Open Door Policy. This small phrase can have so many specific uses, but they all root from the same broad definition. In the broadest terms, it simply means to allow people to come and go as they please. This term has been applied to everything from politics to business. In politics, it means to allow people and trades from other countries to come and work in their country. In business, it means to allow lower employees to collaborate with employers in the business’s affairs and performances. Even colleges have adopted this definition. That’s the definition I’m more familiar with. Now on the college level, it can be taken both literally and figuratively. Literally, it means that the students’ dorm rooms’ doors remain literally open. Figuratively, it means to allow students to come and go as they please in all the dorm rooms. Either way, both are meant a more comfortable and socialable environment. Still, if it’s unclear which one is meant, confusion can ensue. I remember one time in college my roommate and I were discussing which dorm to live in for the next school year. He wanted to live in a different dorm building, but I wanted to same in the same one. When he asked what my objects were, I simply said, “The dorm has a very open door policy.” My roommate, who struggled with metaphors, replied, “No, you can shut the doors there.” Apparently, he took it to be literal, but I meant to be figuratively, to just mean people can come in and out of my room, with little to no privacy.
For an introvert who needed private time alone, I wasn’t one to want an open door policy when it came to my dorm room. But that doesn’t mean that I didn’t experience an open door policy during college. My mentor in college helped me experience an open door policy. He decided it would be best for our small group to have a key to his apartment so we could go over any time we wanted, whether it be to set up early for Bible study or just to go off camps to chill out. It was only halfway through my fall semester of my freshman year, we had only known each other for a few weeks, and he already was allowing us to come over to his apartment anytime I wanted to. I remember it clearly. There it was, the key to his apartment lying on the table, no one in our small group wanting to take. Never had such responsibility and accountability been given to us! In a way, we were all afraid to take the key. But when a classmate who we only knew a little bit, who just so happened to be sitting with us for dinner, wanted to take it just so he could play my mentor’s vast library of video games, I decided that I, as the most responsible one, should be the one to guard over the sacred key to the sacred apartment. I remember thinking to myself when I first got it that I would never use the key and only go to his house when he was home and he wanted me to come over. But as the semester passed, and the years past, I found myself using the key more and more, whether it was to arrive early for Bible study or just to chill out, whether it was to go with my friends or by myself, whether my mentor was home or not. It increased so much that by the spring semester of my junior, I pretty much went over every other day, whether I needed to find a quiet place to study or I just needed to get away from the people I was living with in my quad. My mentor indeed stayed true to having an open door policy, allowing me and my fellow friends in our small group to come and go in and out of his apartment as we pleased. And so, I commend him for truly following 3 John, for 3 John itself commends anyone who has open door hospitality.
Just like I did with 2 John, for 3 John, I will merely post the introductory material in a list formation. I will only clarify and discuss more in-depth the new introductory material that differs from the other epistles. All the introductory material that is similar to the other epistles will not be mentioned again. If you want to see more information on those pieces, just simply go back to the introductions to the Gospel of John or the epistle of 1 John.
AUTHOR (WHO): John
AUDIENCE (WHOM): Gaius
DATE (WHEN): 93 AD
LOCATION (WHERE): Asia Minor (most likely Ephesus)
HISTORICAL OCCASION (WHAT): Diotrephes has taken 2 John too far to an extreme, shutting the door to true Christian preachers and teachers
PURPOSE (WHY): John wrote the book 3 John to motivate Gaius to continue showing his love for his fellow Christians through his hospitality.
PLAN (HOW): A “postcard” epistle with dichotomy and duality
Although I have said it many times over, I will say it again one more time. Even if the letter is signed, “the elder,” I am very sure that the author is John, the disciple and apostle of Jesus. The proof can be seen in everything from common theological themes to common literary devices. The date, broadly speaking (since it’s hard to exactly pinpoint dates for these books), is somewhere in the early 90s AD. Since 3 John has to be after 1 John and 2 John, and if 2 John is written about 92 AD, then 3 John must be 93 AD. Since John has been continuing his ministry in Asia Minor, the location of the epistle is in Asia Minor, most like Ephesus because tradition states John resided in Ephesus at the end of his life.
The audience whom John wrote the epistle to is Gaius. Little is said about Gaius, so little is known about Gaius. We can’t say this Gaius is the same Gaius mentioned in Acts 19:29, Romans 16:23 and/or 1 Corinthians 1:14 because Gaius was a common name back then.** The only official stuff we know about Gaius is right here in this epistle. It seems like Gaius has some kind of leadership role in his local church. Since John ministered to churches in Asia Minor, most likely Gaius lives in Asia Minor. It’s even possible Gaius might be from Ephesus if John spent most of his time there. Gaius and John also seem to have a strong friendship, as John calls Gaius his “dear friend” four times. So this letter clearly shows the close friendship between John and Gaius and what makes this letter so personal.
That naturally leads us into the historical occasion. A good historical occasion first examines all the main characters in the story, and then sees how they relate to each other. Already we have John and Gaius. The body of 3 John adds two more people: Diotrephes and Demetrius. Although both names start with a D, Demetrius and Diotrephes seem to be opposites. Demetrius is spoken as good and Diotrephes is spoken as evil. Yet upon closer examination, it’s not that simple. Demetrius seems to be a minor character in the story. All we really know about him is he is well spoken of. Many scholars believe that Demetrius is one of those traveling ministers, who traveled town to town, helping John carry his messages. So he’s not a major character in the story. Yet the dichotomy is there. So where is it, and who is it between? Have we forgotten about Gaius already? The dichotomy is between Gaius and Diotrephes. Well, what’s it over? As you can probably tell by the introduction I wrote, it’s over hospitality. This is where 3 John starts linking closely to 2 John. By this time, 2 John has circulated well over Asia Minor. Everyone has read its message loud and clear, and, believe it or not, they are accurately following through with it. The problem is, however, they have followed through it almost too well, so well that the pendulum has swung over to the opposite extreme. Now there are some Christian families that will not allow anyone in (not even other fellow Christians!) for anything. A prime example would be Diotrephes. On the other hand, Gaius has continued to be hospitable. Now the dichotomy thickens even more when we consider that both Gaius and Diotrephes have some kind of influence on the local church. Who’s right? Who’s wrong? Why is one person right and the other person wrong? This is why John needs to write. He needs to explain who is right, and why he’s right, and who is not right, and why he’s not right. What it’s going to come down to is John has to clarify what he meant in 2 John.
John wrote the book 3 John to motivate Gaius to continue showing his love for his fellow Christians through his hospitality.
Just like 2 John, I decided to describe the structure of 3 John as a “postcard” epistle because it is short (at 14 verses, 3 John is the 2nd shortest book in the New Testament) and because it is a personal letter to a dear friend. But I want to go deeper than that. Deeper than pointing out it’s a Greco-Roman epistle, with the right greeting and closing. If you take a good look at the text, you’ll notice a dichotomy or a duality forming. What’s a dichotomy? A dichotomy, as Merriam-Website defines it, is “a division into two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities.” Simply speaking, a dichotomy is when a division happens to show similarities or differences. A dichotomy that shows differences is often called a duality because it shows the two opposites contradicting each other. Perhaps that best way to explain this is with some examples from modern media.
