The Epistles of John, Part 31 (3rd John 9-15): A Hog in a Silk Waistcoat

At a presidential campaign event in 2008 Barack Obama took issue with the policy views coming from the camp of his opponent, John McCain.  Attempting to capitalize on his own campaign rhetoric of “change”, Mr. Obama said the following of Mr. McCain’s policies: “That’s not change.  That’s just calling the same thing something different.  You know, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.”  The phrase “lipstick on a pig” simply means that dressing something up and slapping a fresh coat of paint on it does not alter its fundamental nature.  Obama’s point was that, regardless of claims to the contrary, McCain’s policy agenda would be no different than the outgoing George W. Bush administration.

Barack Obama was hardly the originator of this phrase.  The specific “lipstick on a pig” version of it is somewhat new and has been particularly favored by politicians in recent years.  However, the roots of the saying go back to at least the mid-16^th century.  At that time, someone might have said “You can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear.”  In 1887 the great Baptist preacher, Charles H. Spurgeon, offered his own take on the idea: “A hog in a silk waistcoat is still a hog.”  It is Spurgeon’s version of the saying that I am going to make reference to.  As it relates to our study of 3^rd John, the “hog” takes the form of a man named Diotrephes, who was apparently influential in the same church Gaius was a part of.

We meet this particular hog in verses 9 and 10 of 3^rd John: I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say.  For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church.  It seems that 3^rd John was not the first letter John had written to Gaius’s church.  He is referencing an earlier message here. 

Unfortunately, the contents of this communication are lost to history.  But whatever was contained within it was probably of an instructional nature, judging by the content of John’s other letters that we have been studying.  And apparently, this Diotrephes did not care for the elder apostle’s teaching.  In fact, John says that he rejected it.  His rebuff went far beyond just being dismissive of or teaching counter to the apostle’s words.  We see that Diotrephes was accusing John with wicked words.  We don’t know exactly what the nature of these accusations were, but it hardly seems to matter.  The point is that he was acting wickedly and accusing falsely.

Frankly, this is astonishing, although certainly not unexpected.  It is astonishing from the standpoint of someone actually having the nerve to discard and, as we will see later, attempt to undermine the authority of one of the apostles of Jesus Christ.  Of course, it must be said that rejection of authority is nothing new.  Jesus Himself was rejected and opposed by the very people who should have been most delighted by His coming; the Jewish religious authorities. 

In that situation, the Pharisees and their ilk were never followers of Christ in the first place.  They were not on His side from the very beginning of His ministry.  So, their opposition to Him is perhaps more easily understood.  What makes the insurrection of Diotrephes so astounding is that he was, at least on the surface, not a member of the enemy camp.  He was within the church rather than outside of it. 

This is apparent from both verse 9 and 10.  John says that he wrote something “to the church.”  If Diotrephes were not a member of said church it would have been impossible for him to reject what John wrote to that church. And if he were outside the church why would anyone care that he rejected John’s teaching in the first place.  Furthermore, John says that Diotrephes loves to be first “among them.”  This is clearly a reference back to the church the first letter was addressed to.  So, Diotrephes was a member of this church, along with Gaius, and Diotrephes enjoyed the prospect of holding a prominent position within the assembly.

And hold a prominent position he most certainly did.  He had enough authority to forbid certain courses of action and even excommunicate those who refused to obey his wishes.  Remember that Gaius had been praised by John for his faithful and truthful love, demonstrated by his warm reception of the traveling missionaries of verses 5 to 8.  Some of his fellow church members must have been inclined to follow his example of hospitality.  And Diotrephes came down on them like an anvil.

He forbade the brethren to participate in these acts of love.  He himself refused to entertain the missionaries.  And if anyone was found to be in violation of his decrees he ordered them to be cast out of the fellowship.  It is interesting that Gaius was apparently not dismissed from the church as well.  It could very well be that both Gaius and Diotrephes were leaders together.  If so, it presents the possibility of a power struggle within this first century church.  On one side, would have been Gaius and his lifestyle that imaged Christ.  Opposed to him and opposed to the heart of the gospel, was Diotrephes and his pursuit of the spirit of antichrist.

I do not use the moniker of antichrist lightly.  I think this is exactly what Diotrephes was.  However, it must be said that there are some points of qualification that need to be made to support this argument.  First of all, on the surface I grant that the behavior of Diotrephes does not completely line up with what John has described prior to this regarding the spirit of antichrist.  Recall to mind the following passages.

1^st John 2:18-19 identifies the nature of the problem: Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.  They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. 

Then, in 1^st John 4:2-3 he gets very specific: By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.  John’s description of the character of an antichrist is quite clear.  It is one who denies that Jesus is the Christ.

We have no evidence that Diotrephes was denying Christ.  John seems to make such a denial a requirement in order to be classified as an antichrist.  Some, in light of this, have concluded that the issue at stake was not theological or doctrinal.  Furthermore, they take the position that Diotrephes, while certainly not being commendable, was also not overtly evil or outside the bounds of Christian fellowship.

I disagree with this.  I believe that in order to correctly understand what the spirit of antichrist is we must look beyond just the verses that contain the word.  Follow my thought here.  It is perfectly logical and rational to suppose that the spirit of Christ is analogous to good and the spirit of antichrist is analogous to evil.  Looking at the situation from that standpoint, and if we consider more of John’s teaching on what it means to be either good or evil, we find the following.

In 1^st John 3:10 he wrote: By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.  Can anyone possibly argue that Diotrephes was displaying godly love for his brothers when he refused to accept the missionaries and kicked people out of the church if they did so?

In 2^nd John 9-10 we find John’s description of such people, and it is not just false Christians within the church.  It is the leadership of the church, the very ones supposedly there to guard, care for, and protect the flock: Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.  If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting.  Can anyone seriously entertain the notion that Diotrephes, in his slanderous refutation of John’s character and authority, was abiding in the teaching of Christ?

Furthermore, let us consider the question of motive.  What was it that caused Diotrephes to behave in the way he did?  I believe the answer is deceptively simple, and it is found almost immediately after he is introduced to the reader in verse 9.  John says Diotrephes “loves to be first among them”.  Pride is the issue that governed his actions.  It was arrogance and conceit that led to a love of power and authority.  This egotism led him to rebel against the authority of John. 

