It has been a little over four years now that I've been preaching to you every Sunday morning, and in that time we've spent a good deal of attention to the work of the Apostle John. We started in the last half of John's gospel in the upper room discourse and worked all the way through the resurrection. We saw John quite a bit as we went through the book of Acts. Currently working through the book of Revelation, and my plan is that in a couple of weeks, we'll pick back up with the study in Revelation. But today, Lord willing, we're going to complete the study of John's personal letters. I say all that to say I am certain that I have spent more time preaching the collective works of the Apostle John in the last few years than any other biblical writer. I am less certain, though, that I have done him justice. I was joking the other day, I would not be entirely shocked that someday in glory the aged little Apostle walks up to me and kicks me in the shin. Andrew's already read the text in a public reading this morning, but let's look at it again as we work our way through this letter. It's going to be our goal to note this morning the three men of 3 John. The elder unto the well-beloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth. Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospers. For I rejoiced greatly when the brethren came and testified of the truth that is in you, even as you walk in the truth. I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth. Beloved, thou doest faithfully whatsoever thou doest to the brethren and to strangers which have borne witness of thy charity before the church, whom, if thou bringest forward on their journey after a godly sort, thou shalt do well. Because that for his name's sake they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles. We therefore ought to receive such, that we might be fellow helpers to the truth. I wrote unto the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, receives us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he does. Priding against us with malicious words, and not content therewith, neither does he himself receive the brethren, and forbids them that would, and casts them out of the church. Beloved, follow not after that which is evil, but that which is good. He that does good is of God, and he that does evil has not seen God. Demetrius has a good report of all men, and of the truth itself. Yea, and we also bear record, and you know that our record is true. I had many things to write. But I will not with ink and pen write unto thee, but I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face. Peace be to you. Our friends salute you. Greet the friends by name. Let's pray. Heavenly Father, we do thank you for this day. We thank you for this opportunity you've given for us to come together and to fellowship. Thank you, Lord, for this word that you have recorded by your servant, John, that you've preserved through the centuries and that you've allowed us to read this morning. Please give us an understanding of it so that it would illuminate our hearts. You'd use your Holy Spirit to open our words to the message of this letter and that we would see the need to walk faithfully in truth. Please forgive us where we fail you. For it's in Christ's name we pray. Amen. The introductions that we've done to the letters of 1st and 2nd John are probably going to be adequate in setting the scene and the purpose of this letter. Since this is a very personal letter written from the apostle to a man named Gaius, there's just not much available within its contents to set a specific timetable or a location for us. You think about the nature of a personal letter, the year and the respective cities where they live. Those were known to Gaius and they were known to John, and there's just no reason to have those recorded in here. And that leaves us with a little bit of a puzzle. And I tend to think that it's a puzzle that is not meant for us to solve. It's very tempting to try to make a connection between 2 John and 3 John. If you remember, 2 John was written to the elect lady, and we said that that might be a person, or it's more likely, in my opinion, to be that John is addressing a church, and many have tried to make a connection with what John says down in verse 9 of our text here, where he says, I wrote to the church, but diatrophies wouldn't receive it. And so it's possible that verse 9 is a reference to the letter of 2 John. But honestly, that seems like a stretch to me. More likely, This diatrophies, this controlling of a church, and the apostle, when the apostle that he doesn't like writes to him a letter that he doesn't like, he doesn't allow it to be read in the church. That thing never saw the light of day, much less get passed down through Christendom and become what we know as 2 John. It's probably the letter that's being referred to in verse 9 was destroyed by diatrophies. John says in verse 10 that since the letter was rejected, there is the possibility, he says, wherefore if I come, really, that's more when than it is if. By the time we get to verse 14, he's confident he's going to come in person. It's most likely that the message was destroyed, and so the messenger is now going to come in person. So I don't see a clear connection between 2nd John and 3rd John in regard to some specific event, or the same specific church, and the way things are unfolding. But certainly, the two letters