My first example of dichotomy and/or dualism will be a silly, funny example. Being a ‘90s kid, I naturally grew up watching the cartoon Animaniacs. If there was any time left over at the end of the half-hour show, Animaniacs would do a short segment called, “Good Idea, Bad Idea.” As the title hints, the segment would simply show a good idea and a bad idea paired up. The good idea and the bad idea paired up together would be mostly similar, but would have one little, minor detail that made them different, and ultimately make them either the good idea or the bad idea. Most of the time, it would be grammatical, a wordplay, that set them apart. For example, “Good idea: tossing a penny into a wishing well to make a wish. Bad idea: tossing your cousin penny into a wishing well to make a wish.” Another example would of the same nature would be, “Good idea: playing catch with your grandfather (as in throwing a ball back and forth between you and your grandfather). Bad idea: playing catch with your grandfather (as in throwing your grandfather back and forth with another person).” And another example: “Good idea: playing the scales on a piano. Bad idea: playing the scales on a shark.” Sometimes the difference between a good idea and a bad idea were simply because they were opposites. For example, “Good idea: alpine skiing in the winter. Bad idea: alpine skiing in the summer.” Another example would be “Good idea: kissing a loved one. Bad idea: kissing a total stranger.” A good idea and bad idea could even be separated by being out of season. For example, “Good idea: singing Christmas carols to your neighbors on Christmas. Bad idea: singing Christmas carols to your neighbors on the 4th of July.” Or, “Good idea: finding an Easter egg on Easter morning. Bad idea: finding an Easter egg on Christmas morning.” The list could go on and on. But the point is the difference in dichotomy could be anything that separates the two, and that small degree of separation could be the difference between a good idea and a bad idea. (For more “Good Idea, Bad Idea” go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dJOIf4mdus&feature=colike for the complete collection.)
My second example of dichotomy and/or dualism is a more serious example. During my childhood, I was subscribed to the children’s magazine Highlights. Every week (apparently since 1948), there’s a small cartoon called “Goofus and Gallant.” As the title hints, the short comic is about two boys: Goofus and Gallant. Gallant is always the good example, as he is loving, kind and gentle. Goofus is the bad example, as he usually is selfish, mean, rude and inconsiderate. Most of the time, “Goofus and Gallant” cartoons intend to teach children good social skills. For example, a comic might read, “Goofus takes the last apple without asking, but Gallant shares the last orange with everyone.” Another examples reads, “Goofus leaves his toys on the ground, but Gallants picks up after himself.” Recently, Goofus and Gallant has also included good and bad examples of healthy habits to promote healthy living among children. For example, “Goofus eats candy and chips for snack, but Gallant eats fruits and vegetables for snack.” Another example might say, “Goofus sits inside and watches TV all day, but Gallant goes outside to exercise.” Whether it be social etiquette or healthy living, the comic “Goofus and Gallant” draws a deep dichotomy and duality between Goofus and Gallant to show the big difference between the right thing and wrong thing. In doing so, it is clear which option is the right one, and why it’s right, and which option is the wrong option, and why it is wrong. (For further inquiries, just search for “Goofus and Gallant” on Google Images.)
I hope the examples of “Good Idea, Bad Idea” and “Goofus and Gallant” help you understand what dichotomy and duality is. Dichotomy contrasts two opposites, and duality uses to contrast to show the good from the bad. If you need a 3rd example, then go to 3 John. 3 John uses a dichotomy to deeply contrast two people and two examples. 3 John uses duality to clearly show that the one example is the good example because it is the right thing to do and the other example is the bad example because it is the wrong thing to do. So without further ado, let’s dive into 3 John to find the dichotomy and duality.