And it naturally and consistently moved to Gaius, who seems to have been seeking to follow John’s instructions and was favored by him.  In fact, the way in which Diotrephes handled the missionaries and those who tried to help them may not have had as much to do with the missionaries themselves as it did with the mere fact that Gaius, presumably a follower of John’s, wanted to support them.

For these reasons, I see no need to make any distinction between Diotrephes and the spirit of antichrist that John has been describing for two and a half letters.  And I think the point is rammed home by what John then proceeds to write in verse 11: Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good.  The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God.

Taken by itself, this verse is a solid but general reminder to Christians to pursue righteousness rather than wickedness.  It serves to clarify that those who walk like Christ are from God and those who do not have never known Him.  These points are valid, but when we consider verse 11 in the light of its proper context I think the implication of what John is getting at is very clear.  He has just finished describing the behavior of this Diotrephes character.  Therefore, it seems perfectly obvious to me that the evil he does not want Gaius to imitate is the very actions that Diotrephes is guilty of taking.  Following that line of reasoning, it makes the last phrase, if applied to Diotrephes, ultimately damning.  If John is saying that Diotrephes has not seen God, then what else can we conclude but that he was the embodiment of the spirit of antichrist?

It seems to me that Diotrephes was a textbook example of the very thing John has been warning against throughout both of his first two letters; that of the danger of antichrists within the church who seek to work counter to the gospel.  I have previously mentioned the sort of “funnel” effect present in John’s epistles.  We can see it at work again here.  It is almost as if John, having outlined the problem of false Christians generally in 1^st John, and then having narrowed the focus down to specific roles within the church in 2^nd John, now presents us with a concrete example of the abstract concepts he has been discussing. 

So again, it is quite astonishing that a man would rise up from within the church, lead the believers astray, excommunicate the faithful, and usurp the authority of Christ’s apostles.  But by no means should such a situation be unexpected if we have been paying attention to John.  Furthermore, these things are unfortunately all too common.  Not only is false teaching and bad leadership prevalent but the usurpation of apostolic authority is as well.

Paul dealt with such a situation in Corinth.  He had to repeatedly defend not only his right to be in authority, but his very character, against the personal assaults of the Corinthian versions of the antichrists John has been describing.  In 1^st Corinthians 9:2 we find Paul alluding briefly to the rejections of his own authority that he had suffered.  He writes: If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you.  Then in 2^nd Corinthians chapter 10 he gets even more specific and personal.  In verse 2 he mentions: some, who regard us as if we walked according to the flesh.  The phrase “walked according to the flesh” refers to being unsaved.  So, these slanderers were questioning whether Paul was even a Christian.  And as if that were not bad enough, they were prepared to take the personal insults even further.  They ridiculed his appearance and gifts.  Paul brings this up in verse 10: For they say, “His letters are weighty and strong, but his personal presence is unimpressive and his speech contemptible.”

We lack this level of detail with the conflict between Diotrephes, Gaius, and John.  Nevertheless, whatever specific “wicked words” were used to attack John, the heart of the matter is the same.  It is rooted and sourced in the excesses of human ambition.  Probably everyone reading this is already aware on some level of the dangers of pride.  But the contextual application provided by John here should be nothing short of gut-wrenching and terrifying.

John has described a man consumed by pride to such an extent that it drove him to rebel against the highest level of authority in the Christian church at that time.  This man is clearly classified as both evil and being unknown to God.  If we might be tempted to overlook the terrible danger of conceit and the lust for other evils that it gives birth to, surely this sobering letter from John to Gaius must give us pause in our thinking.  If we fail to be brought up short by even the remote possibility of straying onto the trail blazed by Diotrephes and others like him, then what does that say about our appreciation of our position in Christ?  In point of fact, it may reveal that we have no position in Christ at all.

Laying that aside momentarily, and continuing to move through the remaining verses of 3^rd John, we come to verse 12: Demetrius has received a good testimony from everyone, and from the truth itself; and we add our testimony, and you know that our testimony is true.  We are suddenly presented with a new player in this saga of church strife.  Who is Demetrius and how does he factor into the situation?

The only other person who bore this name mentioned in Scripture is found in Acts chapter 19 in relation to Paul’s ministry in Ephesus.  This city was the site of one of the seven wonders of the ancient world; a huge temple to Diana, the Roman goddess of hunting.  Many people within the city were employed in the silversmith trade; primarily for the crafting of metal images of the goddess to facilitate worship among the populace.  When Paul arrived on the scene and began to teach that the Roman gods were not true gods at all, the craftsmen of the city, led by this Demetrius, rightly perceived that the message of the gospel was a threat to their line of work.  So, they started a riot for the purpose of silencing Paul and his associates.

There is no reason to believe the man mentioned here by John is the same person.  Demetrius of Ephesus certainly could have become a believer and participated in the ministry of John.  But there is no evidence that would lead to that conclusion.  The safest assumption, therefore, is that Demetrius was simply one of John’s associates.  And he may have been the bearer of the letter John had written to Gaius’s church.

The flow of thought in 3^rd John 5 to 8 seems to suggest that the missionaries had visited this church once before.  That is the occasion being referred to by John where Gaius demonstrated his love and Diotrephes his hate.  Gaius had treated them kindly, and after leaving they journeyed on to John’s church where they gave a good report of Gaius.  Now, perhaps, they are returning to Gaius’s church, possibly even carrying this letter from John, and he is urging Gaius to minister to them once again.  Demetrius may have been one of those missionaries.  Or he could have been an outside third party that John sent on ahead of his hoped-for visit (mentioned in verse 10).  This could have been a way for John to attempt to smooth the situation and defuse tensions a bit prior to his arrival.

What is clear is that Demetrius was a solid Christian of integrity.  He received a three-fold commendation from John.  First John wrote that “everyone” had testified as to his goodness.  John also added his own testimony, reminding Gaius that he knows what John says is true.  Finally, even the truth itself testified to Demetrius’s character.  This is as much as if to say: the record of the true gospel message of Christ, the witness of John and the other apostles, the historical records of the gospels and the book of Acts, and the explanation of the New Testament epistles.  All of these sources combined to elevate Gaius’s expectation of what he would find in the person of Demetrius.

John closed his third letter much the same as he did his second letter.  In verses 13 and 14 he wrote: I had many things to write to you, but I am not willing to write them to you with pen and ink; but I hope to see you shortly, and we will speak face to face.  Here we see again the reference to his planned visit.  We have no way of knowing whether John ever made this trip.  But in consideration of what he hoped to accomplish I see two points as it relates to leadership.

