλογοις Ia δ 180 (1319) | ημας ] pr. εις C vg.: υμας H162 (61) Ia 158 (395) Ib 62 (498) Ic 258 (56) | επι ] om. H162 (61) | επιδεχεται ] υποδεχεται Ic 208, 174 (307): + uos neque accipit sahw | βουλομενους א A B K L P al. pler. cat. am. fu. cop. syrp txt aeth. Thphyl. Oec.] επιδεχομενους C 5. 7. 27. 29. 66** vg. demid. tol. sah. syrbodl et p mg arm.: + suscipere boh. | εκ — εκβαλλει ] εκβαλλεικαικωλυειτησεκκλησιας 4 | εκ A B C K L P al. plu. Thphyl. Oec.] om. א 2. 3. 15. 25. 26. 36. 43. 95*. 98. 99. 100 bscr hscr.

11. ἀγαπητέ ] Cf. note on ver. 2.

μὴμιμοῦτὸκακόν ] Cf. Hebrews 13:7; 2 Thessalonians 3:7, 2 Thessalonians 3:9. The use of φαῦλον is more frequent in this writer, but κακόν is found in John 18:23 . It is not necessary to limit the writer’ s meaning to the examples of evil and good afforded by Diotrephes and Demetrius, especially as the conduct of the latter would seem to have needed apology. If two special examples are intended, they must be the action of Diotrephes, and that of Gaius and his friends who wished to show hospitality. But the writer’ s object is rather to set two courses of action in the sharpest possible contrast, and to help forward a right decision by showing the true character of the point at issue in all its simplicity.

Viewed rightly, it is simply a matter of refusing the evil and choosing the good. There are times when the simplest platitude in the mouth of authority is the expression of the truest wisdom; cf. Mark 3:4 (= Luke 6:9).

ὁἀγαθοποιῶνἐκτοῦθεοῦἐστίν ] Cf. 1 John 3:9, 1 John 3:10. He who “ does good” shows by his conduct that the inspiration which dominates his life and work comes from God. He who “ does evil” shows similarly that he has not made even the first step towards union with God; cf. 1 John 3:6, πᾶςὁἁμαρτάνωνοὐχἑώρακεναὐτόν (Dr. Westcott’ s note); John 3:3, John 3:5.For the use of ἀγαθοποιεῖν , κακοποεῖν , and cognate words, cf. 1P. 3:17, 2:15, 20, 3:6, 4:19, 2:12, 14, 4:15. Several points of connection between 2 and 3 John and 1 Peter have been noticed by Dom Chapman in his articles on the historical setting of these Epistles.

ο 2o א A B C K P h. al. longe. plu. cat. d vg. boh-codd. sah. syrp] +δε L 31 ascr al. mu. tol. boh-ed. arm. aeth. Did. Dam. Thphyl. Oec.

12. Δημητρίῳ ] Nothing is known of Demetrius except what can be gathered from the Epistle itself. The conjecture that he should he identified with the Demas mentioned in the Pauline Epistles (Colossians 4:14; Philemon 1:24, and 2 Timothy 4:10), and the less improbable suggestion of his identity with the Ephesian silversmith whose opposition to S. Paul is recorded in Acts 19:21 ff., have been referred to in the Introduction. Purely conjectural identification is hardly a branch of serious historical study. But the mention of Demetrius here may be interpreted in different ways. (i.) It is possible to regard him as a member of the Church of Gaius and Diotrephes, whose conduct had somehow or other given cause for suspicion, even if we cannot follow the ingenious attempts of Weiss to show that he must have been the leader of the Church to whom under the special circumstances of the case the Elder had sent his letter to the Church (ver. 9), and of whose attitude Gaius was uncertain, as he stood between the two parties (Weiss, p. 210).

(ii.) With greater probability he has been regarded as the bearer of the Epistle (3 Jn.). Wilamowitz and others are probably right in finding in this Epistle a commendatory letter on behalf of Demetrius and his companions. The special emphasis of ver. 12 is most easily explained, as Dom Chapman, Mr. Bartlet and others have seen, by the supposition that Demetrius had fallen under suspicion, though the grounds for such suspicion are altogether unknown. On the whole, the hypothesis which best suits the facts of the case which are known to us is that he was one of the Missionaries, perhaps their leader. The main object of the letter is to commend them to the hospitality of the Church of Gaius.

This the Elder had already attempted to do in a letter written to the Church. But his object had been frustrated by the machinations of Diotrephes, who had succeeded in forcing his will upon the Church.

Probably Diotrephes had found his task the easier because of suspicions felt about Demetrius, which were not altogether unwarranted. We cannot, however, say more than that of several possible hypotheses this is the most probable.ἀπ ʼ αὐτῆςτῆςἀληθείας ] Cf. Papias’ quotation of the words of the Elder (Eus. H. E. 3:39. 3), ἀπ ʼ αὐτῆςπαραγινομέναςτῆσἀληθείας . The tendency to personify the Truth is clearly marked in the Johannine writings.

