Lectionary Calendar
Sunday, July 20th, 2025
the Week of Proper 11 / Ordinary 16
the Week of Proper 11 / Ordinary 16
video advertismenet
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
Attention!
For 10¢ a day you can enjoy StudyLight.org ads
free while helping to build churches and support pastors in Uganda.
Click here to learn more!
free while helping to build churches and support pastors in Uganda.
Click here to learn more!
Bible Commentaries
Alford's Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary Alford's Greek Testament Commentary
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Alford, Henry. "Commentary on 3 John 1". Alford's Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/hac/3-john-1.html. 1863-1878.
Alford, Henry. "Commentary on 3 John 1". Alford's Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary. https://www.studylight.org/
Whole Bible (45)New Testament (19)Individual Books (10)
Verse 1
ÎΩÎÎÎÎÎ¥ Î
1 .] ADDRESS. The elder (see prolegg. to the two Epistles) to Caius the beloved (on Caius, see prolegg. The epithet Ïá¿· á¼Î³Î±ÏηÏá¿· seems to be used this first time in a general sense: cf. á¼Î³Ï below), whom I (for my own part: Caius was generally beloved, and the Apostle declares that he personally joins in the affection for him) love in ( the ) truth (see 2 John 1:1 , note. á¼Î½ á¼Î»Î·Î¸ÎµÎ¯á¾³ á¼Î³Î±Ïá¾· ὠκαÏá½° κÏÏιον á¼Î³Î±Ïῶν á¼Î½Î´Î¹Î±Î¸ÎÏῳ á¼Î³Î¬Ïá¿ , Åc.).
Verses 2-4
2 4 .] Wish that Caius may prosper, as his soul prospers: and ground of this latter assertion . Beloved (the repetition of á¼Î³Î±ÏηÏÎ is due perhaps more to the fact that the direct address begins here, than to any specific motive, such as the supposed ill-health of Caius, as Düsterd. from Lücke (but not in his 3rd edn.)), I pray that concerning all things thou mayest prosper ( ÏεÏá½¶ ÏάνÏÏν is taken by many, e. g. Beza (E. V.), Wahl, Lücke (1st edn.), al., and recently by Düsterd., as signifying “above all things:” for which they allege Hom. Il. α . 287, á¼Î»Î» ʼ ὠδ ʼ á¼Î½á½´Ï á¼Î¸Îλει ÏεÏá½¶ ÏάνÏÏν á¼Î¼Î¼ÎµÎ½Î±Î¹ á¼Î»Î»Ïν . But it has been urged on the other side 1) that Homeric usage is no real index to N. T. usage: 2) that the meaning in Homer is not that sought here: 3) that it would be unnatural for the Apostle to pray for Caius’s bodily health and prosperity “above all things.” And hence the other modern Commentators, Lücke (edn. 2), De Wette, Huther, Sander, have taken the above meaning: which cannot be impugned, as Düsterd., by saying that ÏεÏί is never found joined with εá½Î¿Î´Î¿á¿¦Ïθαι , or that á¼Î½ Ïá¾¶Ïιν would be more natural than ÏεÏá½¶ ÏάνÏÏν . ÏεÏί with a gen. is too usual signifying reference, to be set aside or judged of by the consideration of the verb which precedes: St. John himself uses it with verbs of very various classes. εá½Î¿Î´Î¿á¿¦Ïθαι is