do shed light on one another in regard to John's mindset, especially his teaching in regard to hospitality. If you remember, in 2nd John, the apostle discouraged displays of hospitality to those, who were supposed missionaries, but they were teaching in opposition to Christ. John explains in 2 John, don't receive them, don't bring them in, don't help them. And now in this letter, John shows us both a positive and a negative example of Christian hospitality in the person of these three men who we see in this letter. Gaius had embraced hospitality, Diotrephes had refused hospitality, and by the time we get to the end of the letter, Demetrius needs hospitality. Now, even though we don't have a specific location or a specific church involved, we can get a pretty good mental picture of what's happening. John is almost certainly, as he's writing this, located in Ephesus on the eastern coastline of Asia Minor, and he seems to be writing this letter to Gaius, who is a man who is within the sphere of his influence, but at some considerable distance away so that a quick journey is not possible. It's going to be more involved to travel there. So perhaps Gaius was living in that Lycus Valley where we talked about a few weeks ago, the cities of Heropolis and... Laodicea and Colossae were located, and there would have been other smaller towns, smaller villages, and many of them would have had churches. But wherever he's writing to, there is a problem in one of these churches. The Apostle John had sent a letter, according to verse 9. And that letter would not have arrived at the church, you know, in an envelope with a stamp on it, right? Letters were not sent by postal carriers. Letters were carried by faithful friends. And so some faithful friends of the Apostle John had carried the letter that he wrote to a church. But when the men arrived at that church in question, diatrophies, in verse 9, refused to have the letter read. In verse 10, he denied them any kind of Christian hospitality to those messengers of John. And at the end of verse 10, he threatened anybody else who would want to show them any kindness. Now, if you remember from 2 John, we talked about how hospitality worked in the first century. That showing hospitality to a traveler, a missionary, someone who's come with a message, was essentially, it's the equivalent of endorsing that message. So what diatrophies had done in refusing to welcome them, was not just being rude to them, it was purposefully insulting to the Apostle John. By rejecting John's messengers, Diotrephes was openly rejecting John's message. Now, Gaius, who receives this letter, We'll see in a moment. He was nothing like Diotrephes. He received the missionaries who came from John. He puts them up in his home. He even provided for them as they left and continued on their travels. So this letter is written as a commendation from John. The first eight verses offers thanks and encouragement to Gaius. Verses 9 through 11 warn him about the dangers of diatrophies. And then the end of the letter encourages him to accept and help Demetrius, who was likely the man who was carrying this letter to its destination. So with that basic introduction to the letter, let's dive into those three sections and see these three men in 3 John. And we'll start with Gaius. a man of spiritual strength. Verses 1 and 2 says, the elder unto the well-beloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth. Beloved, I wish above all things that you may prosper and be in health even as your soul prospers. Now, there are other men named Gaius in the New Testament. There's at least three other men that I'm familiar with. One's in Corinth, one's in Derbe, one is in Macedonia. We don't have any real reason to connect any of them to this man. Gaius was an extremely common name in the first century, as common certainly as the name John was then, or as the name John is now. What makes this Gaius distinct is that he is well-beloved. John actually uses that term four times in this letter. You can see well-beloved in verse 1, but he uses the same words in verses 2, 5, and 11, where he is the beloved that John's writing to. Now, not to re-preach former sermons, but you can see right from the first verse that the mindset of the Apostle John is, Right? He's this man who's known as the apostle of love, but that love is firmly based in truth. So just like 2 John, he uses that little phrase, whom I love in the truth. And that may well be a reference to Jesus, who is the truth. And that would tell us that Gaius believed the truth and lived in the truth, right? Gaius trusted Jesus and lived for Jesus. Ultimately, when we get to verse two, we have to do a little bit of debunking of strange doctrine. This is one of those times where we have to take at least a couple of minutes to talk about what that verse does not mean just because of famous voices who say this is what it does mean. Back in the late 1940s, the prosperity gospel got its birth or at least it got a new lease on life when a man named Oral Roberts had supposedly sat down to read a Bible verse at random and he took his Bible and he thumbed through his Bible and he ends up at 3rd John verse 2 and he says he learned for the very first time by reading 3rd John verse 2 that every Christian, God's plan for every Christian was that they would have Wealth and health and prosperity, just as he was doing with their souls. And it does say, obviously, when