The relation of the Truth, as thus personified, to Christ and to the Spirit is not so clearly defined. In view of the language of the Farewell discourses in the Gospel (cf. especially John 16:13), and the statement of 1 John 5:6, ὅτιτὸπνεῦμάἐστινἡἀλήθεια , there is much to be said in favour of Huther’ s view, that the expression αὐτὴἡἀλήθεια is not merely a personification of Truth, but a description of the Holy Spirit.

Against this, however, must be set the language of Joh 14:6, ἐγώεἰμι … ἡἀλήθεια . With this want of clearness we naturally compare the difficulty which is so often found in the First Epistle of determining whether the writer is speaking of the Father or the Son. The writer does not think in the terms of modern conceptions of personality as applied to the Godhead, or of the more precise definitions which were the result of the Trinitarian controversies. His function is rather to provide the material out of which later thought developed clearer definition.

In what manner the “ Truth” is said to bear witness to Demetrius is a different question. Probably it is in so far as his life and conduct show those who know him that the ideal of Christianity has been realized in him, that he “ abides in the truth.”

ὑπὸπάντων ] If any qualification of the words is necessary, that of Oecumenius will serve the purpose, τῶντὴνἀλήθειανἐχόντων . And his further suggestion is appropriate, εἴτιςτὸὑπὸπάντωνκαὶἐπὶτῶνἀπίστωνἐκλάβοιδιὰτὸπεριληπτικὸντοῦπᾶςμορίου , οὐκακῶςοὗτοςὑπολαμβάνωνφωραθείη , and also his comparison of S. Paul’ s πάνταπᾶσινἀρέσκω . But the natural exaggeration of this use of πάντων , where the meaning practically is “ all whom the matter may concern,” or “ all who might be expected to do the thing spoken of,” is common in all language, and is best left to explain itself.

καὶἡμεῖςδέ ] For the construction, and also for the combination of the witness of men with the higher witness, cf. John 15:26 f. ἐκεῖνοςμαρτυρήσειπερὶἐμοῦ · καὶὑμεῖςδὲμαρτυρεῖτε , ὅτιἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆςμετ ʼ ἐμοῦἐστέ . The meaning of ἡμεῖς in these Epistles is often difficult to determine,— a difficulty which is unnecessarily exaggerated by the attempt to discover one meaning which it must have throughout. It is certainly unsatisfactory to find in it an expression for the αὐτόπται of the Province of Asia as often as Dr. Zahn suggests, a fact which his critics are never tired of emphasizing. But there are several passages in which the writer would certainly seem to mean by ἡμεῖς himself and all who can speak with authority as to the truth of Christianity and the teaching of Christ, and where he is, perhaps, thinking primarily of a company, most of whose lives “ have passed into the unseen.” At any rate, he means something more than “ I and those who are like-minded with me.” It is not altogether fanciful to suppose that the words of Joh 15:26 f. are in his mind as he writes. In the present verse, however, there is nothing to suggest that he means more than “ we who are personally acquainted with Demetrius.”

οἶδαςκ .τ .λ .] The close connection of this clause with John 21:24, καὶοἴδαμενὅτιἀληθὴςαὐτοῦἡμαρτυρίαἐστίν , is obvious. There is very little to determine which should be regarded as the echo of the other.

οἶδας ] The plural of the Textus Receptus is not well supported, and the personal appeal to Gaius is more natural. Possibly the correction is due to the influence of the plural in John 21:24.

The writer apparently makes his appeal to Gaius’ knowledge of himself, and the trustworthy character of his witness in general. It is possible, however, that he is thinking of Gaius’ knowledge of Demetrius, which would help him to judge of the truth of the Elder’ s witness in this particular case.

αυτης ] om. boh. sah. | τηςαληθειας ] pr. τηςεκκλησιαςκαι C syrbodl et p mg arm. : τηςεκκλησιας A* | καιοιδας א A B C al. plus 20 cat. d vg. sah. boh-ed. arm.] καιοιδατε K L P al. longe. plur. syrbodl et p aeth. Thphyl. Oec.: καιοιδαμεν 14*. 38. 93. 104. 180 Rev_3 scr boh-codd.: om. ascr: om. και Hδ 6 | η -εστιν ] αληθηςημωνεστιν (εστ . ημ .68) ημαρτυρια C 68: αληθηςεστινημαρτ . ημ .31aeth.

13-15. The close of the Epistle

13. γράψαι … γράφειν ] This is probably the true text, though the variants γράφειν — γράψαι are found. The use of the tenses is correct. The “ much” which he has to communicate is naturally regarded as a whole, the aorist being used. But he does not wish to go on using pen and ink .

μέλανος ] Cf. 2 John 1:12.