We can skip verses 1 and 2 because they are your standard introduction and greeting as found in a Greco-Roman letter. But once we get to verse 3, there it is, and it continues until. Because the recipient is mentioned in verse 1, we know that the second-person “you” used throughout verses 3 to 8 are indeed Gaius. Just look at some of the good things he does. Verse 5 says that Gaius welcomes all his Christian brothers into his house, even if they are completely strangers to him. Verse 6 tells us that his hospitality is not only for when they arrive, but also when they depart. When Gaius sends off missionaries on their way, he makes sure they are fully equipped for the journey ahead of them. Verse 3 states that John is not the only reference Gaius has. Any Christian who knows Gaius will attest to his faith, his love and his goodness. If the example isn’t enough evidence, and the referrals of the Christian brothers still isn’t enough evidence, then go to verses 7 and 8, for John explicitly states the importance of showing hospitality. First and foremost, the traveling preachers and teachers need the hospitality because the non-Christians definitely won’t give them help. It makes sense, too. Consider the cultural context we talked about 2 John. Welcoming a teacher into your house meant you support his teachings. Since the non-Christians do no support the Christian teachings, they will not be welcomed into any non-Christian home. Second, John recognizes that these missionaries left everything for the sake of God, so John encourages other Christians to give the same recognition. He wants them support their teachings by providing them food and shelter. In a way, it’s almost like financial support Finally, as highlighted in verse 8, John wants the Christians to show hospitality simply because the non-Christians do not. In verse 8 alone, John sets up a mini dichotomy and duality between the goodness of Christians and the evil of non-Christians. If non-Christians live out a sinful life, then Christians are to aim for holiness and goodness. Therefore, if the non-Christians refuse to show hospitality, which is the wrong thing to do, then Christians are to do the right thing, the good thing, and show hospitality. By this alone, Christians show that they are truly Christians, working for the truth, by setting themselves apart from the non-Christians.
Verses 9 and 10 are our bad example. In verses 9 and 10, we meet a man named Diotrephes. These are the only 2 verses that talk about Diotrephes (maybe because John didn’t want to dwell so much on a bad man), but it’s all we need to know about him. Diotrephes is a leader of some sorts in the local church. But the leadership has gone to his head and he’s now trying to use it to have power over all the members of the congregation. Now Diotrephes sees himself as the true head, calling himself the true, good apostle. He talks down the other apostles with false rumors in order to make them look bad. He uses 2 John for his own selfish motive and denies any Christian preacher or teacher that disagrees with him (such as the apostles John sent) hospitality. ,He even goes as far as threatening to excommunicate any Christian in the local church who does welcome any of those apostles, once again, taking 2 John too far. By reading 2 verses alone, the reader already gets a sense that Diotrephes is a jerk. And that’s what John is aiming for. The actions of Diotrephes alone are enough proof that Diotrephes is a bad example of a Christian because he gossips and lacks hospitality. And if it’s still not clear enough, John claims that the next time he comes to the church, he will make it obvious that Diotrephes is doing the wrong thing, and then will proceed to shun him.***
In verses 11 and 12, as John begins to close the body of his letter, I believe John presents Gaius with a choice. Remember that verses 3 to 8, John gives Gaius a good example, which is Gaius himself. In verses 9 and 10, John gives Gaius a bad example, which is Diotrephes. If for some reason, Gaius still does not see the good and bad example, or he does not know which example is the good one and which the bad one is, John makes it clear in verse 11. In verse 11, John simply says, “Do not copy the bad example, copy the good example” (my paraphrase). Why? All good examples of good things come from God. All bad examples and bad things are not from God. What you do reflects whose side you are on. If you do what is right and what is God, you are on God’s side. If you do what is wrong and what is bad, you are not on God’s side. Does this sound fairly familiar? It’s those common themes found in both 1 & 2 John! In both epistles, John urges the readers to accept God’s and his apostles’ teaching and rejecting the false teachers and their teachings. 3 John is no different. And remember, 1 & 2 John revealed to us that one of the ways the false teachers were at fault was because they refused to show love to their fellow Christian. 3 John reminds us that refusing hospitality to a fellow Christian is not showing love to a fellow Christian. In verse 12, the choice gets more specific with an example. In verse 12, John makes Gaius aware that Demetrius, a speaker of Christian truth, is coming that way to the church. Demetrius is a true Christian, as John and many others speak well of him. There’s the choice Gaius has to make. Either Gaius can continue following his own good example and welcome Demetrius with hospitality, or he can follow the bad example of Diotrephes and not welcome him, showing no hospitality. Now this decision might not be an easy one for Gaius. Remember what we said about Diotrephes. Maybe Gaius is afraid of showing any more hospitality in fear of being shunned by Diotrephes, which would mean being shunned from the whole church. John helps Gaius make the choice a little bit easier by, in a way, simply saying, “You know what the right choice is because you’re doing it. Keep it up.”