you look at verse 2, John says, above all, or in other words, John's primary hope for Gaius, was that he would prosper and be in health, even as his soul prospers. And on that basis, Oral Roberts launched his healing ministry, began collecting donations and accumulating his personal wealth. Well, he eventually found out that it wasn't God's intention for him to continue in perfect health. He died in 2009. All of those who declare the prosperity gospel will learn the same lesson as him. In general, this idea of health and wealth, that God's plan for every believer is for you to be wealthy and healthy, It emphasizes some of the Old Testament promises, like Randy was pointing to this morning, that were specifically given for the prosperity of the nation of Israel. It ignores Christ's teaching that riches tend to draw us away from righteousness. And it also rejects the clear context of Scripture in many places in the New Testament. Just one example you're familiar with, maybe the one that gets used most often after this, Paul's statement in Philippians 4.12, that I can do all things through Christ which strengthens me. And they take that as a promise that all things are within your reach through faith. You just have to name it and claim it, and it's going to be yours. Well, they ignore that the context of Paul there in Philippians was Paul was saying, I can live in need or with plenty, I can be content in every situation, whether I'm fed or hungry, whether I have plenty or I have nothing. Essentially, the context, Paul was thanking the church at Philippi for sending him financial assistance, but he was also assuring them that essentially, you don't need to do that because I've learned to live without it. Imagine the shock of a prosperity preacher getting on TV and looking into the camera and saying, you don't need to send me money. Here in our text, John's statement in verse 2 is just a very common first century greeting in a personal letter. It's so common, in fact, that many examples of this exist in letters outside the scripture where it has been reduced to like a six-letter acronym. So it's a tad disingenuous to take such a common phrase and make it the basis for some new theological teaching. But also, let's keep verse 2 in the context of the letter. Is there a reason why... The Apostle John hopes for Gaius that he would prosper and be healthy. Is it possible Gaius had been ill? We don't know. That's not something they would have to go into detail if the two of them were familiar with it. What we do know is how Gaius uses what the Lord makes available to him. He is a good steward of God's financial blessings by offering Christian hospitality to others. And so the next verse begins with the word for, right? It's gonna start explaining verse two. It's almost like John wasn't done when he wrote verse two. So look at verses 3 through 8. 4, I rejoice greatly when the brethren came and testify to the truth that's in you, even as you walk in the truth. I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth, beloved. You do faithfully whatsoever you do to the brethren and to strangers which have borne witness of your charity before the church, whom if you bring forward on their journey after a godly sort, you shall do well, because that for his namesake they went forth taking nothing of the Gentiles. We therefore ought to accept such that we might be fellow helpers of the truth." Gaius, had used his financial blessings in order to help John's messengers. He had shown charity, love to the church, John says. He's going to be called on for that kind of service again. So maybe the context here is that John sees this as Gaius' area of giftedness. Do you think that's what he's describing? I mean, one thing we would not teach from this is we would not teach that having wealth is sinful. The question is, what do you do with what you have? Are you using God's gifts to you for God's glory? Because if you're not using your wealth for God's glory, and you're not using, if you have a gift of teaching, are you using it for God's glory? Or if you have your ability to serve, are you using that for God's glory? If you're not using a gift of mercy that God's given you for his glory, then what was the purpose of what God gave you? Whatever you can do as God has enabled you, you must do. So, you can use your wealth to show love to others for God's glory. And if you can do that, then my prayer is that God blesses you with more wealth. If you can use your teaching for God's glory, my prayer is God blesses you with insight and speaking ability. If you have a gift of physical service, my prayer would be that God would bless you with health and strength so that you could do those things for his glory. But if you expect a prayer for health and wealth is to benefit your own selfish agenda, I don't think you can use verse two to plead your cause. What can we learn from verse 2? Well, look at it again. John's hope and prayer for beloved Gaius is that he would prosper in his health in equal measure with the way that his soul is prospering. Is that what you want for yourself? Does your faithfulness compare well to the description of Gaius' faithfulness in verses 3 through 8? What we can be certain about with Gaius is that his soul's health was in good shape. It prospers, John says. We can see in verse 3, the men who experienced Gaius's hospitality returned to John with the testimony that the truth was in Gaius because his life showed it. So does your life Declare the truth? Does your life declare Jesus? In verse 5, John can wholeheartedly endorse Gaius' behavior and label it as faithfulness. Is your behavior rooted in faithfulness? In verse 6, It's evident that Gaius' charity, Gaius' love, was on display specifically before the church. Is your love for the church demonstrated by some verifiable actions? Or can we only rely on how you say you feel about the church? Also in verses 6 and 7, Gaius took in those missionaries after being able to, he analyzed their message and he knew with certainty it matched the apostolic teaching of truth. Do you know the truth well enough that you can be discerning about it and discern it from error? In verse 8, not only had Gaius been discerning enough to receive them, he had also been dedicated enough to help them. Right? As John sent out these missionaries, Gaius in verse six, John describes, you brought them forward on their journey. The way we would say that today is you helped them on their way. He found ways to help in which John said, made him a fellow helper of the truth. Are you doing that? Is your mindset with the church, here's what I can do for the cause of Christ in the church, or is it here's what I expect the church to be doing for me? The commendations that we read of faithful Christians in the New Testament should challenge us to mimic their faith. So verse 2 is not saying, you get health and wealth just like all Christians. No, John sees a man who lives faithfully and he says to him in verse 2, my prayer is that your health prospers in equal measure to the prospering of your spirit. And so, just to drive that home for a second, let me ask, if the church, right now, today, offered to activate the prayer chain on your behalf, and to fervently ask God to make your physical health immediately match your spiritual health, are you gonna take us up on that? Or are you gonna be afraid that if that happens, you're gonna have to get rushed to the hospital? Gaius is commended because Gaius is a man of spiritual strength. He loves Christ. He lives truthfully. He uses his gifts faithfully. And that's the description of him in those first eight verses. Second, let's see Diotrephes, a man with a selfish agenda. Verse nine, I wrote unto the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, receives us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he does, pratting against us with malicious words, and not content therewith. Neither does he himself receive the brethren, and forbids them that would, and casts them out of the church. One of the greatest arguments for the authenticity of Scripture is that it sometimes records embarrassing facts about the faith. The most faithful men are still presented as sinners in Scripture. Even within the church, there are problem people who have to be dealt with. In his pastoral epistles, Paul names a few names, men like Alexander and Philetus and Hymenaeus. He addresses them by name. John, in his first letter, told us that there were some secessionists, some who went out from us because they were not of us. And now in this letter he names diatrophies and it's an embarrassment to the faith. It is not a happy account. One of the issues you run into when preaching a text about a guy named diatrophies is that someone is always going to assume that what you preach is directed about a specific individual. My favorite example of this, by far, is from a man named A.T. Robertson as he writes about this section of text. This is what he says, he says, diatrophies may have been an elder, right, a pastor or a deacon, but clearly desired to rule over the whole church. Some 40 years ago, I wrote an article on diatrophies for a denominational paper. The editor later told me that 25 deacons stopped their subscription to show their resentment at being personally attacked in the paper. They saw themselves in the person of diatrophies. Since basic human characteristics have not changed in the last 2,000 years, there's bound to be similarities of experience. That should actually be encouraging to us instead of discouraging, instead of thinking, as we're tempted to sometimes, boy, I wish I could just live back in the first century where Christians were all united perfectly and everything in the church was just lollipops and gumdrops falling from the sky. We can embrace the sad truth that problems in churches have always existed. And when we see it today, it's nothing new. Let me just step outside the text for a moment and say the problem is not always a single person either. Sometimes it is the mentality of an assembly as a whole. When a church says something like, we've had six pastors in the last four years and none of them have worked out. It's possible that they chose six knuckleheads in a row, or maybe the common denominator isn't the man that they were choosing, it's the church and the expectations they have of him. In this circumstance, in this letter, it happens that the problem is a specific person. And I think what we'll find when we look at diatrophies is the basic characteristics of problematic people have not changed in the past 2,000 years. What was true of diatrophies can be seen in the character of people today. And so John delivers a stern rebuke of the attitudes that led to the conflict being described here. First off, see that diatrophies was fueled by twisted ambition. Verse nine, I wrote