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 1st 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 3rd 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 1st
John 3:18: Little children, let us not
love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth. Again in 2nd 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 3rd 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 3rd 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 3rd 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 1st 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 1st
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 3rd 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 3rd
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 3rd
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 2nd 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 2nd
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 1st 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 1st 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 3rd 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment