I read this and thought it was worth sharing. John Stott makes a great point that First and Second John ought to be “read together if we are to gain a balanced understanding of the duties and limits of Christian hospitality.”1‘
Both letters address a similar problem:
A similar problem lies behind both letters, namely the visits of itinerant teachers and what treatment is to be given to them. Both letters are therefore concerned with Christian truth and love and with their relation to hospitality.
Ibid, 223.
III John’s specific mentioning of people by name, makes the contours of Christian hospitality more clear.
This mention of Gaius (1), Diotrephes (9) and Demetrius (12) makes the third letter more vivid than the second and gives us a clearer glimpse into the inner life of a first-century church.
Ibid.
The key differences between the two letters that make it worthwhile to take them together is that the second letter puts a boundary on the extent of hospitality, while the third letter Gaius is being commended for extending hospitality to teachers of the truth. Here is how Stott put it:
In the second letter the church is warned not to extend hospitality to false teachers who deny the doctrine of the incarnation, while in the third ‘the elder’ commends Gaius for the hospitality he has shown to teachers of the truth, urges him to continue it, and sharply rebukes Diotrephes for his refusal to welcome them and for his opposition to those who wished to. In this way the positive instruction of the third letter is complementary to the more negative instruction of the second.
Ibid, 223–224.
How do you see the contours–extents and boundaries–of Christian hospitality set forth in the Word? Let us know in the comments.
What is your takeaway?
Join the discussion by commenting below.
- John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 224. ↩︎
Navigation
Return to III John Field Notes
Go to my III John Translation