unto the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us. Now, take a note of something that's not here, because the Apostle John has been very bold and clear in his previous letters about addressing doctrinal error. And with that in mind, when you look at 3 John, what doctrinal error is Diotrephes accused of? I don't see it. If there was a doctrinal error, if there was some deficiency of truth that was leading to this, I have to think that the Apostle John would have identified that for us. And so the problem seems to be one of ambition, not one of doctrine. And no doubt, diatrophies of defense would be, well, everything I'm saying is true. I agree with you doctrinally on every level. That's not the issue. There is an issue of ambition here. I wrote the church, John says, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them. That word preeminence is in Greek, philo-protoio, which is a compound word from philo, which is one of the Greek words for love, and protos, which is the Greek word for first, right? Diotrephes' attitude was love me first. Diotrephes refused John's letter and John's messengers, not because I think he deemed them to be doctrinally contrary to him, but because accepting them was contrary to his selfish ambition. Diotrephes loved to be, and insisted on being, first place. He had to be admired above all. So a person like Diotrephes could probably point to good and caring things that they do for others, but the motive of that was not promotion of Christ. The motive of that was promotion of self. The error in this mindset is telling, I think, when we look at the only other time in the New Testament where this word preeminence gets used. In Colossians 1, Paul says that Jesus created all things, existed before all things, holds all things together so that he is the head of the body, the church, and quote, that in all things he might have the preeminence. Jesus is to be first place. Listen, I try not to be one of those guys who would scold somebody for using the term, my church, as long as what they mean by that is the church where I'm a member or the church where I pastor. But there is an attitude that a person can get in which he stops thinking of the church as the Lord's church and starts thinking of the church as that's my church. It happens in churches nowadays with pastors, with deacons, or with the head of influential church families. That's my church. As soon as we start thinking of a church as my church, we follow diatrophies into thinking that we hold a position that belongs to Jesus alone. Next, John shows how that twisted ambition started to fuel destructive accusations. Look at the middle of verse 10 where John says, Diotrephes had been pratting against us with malicious words. Diotrephes turned to slander in John's absence. There's a sense in which John, I think, knows this will stop if I come, or really what he's saying in verse 10 is when I come. One of the sure signs of faulty character is when a person behaves differently towards you in person than they would when you're not there. If you get to know a person and you see those kind of personality shifts, like if you get to know me and you notice that nice Jason comes out in certain groups of people, then you know nice Jason isn't the real Jason. It would be a major character flaw. Until John comes and puts a stop to this, he expects diatrophies is going to keep it up. The idea of pratting malicious words is babbling false accusations. The NIV takes kind of a free hand with translation in a lot of places, but it does well here when it translates this as he's spreading malicious nonsense. The meaning isn't that Diotrephes misunderstood or thought he was doing right, because those things can happen, but the meaning here is that he's intentionally lying and doing it with wicked intent. He is engaging in character assassination. And it gets even worse because what began with twisted ambition and fueled destructive accusations was then displayed in domineering authority. John says Diotrephes wasn't content with malicious slander in verse 10. He says, he wasn't content with that, neither does he himself receive the brethren and forbids them that would, and casts them out of the church. You get this, he rejected John's letter, he denied the messengers any hospitality, and he insisted that nobody else could do that either. What began as loving first place, ended up with demanding first place. He became dictator Diotrephes. This is an extreme situation, but it can happen nowadays too. I mean, can you imagine our church getting a letter directly from the Apostle John and having someone stand up and say to the messengers that brought it, you're not reading that here, you're not welcome here, you're not staying here, you're not staying with anybody who is here, because if they put you up, they're not going to be here for long either. Diotrephes maintains such totalitarian control of the assembly that this threat that he makes to exclude members if they disobey him, apparently he could accomplish that. Now, it doesn't seem to be John's purpose to write to Gaius in order to scold Diotrephes. I don't know that Diotrephes was ever going to read this. He's gonna come and deal with that guy in person. And, you know, as much as you get a picture of the Apostle John in your head, or as I described him, the little aged apostle of love, I'm pretty sure the John of the Gospels is still inside there