First, think about what we know of the men associated with this letter.  Two of them, Gaius and Demetrius, were positive examples of Christians.  One of them, Diotrephes, was a negative picture of everything a Christian is not.  It should be obvious which is preferable for church leadership.  In light of that, what is it that qualified Gaius for the leadership he already seemed engaged in?  We do not know if Demetrius was part of a leadership team or not, but he definitely seemed suited for it.  So again, what was it that determined these men’s qualifications?

In short, it was the visible and public record of their characters.  It was their reputations.  Gaius walked in the truth.  He acted faithfully in what he accomplished for the brethren.  He showed his love for other Christians.  Demetrius received a good testimony from everyone, and even from the truth itself.  John, at this point the most senior elder in the whole of Christendom, added his personal recommendation.  These men were commended not for what they said but what they did.  It was their proven track record of integrity that established them as men worthy of the title and responsibility of a leader.

If we consider the specific qualifications of leaders in Scripture, the portrait of a man worthy of leadership becomes even more clear.  1^st timothy 3:2-7 lists 13 requirements for one who would become an overseer in the church.  They are: beyond reproach, faithfulness to spouse, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, self-controlled, gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money, in control of his own home, and possessed of a good reputation outside the church.

If you were counting you might have realized that I listed only 12 requirements, not 13.  The reason is that the 13^th requirement is the clincher that determines whether all the rest can be proven or not.  The last qualifier of one who is ready to lead is that they must not be a new convert.  The verse in 1^st Timothy chapter 3 reads as follows: and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil.  What is Paul getting at in this verse?  Why would newness of conversion to Christ result in conceit and condemnation?

The reason is that there is a single unifying element that is required in order to prove the presence or lack of any and all of the requirements that Paul lists.  That missing link is time.  It takes time to prove loyalty.  The possibility of being disloyal must be present before faithfulness can be truly determined.  An opportunity to betray has to be seen and discarded by the one who is presumed to be true to his word.  Character is not demonstrated quickly.  It is borne of stress and difficulties and triumphs in the face of adversity.  This is why men newly minted as Christians should not ever be put into positions of authority.  The body of Christ needs to examine their lives over a period of time.  The signs of leadership material need to be present not just for a day or a week or even a year.  They must repeatedly demonstrate to all that they are a good fit for the responsibility of guiding and shepherding a flock of Christians.

Now, we obviously have no way of knowing the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Diotrephes to whatever position he held in the church.  But I guarantee you that he was not put through a sufficient time of seasoning and testing beforehand.  The type of corruption that pervaded his character cannot remain hidden for long.  It will emerge at various times and in diverse circumstances.  And it is up to fellow Christians to be discerning and observant enough to notice the red flags before it is too late. 

That means, for those who are reading this, that if you are a Christian and involved in a local church (and one cannot go without the other, but that is an issue for another time), then you have a responsibility to dig deep into the lives of your brothers and sisters in Christ.  And conversely, they have a responsibility to dig deeply into yours.  You cannot function properly within the body of Christ by standing on the perimeter and keeping a “hands off” mentality to your Christianity.  There is no record of any such thing in the New Testament being held up as the model of how to live. 

And furthermore, it simply cannot work.  Just in the specific case of what I am discussing right now (and there are plenty more that we could talk about), that of selecting leaders, there is no way someone’s qualifications can be determined with any degree of accuracy if they are not integrated deeply enough into other people’s lives.  It is that intimate, possibly even uncomfortable, level of relationship where flaws begin to emerge and be seen clearly.  You are not going to pick up on a pride issue such as what infected Diotrephes by merely saying “hello” and “good-bye” on Sunday mornings and Wednesday afternoons.

The second point that I see from all of this is how to deal with the potential reality of a bad leader revealed or even a good leader gone bad.  In the case of the church both Gaius and Diotrephes were members of, it had long since passed beyond the early warning or prevention stage.  Diotrephes was in full blown rebellion to apostolic authority, he was working counter to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and he was threatening to take the whole church down into the abyss with him. 

Because of this, in 3^rd John we are afforded a glimpse of what to do about it if and when this type of situation arises.  We find it back in verse 10.  John was planning to travel to this church.  It was not going to be a casual visit.  We read that he was going to “call attention to his deeds which he does.”  The solution is quite simple, although probably not easy.  It is to confront.  Earlier, I mentioned the qualifications for elder in 1^st Timothy.  Later in that same letter Paul outlines for Timothy the procedure to follow if an elder is caught up in sin.  We find it in chapter 5, verses 19-20: Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.  Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning.

The witnesses against Diotrephes were already many.  The evidence against him was conclusive.  When John arrived at Gaius’s church he was prepared to enact public rebuke upon Diotrephes and remove him from leadership.  Although John does not specify all of this, I think the implication of what he intended to do in calling attention to the deeds of Diotrephes is clear.

Bringing it back around to the modern state of the church we are left with the following conclusion.  First, be on point about righteously judging the walk of your fellow Christians and welcome their judgment of your own walk.  Be on the lookout for the “hogs in the silk waist coats”, to borrow Spurgeon’s terminology.  Second, if a church fails on point number one, and an unqualified man (the hog in the metaphor) is placed into a position of authority, then the church must have the courage of their convictions and deal with the sin among them.  Feelings may get hurt.  Egos may become bruised.  People may leave.  But this is the bride of Christ we are talking about.  It is larger and more important than any one or a hundred of us.  We who populate it bear the responsibility of doing everything in our power to present it to Christ spotless and kept in good order.  This is very much an issue of obedience versus disobedience for the church.

On that note, notice how John ends his letter in verse 15: Peace be to you.  The friends greet you.  Greet the friends by name.  There is just one word I want to focus on as I close this narrative of John’s epistles; peace.  What a fascinating way for him to close.  I wonder if, as he sat and penned these final lines, he recalled the night 60 or so years ago, when his Master said something very similar.

Jesus’s words are recorded for us in the gospel of John.  In chapter 14, as they reclined at supper the night of the Passover, just hours before he would be betrayed, Jesus said to His disciples: “Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me.”  After His resurrection, on three separate occasions the Lord appeared to these men.  And each time, in chapter 20 and verses 19, 21, and 26, He greeted them the same way: “Peace be with you.”