John closes 3 John by declaring in verses 13 and 14 that he wishes not to further write about the issue, but would rather talk about it face-to-face. So John makes a note that the next time they see each other face-to-face, they will talk about it. And as with all Greco-Roman epistles, John gives blessings to the recipient and the congregation.
Before we conclude our study of 3 John with some application, let’s sum up what we’ve read in a nice, simple outline.
I. Opening Greeting (1-2)
II. Good example: Gaius (3-8)
III. Bad example: Diotrephes (9-10)
IV. Choice: Follow good example or bad example (11-12)
V. Closing Greetings (13-14)
According to the Theological Interpretation of Scripture, a good hermeneutic shows that the theology presented in the book can be found elsewhere in the Bible. Obviously, these themes are repeated in 1 & 2 John. We’ve already talked it about a little in this commentary on 3 John, and we’ve talked about plenty in our commentary on 1 & 2 John, so we’ll skip over finding all the verses that back that. But hopefully by now you know that John has constantly repeated in his epistles that we, as Christians, must love our fellow Christians. The first quote that comes to mind is when Jesus said, “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love my disciples.” But then again, that’s from John 13:35, which is still John. What can we say outside John? Let’s go to my second favorite Bible character, or my favorite Bible character who wasn’t divine: Paul. Paul repeats the theology of 3 John in his letters. In Galatians 6:10, Paul says, “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.” In 1 Thessalonians 3:12, Paul tells the Thessalonians, “May the Lord make your love increase and overflow for each other and for everyone else, just as ours does for you.” The Thessalonians must have heard the message loud and clear, for Paul opens 2 Thessalonians 1:3,4 declaring, “We ought always to thank God for you, brothers, and rightly so, because your faith is growing more and more, and the love every one of you has for each other is increasing. Therefore, among God’s churches we boast about your perseverance and faith in all the persecutions and trials you are enduring.” Paul was praising the Thessalonians for following the command to love one another. Paul would be very much on board with John’s message on the importance of the Christian’s love for fellow Christians.
Obviously, the message here is clearly Christian love, especially for fellow Christians. But I believe we can get a little more specific than just Christian love. I believe the message for 3 John is that our Christian love for our fellow Christians should be seen through our hospitality. Now when you hear hospitality, you might think of the spiritual gifts. Indeed, hospitality is a spiritual gift. But that does not mean only people with the gift of hospitality should be hospitable. After all, evangelism is a spiritual gift and yet Jesus commanded all his disciples to evangelize the Gospel (see Mark 16:15, for example). I think the distinction here between the command and the gift is how easy and naturally it comes. God commands everyone to be hospitable, but God has gifted some people to be more hospitable than others. For those people it comes naturally and easily. These people have hospitality flowing out of their ears. Therefore, I believe they have higher notch that they are expected to stand up to.
So let’s start with some basic ideas for basic Christians who do not have the spiritual gift of hospitality but would like to still fulfill the command to be hospitable. For these people, the first thought that comes to mind is a Scripture: Matthew 25. Matthew 25 paints of picture of Jesus separating the sheep from goats, which represents those who accept Jesus and those who reject Jesus. The difference is whether or not the fed the hungry, gave drink to the thirsty, gave clothes to the naked, gave housing to the homeless and give visitation to those in hospital and prisons. That’s a good start. Jesus commands everyone to hospitable in those ways. Give the hungry food to eat. Give the thirsty drinks to drink. Give the homeless a place to reside. This isn’t a hand out. This is giving people grace and mercy (the same grace and mercy Jesus gave us on the cross) until they have enough time to get back on their feet. If in any way this is an handout, it would be a handout for those in the ministry, who have to focus on evangelizing and discipling people for the glory of God. We saw Gaius do it for the ministers coming into his town. Now you as Christians do it too!
