The Pulpit Commentary — 3 John — Section 2

thie TerB<' snlisfMt.orily; ,..,,,..,.&,, ..-o..i's 8 U,v appoint n. deRcon to go thitller 1\8 G orl's E,ryricrp £if -roVt UB,~-i,obs 1tal -rotii-o {ivovr. ambtteeRdor, that he may congrntulato them Here we hM·e three difficulties: (I) to when they are e.ssembled together, and ma.y dett'rmine the meaning of ,,.,,,..,./w ,ro,e,,; (2) glorify the Name" (x.). Taking nothiug of t.n bring out the meaning of ipyd."71; (3) t,o the Gentiles, lost the hen.then should suspect t.ranslate Toii'To "ithout awkwardness. The their motives, and think, " Like a.II the rending ,lr Toi,, (K, L) for Toii'To (Iii:, A, B, qunck priests nnd philosophers, you ma.Im I\ C. 1md ,·ersions) he.s probably arisen from a mere trade of your doctrine, and preach to wish to nvoid this lltl't difficulty. Thou doest fill your bellies." Nothing wins men ovor a faithfnl not in all that thou workeat to- so much as clear proofs of disinterestedness. Wllrd1 the brethren, and that towards The missionary who is suspected of self- atrangen, is a fairly lit.era! and intelligible seeking will prench in vain. The.t ol l6v11<0( rendering. Bnt "to do a faithful act" is here must mean "heathen" seems clear snnv•what obscure. Probably it mGans "to from Matt. v. 47; vi. 7; xviii. 17, the ouly ad n.s a faithful mRn would." All bis other places in the New 'l'estnment where conduct towards the brethren, even when the word is found ; moreoYer, the context they were not previously lrnown to him, was requires it. There is no need to ask whether such as became a faithful Christian. This the word m.ly not mean" Gentile Christians." was his special merit; he treated brethren Tho missiono.ry brethren would, therefore, who were entire strangers to him, not as have been in great strnits but for the coure.ge strangers, bnt as brethren. He did not and generosity of Gains; Diot.replles turned pick and choose, showing hospitality to thrm out of doors and fo.rbadeothera to succour those whom he liked and neglecting the them; and they tllemeelves ma.de it a rule rest. Every missionary wns sure of a not to o.sk for help from Gentiles. • "l<"elcome from Go.ins. Ver. 8.-We, therefore, ought to support Yer. 6.-Who bare witnesa to thy love such. The pronoun is very emphatic. If no before the Churoh. The thoroughly Greek help comes from the heathen, we must give wo,-d c',c,c>,11uia (which, however, had received it; that we may beoome their fellow-workera a number of Jewish associations through its for the truth. Just as the apostle warned frequent use in the Septuagint) is used by the elect le.dy the.t to welcome and support St. John nowhere but in this Epistle. This preachers of fe.lse doctrine is to partake in witness of the brethren before the Church their evils works (2 John 11), so he en- respecting the good deeds done to them is courages Ge.ins and his friends with the a type and earnest of the witness of Christ at thought that to welcome and support the day of judgment : "I wu a stranger, and preacher& of the truth is to pa.rte.ke in ye took me in . . . Inasmueh as ye did it their good works. It is tile Master's teach- unto one of the,e my brethren, even these ing in another form, "He the.t .receiveth a least, ye did it unto me." Whom thou wilt prophet in the name of a prophet shall do well to forward on their journey in a receive a prophet's reward" (Me.tt. x. 41). manner worthy of God. No higher standard Ver. 9.-1 wrote somewhat to the Church could well be eet. It reminds us of " perfect, (reading, with the best authorities, ¥-ypm,i,d. as your heavenly Father is perfect." Gaius .,.,) probably means that St. John he.d written is to treat them as remembering the Divine a letter, now lost, e.nd perhaps destroyed declaration, "He that reeeiveth whomsoever by Diotrephes, to the Church to whlch I send, receiveth me; and he that receiveth Diotrephes belonged. That Diotrephes was me, receiveth him that sent me" (John xiiL bishop of this Church is conjecture; as also :10). This coincidence, consciously or un- that he opposed St. John's emissaries" be- consciously made, between the Gospel a.nd cause they were bent on ce.rrying the gospel Third Epistle. is lost in the rather colourless to the Gentiles, he himself being, no doubt, rendering in the Authorized Vereion, "after both a Jew and of the Jewish faction." He , a godly so.rt." may llave been an influential layman. But Ver. 7.-For for the Bake of THE NAME. the context favours the view that he we.B e.t ' Such is tile exact rendering of the true text; least a presbyter. This ecclesiastical Cleon the insertion of "his" before "Name" le the type of all vo.in, noisy, self-asserting weakens the effect. There was no need to teachers, whose main object is to get their my more. Just as to a Jew "the Name" own way-an object which they effect by mWlt mean "Jehovah," so to a Christian browbeating all who 'differ from them. No "the Name" must mean "Jesus Christ" authority is respected and no character (comp. Acts v. 41; Jae. ii. 7). St. Ignatius spared which seems to oppose their policy. writes to the Ephesians, " I am in bonds for Even an apostle ie denounced if he ventures the Name', sake" (iii.); and " Some are wont to maintain that the truth may be larger of malicious guile to hawk a.bout tM Name" than their view of it. Christian ministers (vii.); and age.in to the Philadelphians, "It now must not be surprised if they some- ill becoming for yon, as a Church of God, to times meet with no better treatment, 1-14.J 'fHE THIRD EPTSTLE OF JOHN. 3