Why was Jesus so concerned about His dear brothers, His friends, being at peace?  Why was He so interested in their hearts being worry and stress free?  The reality is that we live in a world that has no peace.  Wars rage, atrocities abound, injustice prevails, and even where civilization, law, and order hold sway it is but a thin veneer covering the raging beast of mankind’s twisted and sick collective heart.  Introduce even the slightest breakdown in civil order and the immediate tendency of the general populace is toward anarchy and chaos.

Into this mess are thrust the sons and daughters of God, the adopted brothers and sisters of Jesus.  He knows better than any of us the heartache and misery we will endure while in these bodies of sin and death.  The assaults upon our righteousness will come from within just as often as from without.  In the light of this reality Christ knew that the only path toward personal inner peace for His friends was to trust His Father and Him implicitly.  That is why He followed His admonition to not be troubled with an exhortation to believe.

What is it that results from that belief?  Many things to be sure.  But for the purposes of this study I want to focus on just one.  The type of faith, the type of belief, the type of trust talked about in the pages of Scripture is always accompanied by obedience.  James said it well in his letter; Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself (James 2:17).  The works that James is talking about is the fruit of an obedient heart that trusts implicitly in the God who rules and governs it.

John was of course no stranger to this concept, and we have considered it well throughout these pages.  He was a man who expected us to “not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth” (1^st John 3:18).  Thus, this elder apostle, the last of his brethren, expected obedience.

He expected us to confess our sins, trusting the faithfulness and righteousness of God to forgive us (1^st John 1:9).  He took it for granted that only those who have come to know God would keep His commandments, and conversely those who fail to keep those commandments do not know God at all (1^st John 2:3).  There was no parlance with the world for John.  He required the same strict discipline that God always has, to do away with love for the world or the things in the world (1^st John 2:15).  John’s understanding of the core of God’s commandment and message to mankind was that it was wrapped in brotherly love for one another (1^st John 3:11).  Our mandate, from John’s perspective, is to lay down our lives for each other if necessary, and failing that to provide what each one needs to live (1^st John 3:16-17).  He warned us to test the teaching we receive against the measuring rod of true confession of Jesus as the Christ (1^st John 4:1-2).  For this elder apostle, the commands of God were a light and airy joy rather than a heavy and cumbersome burden (1^st John 5:3).  The need to guard ourselves from idolatry was front and center in his mind (1^st John 5:21).  In spite of the potential awkwardness, John expected his students to turn away false teachers who came to their door (2^nd John 10).  He exhorted us to demonstrate our devotion to Christ in acts of love, faithfulness, and truth (3^rd John 3-6).  And John was prepared to defend the gospel and the church that he loved by exposing the error, the false doctrine, and the evil of anyone who would seek to compromise the truth (3^rd John 10).  It goes without saying that he expected the same of all Christians.

Now then, what does all of this have to do with peace?  It has everything to do with it.  Obedience to God’s commands is the pathway to peace and confidence before Him.  Twice in 1^st John the apostle confirms this.  In 2:28 he wrote: Now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming.  Then in 3:21 we find: Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God. 

Much is made today of psychological problems as the root of most or even all evil in the world.  There is a diagnosis and corresponding treatment regimen for just about everything under the sun pertaining to the moral and spiritual collapse of our culture.  The abdication of personal responsibility and avoidance of accountability is the god of our age.  And in many cases these twin demons are fueled, aided, and abetted by the preponderance of psycho-therapists ready to leap at the opportunity of acquiring a new patient.  Meanwhile the pharmaceutical companies laugh all the way to the bank and Satan giggles as we join him on his road to hell.

Sadly, this warped perspective has infected the church.  Christians line up along with their neighbors to listen to someone tell them why their stress and anxiety are not their fault and how they can cure it with a little pill or two.  But the Bible teaches a different reality.  It teaches a pattern of faithful obedience to a loving Creator God which results in a peace that surpasses all understanding.  The reason so many Christians fail to find the peace that Jesus spoke of or the peace that John left us with is that they are wrapped in the seductive embrace of sinful disobedience to the commandments of God that are easily found in the pages of Scripture.

The issue could be loving that fellow church member who grates on your nerves like nails on a chalkboard.  Or perhaps you are living in sin, hiding what you do behind closed doors from your fellow Christians, and failing to confess it to the Lord in genuine repentance.  You might be faced with the need to confront a “hog in a silk waist coat” like Diotrephes, who is in a position of authority and shouldn’t be there.  Regardless of what the specifics of your situation are, the pathway to true peace and confidence before God, along with the parallel elimination of stress and anxiety, is to cast yourself upon His mercy and obey Him implicitly.  Fail to do that too consistently and for too long and you may find, when you approach the judgment throne of God, that all along you were one of the hogs yourself.

The Epistles of John, Part 30 (3rd John 5-8): Loving Faithfully in Truth

There was once a man who had recently become king due to his father’s death.  Soon after his coronation the new monarch was confronted by the populace.  They entreated him to lift the harsh burdens that had been laid upon them by his father.  The people swore to serve him faithfully if he would do so.  The king asked for time to consider their request.  Withdrawing from the public eye, he consulted his advisors.  The first group he met with offered advice that was unpalatable to the new ruler.  They encouraged him to accede to the people’s wishes.  This seemed repugnant to the king, so he dismissed the views of this group and consulted a second group.  This time the sovereign ears heard counsel more to their liking.  The second round of advice consisted of the following.  Not only should he reject the supplication of his subjects, but he should come back at them with a promise to increase the burden placed upon them by his father the king.  This is exactly what he did.  Unsurprisingly, the people revolted and rebelled against the rashness of this upstart monarch.

Soon afterward, the rebels raised up a different king for themselves.  This king was a man of the people.  He had lived among them as an ordinary citizen before fleeing the wrath of the previous, now dead, king.  Upon his return he had joined in with the citizenry in asking for leniency from the former prince.  And upon hearing the foolish arrogance of this young ruler, he led the people in breaking away from the kingdom.  After ascending the throne this second newly minted king informed his subjects that he did not want them to have to travel far to continue to practice their religion.  So he kindly set up new altars and places of worship for them, much closer to home.  Not only that, but he elevated a new caste of priests from among the population to minister to the public and facilitate their acts of worship.  In these ways he demonstrated his love to the people, in marked contrast to their former king.