Now how about those who do have the gift of hospitality, or maybe even for those who don’t have the gift of hospitality, but would still like to try to take it up a notch. Clearly Gaius had the gift of hospitality. What did he do? He opened up his house for every Christian. Maybe you’ve been blessed to have your own living space. It doesn’t matter if it’s a mansion, a townhouse, a trailer home, a condominium or an apartment. You can use that living space, no matter what size. Open it up for ministry meetings. The bigger the living space, the bigger the meeting you can have, but all homes can be used for small group meetings. You don’t have focus or worry about being the leader of the small group, for there are other people in the church that do have those gifts. Let them lead. In fact, I know some churches where the small group leader and the small group host have to be different people, for this exact reason: all people in the church have their own special role. On the base level, just opening your house is hospitality, but there are many ways you can make it deeper than that. Clean and set up your living space to accommodate everyone in the small group. Prepare food and drinks for the people in the small group to eat. Have games and other entertainment for your small group to do before and after the Bible study or prayer meeting or whatever your small group does. If you’re really trying to take it up to the highest notch, see if you can have an open door policy on your house. Allow people to come over whenever, for whatever reason they want to come over. Now there’s also ways to be hospitable without necessarily owning a living space. Then your job is to be a greeter of sorts. Introduce yourself to new people. Always welcome people that come into the house or the church. Make them feel invited. Introduce new people to everyone. Heck, these work even if you are the owner of the host place. Your goal in hospitality is to make an environment where people feel loved, welcomed and comfortable. By doing so, you should also aim to help improve relationship with other people in your small group.
It’s easy to say you’re a loving Christian, and it’s easier to think that you’re a loving Christian. But it’s not until you prove it with your actions. What a better way than through hospitality. Hospitality really does set us apart from the non-Christians. Not every non-Christian will invite other people in their home, even if there are similarities. But we as Christians do have similarities. The bond Christians share with other Christians through the blood is Christ is stronger than any other bond between people. So let us not just talk about it, but let us live it out. Let us show the world Christ’s love by showing them it in action between Christians. And what a better way for us Christians to stand out by showing hospitality to one another, a hospitality between Christians that will make non-Christians want to become Christians.
* Once again, let me give proper credit to where credit is due. The idea for the title of this commentary comes from the “Keyword Learning System” by Walk Thru the Bible. They too wrote that the theme of 3 John was “Open the Door.” I don’t feel bad “copying” them because I don’t feel like I “copied” them. If we believe that the Bible is objective, absolute truth, then everyone, when doing proper exegetical and hermeneutical study of the Bible, should reach the same theology. Just as they reached the theme “Open the Door,” so did I.
** If one of these verses might be talking about the same Gaius, it would Romans 16:23 because that Gaius is also mentioned as a hospitable man. Two reasons, however, get in the way of this conclusion. First of all, this man seems to be more associated with Paul than with John. If that’s the case, he might be the same Gaius as mentioned in Acts 19 and 1 Corinthians 1, but that would make him even further than the Gaius in 3 John. Second of all, Roman is for a church in Rome, and 3 John is for the churches in Asia Minor. These are 2 distinctively different regions, so they can’t be the same person. More evidence says that the Gaius in Romans 16:23 and the Gaius in 3 John are two different men.
*** Some scholars have suggested that Diotrephes is a false teacher who has managed to sneak himself in the church and been able to climb up to a leadership position. They provide two pieces of evidence. First, they declare that John says he will nothing to do with the church, hinting at everything from ex-communication to apostasy (falling away from the faith). Second, in verse 11, they claim that John implicitly and indirectly calls Diotrephes an evil man, who has not seen God. I can see where they are coming from, but I’m not sure I’m ready to commit to this myself. I think moreso he’s struggling with sin. Power has gotten to his head and made him do sinful things. As I also said above, I think Diotrephes is taking 2 John to too far of an extreme. So, yes, he’s sinning, but no, he’s not fallen away or a false teacher. But I also believe that either way, the message and themes found in 3 John do not change.
The Contextual Literalist 