Home Page Grace Baptist Church
View related sermons Click here

TEXT: III John

SUBJECT: Exposition of III John

John's Third Epistle is the shortest book in the Bible; it is highly personal and quite narrow in its subject. If it were written by an ordinary man, it would be of little value, I suspect. But it is not. For its author is John the Apostle, who wrote it under the supervision of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it applies to us as much as it did to first readers.

Expositors have outlined the Epistle differently, but I think the simplest approach is best. It begins with a greeting (vv.1-4); goes on to a sharp contrast (vv.5-11); and closes on a personal note (vv.12-14). Let's look at each in turn.

First, the greeting. It begins as II John did, with the author identified. He is "The Elder". This word is used often in the Bible, and with some variation. Essentially, it means "one worthy of respect". At times, "elder" is a title, equivalent to "pastor" or "minister". These men should be held in the highest esteem. At other times, it is used more generally, of an old man. John is, of course, both. As an Apostle, he occupies a pastoral office in the church; and as an old man, he commands the respect of his readers. Which he intends by this designation is unclear. But either way, we ought to take his words seriously. He writes with grave moral authority.

The reader is "Gaius". Three men carry this name in the New Testament, all of whom were friends of Paul. Whether any of them is the same man to whom John writes is impossible to say. For "Gaius" was the Roman equivalent of "John Doe".

We cannot identify the man, but we can say this: he was loved by John. And so he calls him "the beloved Gaius". But what kind of love did he have for him? There are two sorts, really: (1) there is a love of benevolence. This should be extended to everyone, no matter what his character. "Love your enemies" the Lord says. (2) The other is a love of complacency. This is based on one's character; a deserved love, it is. Why did John so love Gaius? He makes it plain in v.3: "For I rejoiced greatly when brethren came and testified of the truth that is in you, just as you walk in the truth". His love for Gaius was not pity, but esteem. John thought highly of him because he knew the truth and because he lived accordingly. His was "a doctrine according to godliness".

The character of Gaius is admirable, no matter what his circumstances. But, when you consider the difficulties he was laboring under, it becomes even more praiseworthy. V.2 implies that Gaius' soul was doing much better than either his health or his finances. He was sick and poor. But his illness did not reach the soul; his money problems did not bankrupt him spiritually.

Gaius is a good man, who gives John nothing but "joy".

John appreciates it. And so, in v.2, he wishes him every blessing. He hopes that his physical and financial welfare would match his spiritual life.

This blessing refutes two doctrines, so commonly taught today:

1."The Faith Movement". Men like Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Benny Hinn, Paul Crouch, David Cho, and others, say that God wants us healthy and rich. And if we're not, it is due to a lack of faith on our part. But how do you harmonize this with the example of Gaius? His soul was "prospering and in health". Yet he was still poor and sick. The two cannot be squared. I prefer John and Gaius to Copeland and Hagin. "Lord, the one whom you love is sick". "I know how to be abased".

2."Leftist Christianity". Ron Sider is perhaps the leading advocate here. He argues that wealth is sinful; that if you have more than you need to survive, it is your duty to share with others. And if you don't, the government ought to take it away from you and distribute it to the poor. Sider is better than the other men, to be sure. But he goes too far. Surely, John did not wish Gaius ill, did he? Yet, he did, if wealth is sinful. Selfishness and stinginess, of course, are wrong. But not money itself.

Let me recap: the greeting begins with the writer (John), the first reader (Gaius), and the blessing, "Beloved, I pray that you may prosper in all things, and be in health, just as your soul prospers".

Now he comes to the main point. In vv.5-11 John draws a sharp contrast between two men in the church: Gaius and Diotrophes.

Gaius was a generous man who supported missionary work. When preachers--both known and unknown--came to him, he took them into his home and helped them on their way. This he did, because:

1.They deserved his help, v.7a: "Because they went for His name's sake". These men weren't preaching for fame or money, but to promote the cause of Jesus Christ. And every Christian must "do all to the glory of Christ". Therefore, preachers should be esteemed, encouraged, and supported. This is not a charity to which we give, but a debt. Good men deserve our help.

2.They also needed his help, v.7b: "Taking nothing from the Gentiles". They did not ask the unsaved to support a cause in which they did not believe. They didn't beg filthy lucre. They trusted God to move His saints to support His cause. Gaius was one who did. And remember, his giving didn't come from his wealth, but from his deep poverty.

3.It would encourage others, v.6: "..who have borne witness of your love before the church". The missionaries appreciated the help. John, it seems, was in Ephesus; Gaius somewhere else. The missionaries sent from John came to Gaius' hometown and were treated like kings. Needless to say, they took notice, and upon their return to Ephesus, they sang the praises of this man so "given to hospitality". The good works would excite others to imitation.

4.It is a general duty and blessing, v.8: "We therefore ought to receive such, that we may become fellow workers for the truth". Is it right for one to enjoy all the blessings of the Gospel without paying any of its cost? You be the judge. When we do support missionaries, we enter into their labors and share their blessings. We cannot go to foreign lands, but we can support those who do. But not only "can"; we must. The Great Commision has not been repealed: "You shall be witnesses to Me, both in Jerusalem, and Judea, in Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth". It won't be funded by tax dollars or general revenues, but by the Lord's people, people like Gaius--and I hope--you and me.

And so, this is the kind of man Gaius was. Enthusiastic in the support of missionaries. Willing to fill his house to overflow with them; willing to support them on their way.

Home Page |
Sermons provided by www.GraceBaptist.ws