These two kings are, of course, Rehoboam son of Solomon and Jeroboam son of Nebat.  The circumstances of the beginning of their respective reigns is chronicled in 1^st Kings chapter 12.  What can we say of these two supposed rulers?  Their kingships were equally disastrous on multiple levels.  Rehoboam sought to exercise truth in his administration of the populace.  Although we rightly judge his methods as utterly foolish and selfish, he was the king.  As such, he had every right to demand whatever he wished from the populace.  However, he abused this privilege in the pursuit of personal power and authority.  He demonstrated a complete lack of love toward the people he was supposed to be caring for.  And as a result he lost most of his kingdom.

Jeroboam, on the other hand, did not seek to openly elevate himself over the common man.  He originally fled Israel to escape the wrath of Solomon.  God had prophesied through Ahijah the Prophet that the kingdom would be torn out of the grasp of Solomon’s son and given to Jeroboam as punishment for Solomon’s rampant idolatry.  Naturally, this news was not received with joy in the king’s court and Jeroboam’s head was measured for the chopping block.  So he ran to Egypt until Solomon died.  Upon his return, he led the people in asking for mercy from Rehoboam.  He led them in breaking away from the tribe of Judah.  And, unfortunately for him, he led them in worse acts of idolatry than Solomon before him; all under the guise of love and care for the populace.  The Scriptures themselves tell the tale of Jeroboam’s true motive.  He professed concern for the poor people’s feet in having to travel to Jerusalem to worship.  But in reality he was more concerned about holding onto the power that God had just granted him.  So he set up alternate places of worship, in complete defiance of God’s decrees, to keep the people from traveling to Jerusalem.  Jeroboam wanted all the glory and prestige of having them worship in his city.  And he was afraid if they went back to the God ordained place of worship he wouldn’t get it.

On the one hand Rehoboam practiced a form of truth that was completely lacking in love.  But on the other, Jeroboam professed a form of love that was totally deficient in truth.  Scripture records for us that both men were judged as unrighteous and wicked by God.  Both men were punished for their transgressions while on earth.  And both died still in their sins.

Through the record of their lives we can see the tremendous importance of pursuing both truth and love simultaneously.  One cannot exist in a complete and accurate form without the other.  Warren W. Wiersbe once famously said “Truth without love is brutality, and love without truth is hypocrisy.”  He was quite right.  And as we continue our exegetical journey through the epistle of 3^rd John we will find that the recipient of the letter, Gaius, was a man committed to both loving in truth and being truthful in his love.  Furthermore, his pursuit of these twin elements of godliness were accompanied by a staunch and determined faithfulness that sought to emulate his master, Christ.

We saw last time that Gaius was a man of truth.  Twice in the letter already John has made mention of this characteristic of his beloved friend.  In verse 3 he wrote: For I was very glad when brethren came and testified to your truth, that is, how you are walking in truth.  Then again in verse 4 the apostle says: I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth.

Notice the emphasis in the third verse.  John tells how some fellow Christians had told of Gaius’s truth.  But he wants to be sure that Gaius, and presumably anyone else reading the letter, gets the point.  So he qualifies what he means with the phrase “how you are walking in truth.”  The key quality that was seen in Gaius’s life and ministry was not his profession of truth.  Rather, it was his practice of truth.  He was a man who was not content merely to proclaim with words that he followed Christ.  It appears that he saw the necessity of backing up that proclamation with action.  Perhaps he took to heart the writing of James (written around 50 years prior) who in James 2:15-16 taught: If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?

John was clearly enamored of Gaius’s insistence on walking in truth.  And is it any wonder?  Remember, that this was a teaching near and dear to John’s heart.  He wrote in 1^st John 3:18: Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth.  Again in 2^nd John he praises the members of his sister church for their commitment to walking in truth.

But interestingly, John was not content to leave his praise for Gaius at that.  Take another look at 3^rd John 4.  John supplies the definite article, translated in English as “the” before the word truth.  But verse 3 is rendered simply as “truth”.  This is not translator license.  The Greek manuscript has the article present in verse 4 just before the Greek “aletheia” (ahl-aye-thaye-ah), which means truth.  John deliberately added the article to elevate his meaning from merely “truth” to “the truth”.  It was not that Gaius followed some random principles of truth, present in the world and pursuant to judgment by man of its efficaciousness and reliability.  No, Gaius was holding to the absolute standard of truth as handed down from God through both the Hebrew Scriptures and more importantly through the perfect representation of truth in the flesh; Jesus Christ (John 14:6).

This is a point we should not bypass too hastily.  We live in a world overrun by “truth”.  It is a world engulfed in the individual pursuit of truth as it seems best to each individual.  Supposedly, one man’s truth is just as good and contains just as much veracity as another man’s truth.  If neither version of the truth inconveniences or harms either of them, then no one particularly seems to care that the very notion of opposing truths is a logical impossibility.  If one axiom is true then another axiom which is contrary to the first, cannot also be true.  This is basic logic.  Yet the popular view of today seems to fly directly in the face of such reason.  In contrast to this rampant relativism (or the belief that all truth is relative to one’s personal perception and worldview) we find the word of God holding fast to the notion that there is only one source of absolute truth that exists.  It is God Himself.  And He has chosen to reveal to mankind as much truth as man needs to live and breathe and move in the form of the written Bible.

Perhaps you profess to be a Christian, so you quickly and casually agree with the previous paragraph.  However, do not be too sure of yourself.  Carefully examine your life.  Look deeply into your own heart.  Catalogue the entertainment you choose.  Apprehend the ways and means in which you spend your money.  Consider where your time is focused.  Then carefully measure and weigh those factors (and others) against the revealed truth of God’s word. 

If any area of your life conflicts with the Scriptures, and you choose to continue to ignore it, then you must acknowledge that however much you want to parrot with your lips that you believe the Bible is the only source of truth, the reality of your lifestyle proclaims louder than words, that what you really believe is that your preferences outweigh God’s preferences.  To the world around you, knowing of your professed faith in Christ and watching your every move for signs of weakness, you are just as relative with your “truth” as the rest of them.

That brings us up to verses 5 to 8 of 3^rd John.  I am going to provide the text of this whole section up front and then go back and draw out a number of points from various angles: Beloved, you are acting faithfully in whatever you accomplish for the brethren, and especially when they are strangers; and they have testified to your love before the church.  You will do well to send them on their way in a manner worthy of God.  For they went out for the sake of the Name, accepting nothing from the Gentiles.  Therefore we ought to support such men, so that we may be fellow workers with the truth.