pass. of εá½Î¿Î´ÏÏ , of which the neut. form is εá½Î¿Î´ÎÏ , from εá½Î¿Î´Î¯Î± , to have a καλὴ á½Î´ÏÏ : - ÏÏ , to make, or give a καλή á½Î´ÏÏ . So Hesych., εá½Î¿Î´ÏÏει , καÏÎµÏ Î¸Ï Î½Îµá¿ Â· εá½ÏδÏθη , ἡÏοιμάÏθη . So that the pass. εá½Î¿Î´Î¿á¿¦Ïθαι comes to much the same as the intrans. εá½Î¿Î´Îµá¿Î½ . Its use is common, and regular, in the LXX. See notes on reff., and Lücke’s and Düsterd.’s account of the usages, here) and be in health (i. e. bodily health. ÏεÏá½¶ ÏάνÏÏν , in all probability, does not belong to á½Î³Î¹Î±Î¯Î½ÎµÎ¹Î½ , but only to εá½Î¿Î´Î¿á¿¦Ïθαι : the latter verb is a particular, taken out of the former, which is general), even as thy soul prospereth (viz. á¼Î½ ÏῠκαÏá½° Ïὸ εá½Î±Î³Î³Îλιον ÏολιÏείᾳ , Åc.: as is shewn by what follows. There is a passage in Philo, Quis rer. div. hæres, § 58, vol. i. p. 514, in which the well-being of body and soul are similarly compared: á½ Ïαν εá½Î¿Î´á¿ μοι Ïá½° á¼ÎºÏá½¸Ï ÏÏá½¸Ï Îµá½ÏοÏίαν καὶ εá½Î´Î¿Î¾Î¯Î±Î½ · εá½Î¿Î´á¿ Ïá½° ÏÏμαÏÎ¿Ï ÏÏá½¸Ï á½Î³ÎµÎ¯Î±Î½ Ïε καὶ á¼°ÏÏÏν , εá½Î¿Î´á¿ δὲ καὶ Ïá½° ÏÏ Ïá¿Ï ÏÏá½¸Ï á¼ÏÏÎ»Î±Ï Ïιν á¼ÏεÏῶν ). For I rejoiced greatly when the brethren came and testified to thy truth (the participles á¼ÏÏ . and μαÏÏ . are in reality timeless, and convey merely the reason of the á¼ÏάÏην : but such a connexion is given in English by the temporal adverb, which has in this case rather a ratiocinative than a purely temporal force. In ÏÎ¿Ï Ïá¿ á¼Î»Î·Î¸ÎµÎ¯á¾³ , the subst. is necessarily subjective thy share of that Truth in which thou walkest, see below), even as (almost = how that , see below) thou walkest in truth (this clause is not an independent one, adding the testimony of the Apostle to that of the brethren, “as (I know that) thou walkest &c.:” but is epexegetical of the former clause, and states the substance of the testimony of the brethren, as is shewn by what follows, á¼ÎºÎ¿ÏÏ Ïá½° á¼Î¼á½° Ï . κ . Ï . λ .).
Verse 4
4 .] Explains á¼ÏάÏην λίαν above. I have no greater (the form μειζÏÏεÏÎ¿Ï is condemned by some (Phryn. Lob. p. 136, Åc. h. l.) as barbarous. But these comparatives of comparatives and superlatives are found both in classical and in N. T. Greek: see Ephesians 3:8 , and note) joy than this (lit. “than these things:” following the usage by which ÏαῦÏα is so often put where one thing only is intended: cf. the formula, καὶ ÏαῦÏα , “idque:” so Plato, Phæd. p. 62, D, á¼Î»Î» ʼ á½ á¼Î½ÏηÏÎ¿Ï á¼Î½Î¸ÏÏÏÎ¿Ï ÏÎ¬Ï Ê¼ á¼Î½ οἰηθείη ÏαῦÏα , ÏÎµÏ ÎºÏÎον εἶναι á¼Ïὸ Ïοῦ δεÏÏÏÏÎ¿Ï . See Kühner, Gr. ii. p. 48), that (explicative, as constantly in St. John after the demonstrative pronoun) I hear of my children walking in the truth (on the participial construction, see note on 2 John 1:7 . The expression ÏÎκνα here seems rather to favour the idea that the ÎºÏ Ïία of the 2nd Epistle is a Church; but see prolegg. to 2 John).