somewhere, right? The John who Jesus called one of the sons of thunder who wanted to rain down fire on a village of Samaria that offended him. That guy is still in there somewhere, and diatrophies is gonna be answering for this. But instead, John's letter here, his writing is to warn Gaius about Diotrephes' influence and to encourage Gaius to follow good examples instead. There is something about, as strange as it sounds, there is something about a church dictator who, it can appear admirable, right? Because you look at a church like that, well, nobody gets out of line. Because nobody dares to contradict the authoritarian hand. And so from the outside, it can look appealing. It can look like, oh, look, that's the way that it should be. But John writes to Gaius, who I think is probably in a nearby church, and says, don't follow that pattern. Don't look at it and think that that's the pattern to follow. Verse 11, beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that does good is of God, and he that does evil has not seen God. The word follow there is the Greek word mimitis. It's where we get our words for mimic, or mime, or imitate. The behavior of diatrophies was not behavior to imitate. But since John says imitate what's good, he follows up this bad example with a good example. He's going to go to the next point. Demetrius, a man of a good report. Verses 12 through 14. Demetrius has good report of all men, and of the truth itself, yea, and we also bear record, and you know that our record is true. I had many things to write, but I will not write with ink and pen unto you, but I trust I shall see you shortly. And we will speak face to face. Peace be to you. Our friends salute you. Greet the friends by name. Now verses 13 and 14 are not really about this person Demetrius. The final two verses are a traditional conclusion to a personal letter. Although it is tempting to spiritualize them just a bit. There's at least a couple of Christian writers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries that say John wrote this letter of 3rd John after being released from the Isle of Patmos. And so this letter of 3rd John, they say, is the very last thing that he wrote. If that's true, and it's far from certain that it's true, I don't think that it is, But if that was the case, it would make verses 13 and 14 the very final words of New Testament revelation. And it's interesting to think that Holy Scripture, which comes from Jesus and points to Jesus, might end with the basic message of, okay, no more words on paper, but I'm gonna come see you soon. Watch for it. Right? Although I do think revelation is the final word of inspired scripture. And when we get to the end of revelation sometime in like 10 years, we'll find out that it's not really, it's pretty similar to this. It's not unlike the same kind of ending. But the context of the personal letter here, points the expectation of John coming to Gaius. In the meantime, since Gaius has helped the other missionary messengers of John, right? And since John is encouraging him to imitate good examples of Christian faith, John presents Demetrius as one of those good examples. Very likely, remember this isn't, letters aren't getting carried by the post office. Very likely Demetrius was handed this letter, it would have fit on one little papyrus page in the first century. Very likely Demetrius has handed this letter in order to carry it personally to Gaius. By the way, just as a side note, the names of all three of these men, Gaius and Diotrephes and Demetrius, would tell us that they're from pagan Gentile backgrounds. They've all heard and embraced the gospel. Although based on verse 11, I think there's at least a hint that Diotrephes is not a saved man, still managed to rise up in a position of leadership. But John says in verse 12 that Demetrius has a threefold witness of his goodness. He has a good report of all men. John says, outsiders to Christianity don't have an issue with him. He has a good report of the truth. And remember, very often John's use of the truth is pointing to Jesus himself. And finally, he says, we also bear record. And you know, our record is true. Like, well, while Gaius doesn't have the option of directly consulting everybody who Demetrius might have ever encountered in his life, he can't go and consult Jesus directly. He at least knows, at the end of verse 12, that John is trustworthy, right? You know, our record is true. If Demetrius has a good report, the idea here, when you connect verses 11 to verse 12, right? Don't imitate what's evil, imitate what's good. And then he points to Demetrius and says, here's a man with a good report. If Demetrius has a good report, it's only because he imitates what's good. He follows after Jesus himself. Because he does good, you know Demetrius knows God. What a wonderful testimony. To have a Christian you trust be able to tell others, you can pattern yourself after good Demetrius here and help him. I know he follows Jesus in his life. When we see these three men of third John, I guess the question we have to ask is how do we see ourselves in them? What do the Christians who you know best, who know the real you, what would they say about you? Are you like Gaius and Demetrius or are you more like Diotrephes, right? Should people get a warning about you? Or should they be encouraged to imitate your walk of faith with Jesus Christ because you follow Him and love Him?