I want to begin with the first phrase of this passage: Beloved, you are acting faithfully in whatever you accomplish for the brethren.  John has already praised Gaius for his truth.  Now he draws attention to the faithfulness exhibited by this servant of God.  However, it seems that Gaius’s faithfulness should already be self-evident.  A faithful character is implied by his description as one who walks in the truth.  The very idea of walking in something is a verifiable and quantifiable demonstration of the presence of that thing.  To be found walking in it is to be faithful in it.  So why does John emphasize faithfulness in the next verse?

I think the reason is that he knows his articulation of Gaius’s character is still incomplete.  He has exalted him for his walk of truth.  However, the nature of that truth has not yet been exposed.  Truth as it applies to Gaius is still an ephemeral concept in the mind of the reader.  Even Gaius himself, although he has been the one doing the walking, needs to be instructed regarding exactly why his actions are praiseworthy.

So John clarifies his meaning.  He links Gaius’s truthful walk with his service on behalf of others.  This is what truth looks like to John.  It looks like sacrifice.  It looks like putting others first.  It looks like becoming the least on earth so that you may become the greatest in the kingdom of heaven (Mat. 23:11-12).

Furthermore, this pattern of truthful, productive, and unselfish behavior is itself a self-authenticating demonstration of faithfulness.  Men are not considered faithful unless there is evidence to support such a claim.  If someone proclaims their generous nature, yet no visible signs of generosity are ever seen, or perhaps they are infrequent and scattered, then no grounds exist to suppose they are faithful with their generosity. 

Even God Himself works this way.  If anyone in the universe was qualified to be able to make intangible claims about the quality of their character it would be God.  Yet He goes to great lengths to prove with explicit actions the truth of the claims He makes about Himself.  Let us take a look at one example of this in Scripture.

In Genesis chapter 19 we read of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.  These cities were located in the Jordan river valley, probably toward the south end of what is today known as the Dead Sea.  This is a region that Genesis 13:10-12 describes as “well-watered everywhere”.  It was a lush and fertile place for men to settle in prior to the doom of these wicked cities.  The Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and brimstone which turned the valley into a place of sulfur and ash.  This is probably the reason why the water of the Dead Sea today has such a high salt content that no marine life can survive in it.

But just before the destruction of chapter 19 we find a fascinating prelude to it in chapter 18.  God visited Abraham in the form of three men and assured him that Isaac would be born the following year.  Before departing from Abraham’s presence, the Lord revealed to him what was about to happen to Sodom and Gomorrah.  What followed was an intimate exchange between a man and his God.

Although Scripture does not record Abraham’s motivation, it is reasonable to suppose that he was concerned for his nephew.  Abraham would have known that Lot was living in the area targeted for judgment.  So he pled with the Lord to spare the cities.  He did so by employing a delightfully humorous “push your luck” method.  He asked God to withhold judgment if 50 people are found in Sodom and Gomorrah that are righteous.  Then Abraham lowered the bar to 45 righteous people.  He followed that by reducing the number to 40, then 30, then 20, and finally to 10 people living righteously within the cities.  You can almost imagine Abraham as a game show contestant, sweating and debating whether to go for more and push his luck or hold where he is at.

It turned out that not even 10 righteous people were within the cities and God destroyed them for their wickedness.  But what is interesting and relevant to our study of 3^rd John is the reason that God even entertained Abraham’s pleading in the first place.  Genesis 18:17-19 tells the tale in the form of a private conversation between the members of the trinity: The Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, since Abraham will surely become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed?  For I have chosen him, so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him.”

God already knew what He was going to do to Sodom and Gomorrah.  Their fate had been sealed and the just hand of God was about to move against them in a terrible and conclusive way.  Yet the Lord still condescended to listen to Abraham.  In effect, the Godhead invited a mortal human man into their counsels.  They invited him to participate in their deliberations.  They demonstrated to the man that he was worshipping and following a God who cared for him personally.  Why would God do all of this?  Shouldn’t He have the prerogative to simply speak and then expect or even demand unswerving obedience?

Well, of course the Lord does have this right and prerogative.  But incredibly, He often chooses not to utilize His authority in a heavy handed or oppressive manner.  Rather, He delights in showing His creations quantifiable demonstrations of why they should trust and follow Him.  In Abraham’s case, God had already very specifically promised him that he would raise him up into a mighty nation (Gen. 17:4-5).  Abraham had been promised that God would make his name and his reward great (Gen. 12:2; 15:1).  He had been promised that God would be a shield to him (Gen. 15:1).  Amazingly, the God of heaven and earth told this puny man that He would establish an everlasting covenant with him, as if he was an equal for whom Almighty God would enter into a sort of business transaction with (Gen. 17:2, 4, 7).

In spite of all these repeated promises God still saw fit to help Abraham in his faith.  The Lord granted to Abraham more than just intellectual knowledge of God’s faithfulness to His own covenant.  He instilled in his servant an experiential awareness of that faithfulness.  By including Abraham in his counsel and letting him know that his voice carried weight with God He was assuring His servant of the concrete nature of their relationship in a manner that words alone could not accomplish.

This is why Habakkuk the prophet, when describing the Lord, said the following in Habakkuk 1:12: Are You not from everlasting, O Lord, my God, my Holy One?  The Hebrew word translated there as everlasting is “qedem” (keh-dem).  It has the idea of going in front, or a sense of before or earlier or in olden days.  Habakkuk was not just saying that God is eternally existent.  He was pointing out that God is eternally active in the creation He has made.

That is why God allowed Abraham to prattle on like a game show contestant, asking for more and more from Him, even though He already knew ahead of time what was going to happen.  It was for Abraham’s immediate benefit, so that he would become more appreciative of the God he served.  And it was for God’s own ultimate benefit, as the worship of His servant would become more exquisite and authentic, which in turn brought God more glory.

Thus when John clarifies that Gaius’s walk of truth demonstrates his faithfulness what he is really saying is that it images or references God Himself!  This becomes decidedly obvious at the end of verse 6.  John has been describing Gaius’s faithful devotion to truth in the context of some strangers.  And he says: You will do well to send them on their way in a manner worthy of God.  If, John believes, Gaius is faithful and truthful with these strangers, then his work of service and ministry to them will stand as a reflection of God’s own character.

But who were these strangers?  They seem to rise out of nowhere at the end of verse 5 as one of the objects of Gaius’s faithfulness.  His first target is the brethren, probably referring to the members of his church.  The other target of ministry is the strangers.  So who were they?  Verses 6 and 7 give us clues. 