Verses 5-8
5 8 .] Praise of the hospitality shewn by Caius; and reason of that praise . Beloved (beginning again of new address: see above on 3Jn 1:2 ), thou doest a faithful act ( á¼Î¾Î¹Î¿Î½ ÏιÏÏοῦ á¼Î½Î´ÏÏÏ , as Åc. and most interpreters. De W. and Bengel explain it “fidele facis: facis quiddam quod facile a te pollicebar mihi et fratribus.” But the other is better. In ÏιÏÏá½¸Ï á½ Î»ÏÎ³Î¿Ï , 1Ti 1:15 al., there is possibly the same allusion: not only a saying worthy of credit, but one belonging to those who are of the ÏίÏÏÎ¹Ï ) whatsoever thou workest (the aor. betokens these deeds as summed up in one and characterized as ÏιÏÏÏν ) towards (so the Lord in Mat 26:10 describes His anointing by Mary thus, καλὸν á¼Ïγον εἰÏγάÏαÏο Îµá¼°Ï á¼Î¼Î ) the brethren, and that (and those brethren), strangers ( Ïιλοξενία is an especial mark of Christian á¼Î³Î¬Ïη , Romans 12:13 , 1 Timothy 3:2 , Titus 1:8 , Hebrews 13:2 , 1Pe 4:9 ), who (the above-named ξÎνοι á¼Î´ÎµÎ»Ïοί ) bore testimony to thy love in the presence of the church (viz. where St. John was at the time of writing. They were Evangelists, 3 John 1:7 ; and thus would naturally give the church an account of their missionary journey, during which they were so hospitably treated by Caius): whom thou wilt do well if thou forward on their way (as Bengel says, the future is a “morata formula hortandi.” The aor. part. presents no difficulty: it will then, and not till then, be a good act, when it is done. And this would only be expressed by the fut. with an aor. part.: οá½Ï ÎºÎ±Î»á¿¶Ï ÏοιήÏÎµÎ¹Ï ÏÏοÏÎμÏÏν would be liable to be rendered “whom thou wilt benefit by forwarding &c.” the present part. being, in such a conjunction, timeless, and merely ratiocinative. On ÏÏοÏÎÎ¼Ï ., see reff. and Tit 3:13 ) worthily of God (this qualification belongs to ÏÏοÏÎμÏÎ±Ï , not as Carpzov., who supplies a καί before á¼Î¾Î¯ÏÏ , to ÏοιήÏÎµÎ¹Ï , “well and worthily of God.” The words mean, in a manner worthy of Him whose messengers they are and whose servant thou art). For on behalf of the Name ( of Christ : see the second ref., and cf. Ignat. ad Ephesians 3:0 and 7, pp. 648 f., and ad Philad. 10, p. 705, δοξάÏαι Ïὸ á½Î½Î¿Î¼Î± . Bengel says, “subaudi, Dei. Leviticus 24:11 . Conf. Jac. 2:7.” But neither of these places applies. O. T. usage is naturally no guide for us here; and St. James alludes to the name of Christ ) they went forth (on their missionary journey: not, as Beza, Erasm.