καλάμου ] The reed, the pen of the ancients, here takes the place of the writing material mentioned in 2 Jn. Cf. Psa_44. (45.):1, κάλαμοςγραμμάτεως , Oxyrh. Pap. 2:326 (p. 306) παρατέθεικα

τῇμητρὶφιλουμένῃτὸβροχίοντοῦμέλανοςκαὶτοὺςκαλάμους .

ειχον ] ηθελον Ib 157 (29): habens boh-ed (?) | γραψαισοι א A B C Rev_10 d vg. sah. cop. syrbodl et p arm. (uobis codd.) aeth. Thphyl.] γραφειν K L P al. pler. cat. Oec.: συγγραψαι Ic δ 299 | ουθελω ] ουκεβουληθην A :ουκηθελον 27: nolui vg. | δια — καλαμου ] per chartam et atramentum arm. | σοιγραφειν א B C 5. 27. 31. 33. 105] γραφεινσοι A 73: σοιγραψαι K L P al. pler. cat. Thphyl. Oec.: om. σοι 4.16arm.

14. ἐλπίζω … ἰδεῖν ] Cf. 2 John 1:12, ἐλπίζωγενέσθαιπρὸςὑμᾶς .

The εὐθέως may possibly suggest that the intended journey is nearer than when 2 John was written. The action of Diotrephes, and perhaps of others in other places, may have brought matters to a crisis.

στόμαπρὸςστόμα ] Cf. 2 John 1:12 (notes).εἰρήνησοι ] The Christian wish (cf. John 14:27) takes the place of the usual ἔρρωσο , or ἐρρῶσθαίσεεὔχομαι of ordinary correspondence.

ἀσπάζονται ] In the private letter the private greetings are given instead of the general greeting of the members of the Church in the more formal Epistle (2 John 1:13).

σειδειν A B C 5. 31. 73. d vg.] ιδεινσε א K L P al. pler. cat. cop. Thphyl. Oec.: uenire ad te sah. | λαλησομεν ] λαλησωμεν K 22. 26. 33. 41. 99 Thphyl.: λαλησαι H 103, 162 (25) I a 70, 200f (505): loqui tibi arm.

15. ἀσπάζουτοὺςφίλουςκατ ʼ ὄνομα ] These forms of greeting are part of the common stock of epistolary correspondence, and should not be pressed as evidence about the state of parties in the Church of Gaius. It is especially misleading to interpret κατ ʼ ὄνομα as a proof of the scanty following left to the Elder in it. Compare the greetings in the letter of Amon the soldier to his father (Berlin Museum: Deissmann, Licht von Osten, p. 118), ἄσπασαιΚαπίτωναπολλὰκαὶτοὺςἀδελφούςμουκαὶΣερήνιλλανκαὶτοὺςφίλουςμου : and Oxyrh. Pap. ii. 123, ἀσπάζομαιτὴνγλυκυτάτηνμουθυγατέραΜακκαρίαν , καὶτὴνδεσποίνηνμουμητέρανὑμῶνκαὶὅλουςτοὺςἡμῶνκατ ʼ ὄνομα : or Tebtunis Pap. ii. 299 (p. 422), ἀσπάζομαιτὴνγυναῖκάνμουκαὶτὰπαιδίαμουκαὶΣεραπάμμωνακαὶἈματίανκαὶτοὺςἐνοίκουςπάνταςκατ ʼ ὄνομα .

ειρηνησοι ] om. Ia 170 (303) | σοι ] uobis arm-codd. | οιφιλοι א B C K L P al. pler. d vg. sah. cop. syrbodl syrp txt arm. Thphyl. Oec.] οιαδελφοι A 3. 13. 31. 33. 65. 67 dscr syrp mg aethutr | ασπαζου ] ασπασαι א 40 | τουςφιλους ] τουςαδελφους 33. 81. 160 boh-cod. syrp:+ σου H δ 6. 162 : + nostros arm. | κατονομα ]+αμην L 15. 26 vg. mss. arm.

A δ 4. Codex Alexandrinus. London. Brit. Mus. Royal Libr. I. D. v.-viii. (v.).

B δ 1. Codex Vaticanus. Rome. Vat. Gr. 1209 (iv.).

C δ 3. Codex Ephraimi. Paris. Bibl. Nat. 9 (v.); 1 John 1:1 τους — (2) εωρα [κομεν ]. 4:2 εστιν — (3 John 1:2) ψυχη .

L α 5. Rome. Angel. 39 (ol. A. 2. 15) (ix.).

P P. α 3. Petersburg. Bibl. Roy. 225 (ix.). Palimpsest. 1 John 3:2-1 του .

א Ԡ א . δ 2. Codex Sinaiticus. Petersburg (iv.).

13 13 ( = 33gosp.). δ 48. Paris. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 14 (ix.-x.).

Ψ̠δ 6. Athos. Lawra 172 (β 52) (viii.-ix.).

h. h. Fleury Palimpsest, ed. S. Berger, paris, 1889, and Buchanan, Old Latin Biblical Texts, Oxford (v.). 1 John 1:8-20.