In verse 6 we find that the strangers testified, or reported, to the church about Gaius and his faithful work.  This indicates that they were Christians.  The church in question is most likely the church that John was currently at, perhaps Ephesus.  It seems unlikely that such a church would have entertained the witness of anyone other than fellow brothers in Christ.

Then in verse 7 we find that: they went out for the sake of the Name, accepting nothing from the Gentiles.  “The Name” is almost assuredly a reference to Jesus.  John has used this moniker several times already in description of Christ.  In 1^st John 2:12 he wrote: I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you for His name’s sake.  John’s gospel contains two points of cross reference.  First, in John 1:12: But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name.  Then in John 3:18: “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

In addition, the “name” of Jesus was the foundation of Peter’s address to the Sanhedrin in Acts 4:10-12: “Let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead – by this name this man stands here before you in good health.  He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders, but which became the chief corner stone.  And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.

The name of Jesus was such a critical component of early Christian thought and practice that it is inconceivable that John could have meant anything other than Jesus when he says the strangers went out for the sake of the name.  There is only one person whose name contained such power and authority and majesty that He could be referenced simply by stating “the name”.

This means that the strangers literally went out, meaning into the world, for the sake of Jesus.  Extrapolating further, we can say with great certainty that there is no other context they would have gone out in than to advance the gospel.  In other words, these strangers were traveling missionaries.

Before we go further, a point from the latter half of verse 7 bears mentioning.  John says that these missionaries accepted nothing from the Gentiles.  What did he mean by this statement?  The Greek word translated here as Gentiles is “ethnikos” (eth-ni-kos).  In a strict dictionary sense “ethnikos” means someone from a different people group.  You can see the etymology of our modern English word “ethnic” drawing from this ancient Greek source.

But this word, in its biblical context, takes on a slightly different tone.  It means more than just a foreigner.  It takes on a meaning of a pagan or unbeliever.  We can see this very clearly in Matthew 18:17: “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”  The context of this verse in Matthew is that of a professing Christian who has caused an offense via his sin.  The church is instructed to proceed with a very specific order and sequence of discipline.  Eventually, if the sinner refuses to repent he is to be considered an “ethnikos” or a tax collector. 

Tax collectors were universally despised by the Jews.  They were seen as traitors and lackeys of the hated Roman overlords.  They were held in great disdain by the populace of Israel.  In the same way, someone who has been in the church, has been found guilty of sin, and refuses to repent is to be shunned.  His sin is not to be tolerated.  As Paul told the church at Corinth in 1^st Corinthians 5:13, in reference to flagrant sexual sin by a member of the church: Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.

So, we can see that “ethnikos”, as used by the Bible, takes on a decidedly negative connotation.  Jesus also used the word in Matthew 5:47 and 6:7 with similar emphasis.  This tells us what we need to know about the group of people referred to by John that the itinerant missionaries accepted nothing from.  They were non-believers.  It would certainly have been true, given the geographic realities of the first century church, that these people were probably Gentiles from a racial standpoint.  But the real issue at hand, and the reason the missionaries would not accept aid from them, was that they were non-Christians.

This is very instructive for Christians today in the modern world.  Many of the ministries we would like to engage in require more financing than we sometimes have available.  We live in a country that is flush with wealth.  It can therefore be very appealing to hold public fund-raisers, take up collections at storefronts, or otherwise engage in the acquisition of material resources from the world to support our church ministries.

But this is not the pattern we see in Scripture.  The missionaries of 3^rd John specifically avoided taking anything from those outside the church.  Instead, they depended on aid given freely by men such as Gaius from within the church.  This was not a ministry approach dreamed up by these strangers on a whim either.  They were, in effect, following the example already set forth by the Lord Jesus. 

In Luke chapter 10 Christ chose 72 (some manuscripts and translations render this 70) of His disciples to be sent out on a mission of evangelism.  He gave them very specific instructions.  They were to carry no money belt, bag, or extra shoes.  Jesus wanted them to trust in the Lord to provide rather than using human ingenuity.  They were to greet no one on the way.  He wanted their focus to be on the mission, not on social pleasantries.  When the evangelists entered a town they were to choose a house, enter it, and test whether the homeowner was receptive to the faith.  If he was, they were to remain there, subsisting only on what was freely given to them.  They were not to move from house to house, begging as if they were vagrant wanderers.

The plan of action for Jesus’s mission team can be summarized with four requirements.  They were to trust the Lord implicitly, remain exclusively focused on the task at hand, accept help from allies and only such help as those allies chose to provide, and they were not to spend their time seeking after further aid.  This strategy bears a strong resemblance to the strangers in 3^rd John.  They did not accept help from unbelievers and they went to fellow Christians for support.

This is not to say that anyone who ever takes money from a non-Christian is universally wrong to do so.  It could happen that a friend or family member, while not being a follower of Christ themselves, believes in and supports the community or social work a church is seeking to engage in.  So, they want to support this project through financial aid.  I do not believe accepting such gifts is categorically incorrect in all cases.  Instead, what we are talking about is a matter of policy.  If a church has an intentional strategy of going to the world for help, I think that is clearly unacceptable in Scripture. 

The policy of a church should be to accept secular gifts if the refusal of such a gift would cause offense to the giver.  But the church should never seek it out.  Instead, they should rely on the support of those within the church.  In other words, they should go “in house” to fund their ministries.  And in fact, that is exactly what we see John espousing to Gaius here in 3^rd John.  Verse 8 reads: Therefore we ought to support such men, so that we may be fellow workers with the truth.

John shares with Gaius that if he continues to support fellow Christians, as he has already done, then not only will his efforts be worthy of God (v.6) but by doing so Gaius becomes a participant or a partner in the work being done by his brothers in Christ.  This then becomes an additional motivating factor as to why Christians should not go to the world for ministry support.  Not only does such a course of action violate the clear strategy of Christ and the principle lauded by John.  But it also deprives those within the church of a wonderful opportunity to receive grace through their sacrificial giving.

Paul gives us a beautiful picture of how this works in 2^nd Corinthians 9:6-8.  He begins by describing the heart of a Christian who is giving sacrificially and willingly in obedience to the Lord: Now this I say, he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.  Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.  This is clear enough.  If you give much you will gain much reward.  If you give little you will gain little reward.  But under no circumstances is a church to coerce contributions from its members.  The act of giving must be freely and gladly done.