-Schmidt, Wolf, Carpzov., Bengel, “were driven forth:” see more below), taking nothing (receiving nothing by way of benefaction or hire: even as St. Paul in Achaia, 1 Corinthians 9:18 , 2 Corinthians 11:7 ff; 2 Corinthians 12:16 ff., 1 Thessalonians 2:9 ff.: against Huther, who denies the applicability of the comparison, seeing that in St. Paul’s case they were Christian churches : but so must these have been before they would contribute to the support of their missionaries. Notice μηδÎν ; implying that it was their own deliberate purpose; refusing to take any thing: οá½Î´Îν would have expressed only the fact , which might have arisen from the remissness of the á¼Î¸Î½Î¹ÎºÎ¿Î¯ , and might have been, considered by themselves as a hardship. This is the force of μηδÎν , and not as Dusterd., that οá½Î´Îν would only have stated the fact, but by μηδÎν the Apostle presents it for the consideration of his readers) from the heathens (reff. The expositors spoken of above under á¼Î¾á¿Î»Î¸Î¿Î½ , take these words as belonging to it, “expulsi sunt a paganis,” and interpret μηδÎν λαμβάνονÏÎµÏ , “nihil secum asportantes,” “omnibus rebus spoliati.” Grot., who takes á¼Î¾á¿Î»Î¸Î¿Î½ of expulsion, understands it to have been “a Judæa, per Judæos incredulos, ob Christum:” and takes the rest as meaning “potuerant in ista calamitate adjuvari misericordia Ïῶν á¼Î¾Ï , sed maluerunt omnia Christianis debere.” But the whole interpretation is forced and unnatural, and the ordinary one obvious, and very suitable, considering the motive put forward in 3 John 1:8 , which clearly shews them to have been workers for God’s truth. The pres. part. λαμβάνονÏÎµÏ indicates, not what they did when they á¼Î¾á¿Î»Î¸Î¿Î½ , but their habit after their setting out: and is as so often, indicative of norm, without any particular time being pointed out. So that we need not, with Huther and Düsterd., imagine that there is an allusion to a missionary maxim , to take nothing from the heathen, in accordance with which they acted). We therefore ( ἡμεá¿Ï , contrast to the á¼Î¸Î½Î¹ÎºÎ¿Î¯ : οá½Î½ , because they μηδὲν Î»Î±Î¼Î²Î¬Î½Î¿Ï Ïιν á¼Ïὸ Ï . á¼Î¸Î½Î¹Îºá¿¶Î½ ) ought to support (see Strabo in reff. Notice the allusion to λαμβάνονÏÎµÏ above. The word does not seem to signify “receive hospitably,” as some have explained it, nor does it imply, as Åc., Thl., appealing to á½ÏÎλαβÏν με ὡÏεὶ λÎÏν á¼ÏÎ¿Î¹Î¼Î¿Ï Îµá¼°Ï Î¸Î®Ïαν , Ps. 16:12, anticipating, not waiting to be asked, in the exercise of good offices) such persons, that we may become fellow-workers ( with them ) for the truth (this, and not as vulg. “ut cooperatores simus veritatis” (so Luth., Grot., Bengel, al.), is the construction. Those with whom one is ÏÏ Î½ÎµÏγÏÏ , are put in the gen. , see Romans 16:3 ; Romans 16:9 ; Romans 16:21 , 1Co 3:9 al. The dat. is commodi: to promote the cause of the truth: so ÏÏ Î½ÎµÏγοὶ Îµá¼°Ï Ïὴν βαÏιλείαν Ï . θεοῦ , Colossians 4:11 , ÏÏ Î½ÎµÏγὸν Ïοῦ θεοῦ á¼Î½ Ïá¿· εá½Î±Î³Î³ÎµÎ»Î¯á¿³ , 1Th 3:2 ).
Verses 9-10
9, 10 .] Notice of the hostility of Diotrephes . I wrote somewhat to the church (the Ïι does not imply that the thing written was specially important, nor on the other hand does it depreciate; but merely designates indefinitely: cf. Acts 23:17 , á¼Ïει Î³á½°Ï á¼Ïαγγεá¿Î»Î±Î¯ Ïι αá½Ïá¿· , and Luke 7:40 , ΣίμÏν , á¼ÏÏ Ïοί Ïι εἰÏεá¿Î½ : and Matthew 20:20 . The contents of the Epistle are not hinted at. The “scripsissem forsitan” of the vulgate ( á¼Î³ÏαÏα á¼Î½ , see var. readd.) has arisen from a foolish notion that the Apostle must not be represented as having written any thing which has been lost to us. The á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïία is apparently the church of which Caius was a member: not as Bengel, that out of which the missionaries of 3Jn 1:7 had gone forth): howbeit ( á¼Î»Î»Î¬ after an affirmative sentence is stronger than the mere adversative but : see Kühner, Gr. ii. p. 436) Diotrephes who loveth pre-eminence ( á½ á½ÏαÏÏάζÏν Ïá½° ÏÏÏÏεá¿Î± as the ancient Schol. He appears to have been not, as Bed [1] , “hæresiarcha temporis illius quidam superbus et insolens, malens nova dicendo primatum sibi usurpare scientiæ quam antiquis sanctæ Ecclesiæ, quæ Johannes prædicabat, humiliter auscultare mandatis:” so much is not implied in the words, but only that be was an ambitious man who willed that not the Apostle but himself should rule the church) over them (the members of the church, implied in the word á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·Ïία . The gen. after verbs of preeminence, as á½ Ï á¼ÏιÏÏεÏεÏκε μάÏεÏθαι ΤÏÏÏν , Il ζ . 460: καλλιÏÏεÏÏει ÏαÏÎÏν Ïῶν á¼Î½ ΣÏάÏÏá¿ Î³Ï Î½Î±Î¹Îºá¿¶Î½ , Herod. vi. 161. See Kühner, ii. p. 197) receiveth us not (does not recognize our authority: here in an improper sense, but in the next verse probably literal: see there. Its more usual sense in Polybius, who uses it frequently, is to admit of , Ïοῦ καιÏοῦ οá½Îº á¼ÏιδεÏομÎÎ½Î¿Ï ÎºÎ±Ïαμονήν , iii. 79. 12. The á¼¡Î¼á¾¶Ï wants no explanation such as “monita nostra,” “ ÏÏ ÏÏαÏÎ¹ÎºÎ¬Ï nostras,” or the like: in rejecting the Apostle’s person, he rejected all his influence). On this account, if I should come (see for á¼Î¬Î½ 1Jn 2:28 ), I will bring to mind (i. e. as Bed [2] , “in omnium notitiam manifestius arguendo producam:” see reff. No αá½ÏÏν is understood: it is not to his mind, but to the minds of all) his works which he doeth (what they were, is explained by the participle following), prating against us (this is the best rendering of ÏÎ»Ï Î±Ïῶν , which conveys not only the λοιδοÏῶν , κακολογῶν of Åc., but also that the reproaches were mere tattle, worth nothing, irrelevant: so Eustathius on Il. Ï . 361, in Raphel, h. l., Ïὸ á¼Î½ οὠδÎονÏι λÏÎ³Î¿Ï Ï ÏÏοÏÎναι ÏÎ»Ï Îµá¿Î½ λÎγεÏαι κ . ÏÎ»Ï Î±Ïεá¿Î½ . Cf. 1Ti 5:13 ) with wicked speeches: and not satisfied with ( á¼Ïκεá¿Ïθαι is ordinarily (see reff.) with a dative: the á¼Ïί , as in ÏαίÏειν á¼Ïί , and similar expressions, introduces the ground on which the á¼Ïκεá¿Ïθαι superimponitur) this (more probably plur., as in 3 John 1:4 , where the whole matter in question is meant, than as agreeing with the λÏγοι ÏονηÏοί , which had not been the only things mentioned of him), neither doth he himself receive the brethren (here á¼ÏιδÎÏομαι seems best taken in its literal sense, as in Polyb. xxii. 1. 3, á¼ ÏανÏÎ±Ï á¼ÏεδÎÏεÏο ÏιλανθÏÏÏÏÏ (if the reading can be depended upon), of entertaining hospitably, see 2 John 1:10 . The á¼Î´ÎµÎ»Ïοί are probably the same as in 3 John 1:5 , the travelling missionaries), and (so καί after οá½Ïε in reff., and Eur. Iph. Taur. 595 f., εἶ Î³á½°Ï Î¿á½Ïε Î´Ï ÏÎ³ÎµÎ½Î®Ï , καὶ Ïá½°Ï ÎÏ ÎºÎ®Î½Î±Ï Î¿á¼¶Ïθα . Ïε is more frequently found, see Kühner, Gramm. ii. p. 441. The occurrence of the construction explains itself. It is found when the negative form of the first member of a series of connected clauses, is not possible or not convenient in the second or any following one. Here it might have been, but not so forcibly expressed, οá½Ïε ÏÎ¿á½ºÏ Î²Î¿Ï Î»Î¿Î¼ÎÎ½Î¿Ï Ï á¼á¾· ) hinders (by forbidding: cf. 1Th 2:16 ) those that would (receive them), and casts them (those that would receive the brethren: not, as C. F. Fritzsche, Carpzov., al., the travelling brethren themselves) out of the church (manifestly, by excommunication, which owing to his influence among them he had the power to inflict. There is no difficulty, nor any occasion to take the word as pointing at that which Diotrephes was attempting to do or threatening to do, and so as spoken in irony (Huther): the present tense indicates his habit, as á¼ÏιδÎÏεÏαι and Ïοιεῠabove. He was evidently one in high power, and able to forbid, and to punish, the reception of the travelling brethren. See prolegg.).