Then Paul writes a delightful addendum in verse 8: And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that always having all sufficiency in everything, you may have an abundance for every good deed.  Now, if we were to interpret verse 8 out of its proper context it would be entirely possible to think Paul is speaking generally about good works here.  As in, God will provide all the grace a believer needs to be able to accomplish all possible good deeds.  However, taking the flow of thought in the larger chapter into account, it is clear that Paul is speaking about giving and the grace that God will supply to us so that we may abound in every good opportunity to give sacrificially and thus be blessed.

So then, it is a mistake to place human logic ahead of Scripture in the area of ministry support.  Human logic might dictate that a church will do much “better” and raise a great deal more money if they open their fund-raising efforts to the world outside the church.  But Scripture dictates that we do not take that approach.  Instead, the Bible teaches that we are to go to the body of Christ and the church itself should support its own ministries.  Furthermore, if we follow this course of action we are strengthening the church by enabling its members to be endowed with extra grace by God for the accomplishment of His purposes.

Additionally, if the ministry we support is that of evangelism or missions, then we are afforded the possibility of a bonus in that the good report of our conduct may spread beyond the walls of our local church and out across Christendom.  This is of course not to be used for any sinful goal of seeking after glory for ourselves.  Rather, if an individual local church gains for itself a good reputation, and that prestige spreads beyond the region it is in, it is a net benefit for the universal body of Christ.  Consider the account of the Macedonian churches and their deep sacrificial giving that we find in 2^nd Corinthians 8:1-5.  These people were in poverty themselves.  Yet they begged Paul for the opportunity to take part in the project to raise money for persecuted believers in the Jerusalem church.  Paul is so impressed with their generosity that he uses them as a motivating factor to encourage the Corinthian church to follow the example of the Macedonians.  In this way, the sanctifying fruit borne by such generous giving was magnified and multiplied.

That is exactly what happened with Gaius.  He behaved admirably in his treatment of the missionary strangers who came to his door.  We have already considered how his hospitality stood as a testament to his pursuit of truth.  And we have seen that such a walk of truth demonstrates a faithfulness that is worthy of God.  Now we must take into account the final leg of the tripod of righteousness that Gaius was engaged in; that of love.

In verse 6 we find that these strangers apparently had journeyed on from the church where Gaius ministered.  They had made their way to John’s church.  And once there: they have testified to your love before the church.  This is interesting.  John has expanded our understanding of Gaius’s behavior with this sentence.  We know from our study of 1^st John that one aspect of “agape” love is to give of the world’s goods that which is necessary to sustain life, to those who have needs in those areas.  This can be seen in 1^st John 3:17: But whoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?

Giving sacrificially, either of finances or resources, is one way in which genuine Godly love can be shown.  In the context of 3^rd John that must have been precisely what went on when these brothers came to Gaius for support.  He might have taken them into his home, or given them food and drink, or provided supplies for their continuing journey, or some combination of all three.  And certainly, he would have welcomed them into fellowship and corporate worship with the church.

The reason why this is so striking to me is that it fleshes out the picture of Gaius that we have, and it serves to illuminate the two previous characteristics we have already read of him.  He was a man who walked in the truth.  This walk of truth showcased his faithfulness.  His faithful grasp of truth was evidenced by his love for others.  There is a Trinitarian relationship between these three elements of truth, faithfulness, and love.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that they are inseparable.

If someone professes to be truthful, yet they are found to be devoid of love, then the assessment of their character is that they are not truthful because to love like Christ is the purest form of truth.  If someone professes to be faithful, but despite their claim no evidence of it is seen, then they cannot be walking in truth and therefore they are not truly faithful either, regardless of what they say.  And if someone professes love, but that love is not backed up with a faithful witness which demonstrates their love, then obviously, they do not truly love at all.

One province of life where this is particularly relevant is in the sphere of parenting.  A child’s first understanding of who God is comes from his or her parents.  If the parents present an accurate view of God in the way they exercise authority over the child, then the little one will have a wonderful advantage in getting to know the Lord on their own in the due course of time. 

God paints a portrait of Himself in the Scriptures that is perfectly balanced among a panoply of seemingly competing attributes.  Therefore, if parents are to model this correctly they also must strive for a balanced approach to their parental role.  Unfortunately, in the matter of the relationship between truth and love, it seems to me that the tendency of our modern age, including among Christians within the body of Christ, is to lean too far toward one extreme or the other. 

When parents favor truth, justice, and holiness over and in exclusion of love, what results is, as Wiersbe put it, brutality.  The child grows up with an inaccurate view of God as a tyrannical dictator who desires nothing but unswerving obedience to the strict letter of the law and has little mercy to spare when that standard is not adhered to.  They are not shown God as someone who loves them with a love so profound and consistent that He ordained their inclusion into His family before time began.  Such an understanding of God is desperately needed if one is to understand and appreciate the grace He displays in salvation.

On the other hand, if parents favor love, compassion, and grace over and in exclusion of truth, what results is, tapping Wiersbe once again, hypocrisy.  In this version, the child sees God as exclusively loving and tender.  They lose the very necessary image of God as a god of justice and righteousness.  Such an understanding of Him is absolutely critical in order to come to grips with the reality of sin and its associated punishment.

Both extremes are wrong.  Either is imbalanced and not reflective of all that God is.  Not only is the child given a distorted picture of God, ostensibly sanctioned by the Bible itself if the parents are professing Christians.  But in addition, such an imbalance places an unnecessary strain on the marriage.  Because more than likely one spouse leans toward one extreme in their personality and temperament while the other spouse is quite likely to tend toward the opposite direction.  So, by failing to work together as a team through respecting the value their partner brings to the table, they do not achieve the balanced approach to parenting that is only possible through the combination of the two of them.  And whichever extreme the parental unit winds up with, the spouse that favors the opposite approach will not be fulfilled in their God-given gifting.

We could take this same principle and apply it to any area of our lives.  But I think the point is made already.  Truth without faithful love is no truth at all.  Faithfulness that lacks truth and love is actually unfaithfulness.  And love that is emptied of truth and faithfulness is, in point of fact, hate.  I don’t think any of us desire to be characterized by any of the three preceding sentences.  But thanks be to God that we have been shown the way forward by John’s letter to Gaius from so long ago.  In this ancient manuscript we have a recipe for success in life.  It is to pursue a lifestyle of loving faithfully in truth.  May God be pleased to lead us in that direction through the power of His word.