[1] Bede, the Venerable , 731; Bedegr, a Greek MS. cited by Bede, nearly identical with Cod. “E,” mentioned in this edn only when it differs from E.
[2] Bede, the Venerable , 731; Bedegr, a Greek MS. cited by Bede, nearly identical with Cod. “E,” mentioned in this edn only when it differs from E.
Verse 11
11 .] Upon occasion of the hostility just mentioned, St. John exhorts Caius to imitate not the evil but the good , probably as shewn in the praises of Demetrius which follow. Beloved, imitate not evil ( Ïὸ κακÏν , abstract), but good (abstract also). He that doeth good, is from God (is born of God, and has his mission and power from Him: as so often in the first Epistle): he that doeth evil, hath not seen God (so in ref., Ïá¾¶Ï á½ á¼Î¼Î±ÏÏάνÏν οá½Ï á¼ÏÏακεν αá½ÏÏν , where see note. And yet this expression is called by Lücke and De Wette “unjohanneisch,” and 1 John 4:20 , adduced to prove it, where the word á¼ÏÏακεν is used in its literal physical sense).
Verse 12
12 .] The praise of Demetrius . Testimony hath been borne to Demetrius by all (scil. who know him, and have brought report concerning him: “nemo qui non”), and by the truth itself (it is not very easy to explain this expression. If we understand it that the reality of facts themselves supports the testimony of the ÏάνÏÎµÏ , we have abundance of authority for the expression in classical usage: Wetst. gives, from Demost. contra Neær. (qu. page?), δεῠδ ʼ á½Î¼á¾¶Ï á¼Î¾ αá½Ïá¿Ï Ïá¿Ï á¼Î»Î·Î¸ÎµÎ¯Î±Ï Ïὴν á¼ÎºÏίβειαν á¼ÎºÎ¿ÏÏανÏÎ±Ï Ïá¿Ï Ïε καÏηÏγοÏÎ¯Î±Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ Ïá¿Ï á¼ÏÎ¿Î»Î¿Î³Î¯Î±Ï Î¿á½ÏÏÏ á¼¤Î´Î· Ïὴν Ïá¿Ïον ÏÎÏειν : de corona, p. 232, ÏοÏÏÏν ÏοιοÏÏÏν á½Î½ÏÏν καὶ á¼Ï ʼ αá½Ïá¿Ï Ïá¿Ï á¼Î»Î·Î¸ÎµÎ¯Î±Ï οá½ÏÏ Î´ÎµÎ¹ÎºÎ½Ï Î¼ÎνÏν . And from Ãsch., contra Timarch., καÏαμεμαÏÏÏ ÏημÎÎ½Î¿Ï á½Ïὸ Ïοῦ á¼Î±Ï Ïοῦ Î²Î¯Î¿Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ Ïá¿Ï á¼Î»Î·Î¸ÎµÎ¯Î±Ï . And thus Åc. ( á½Ï ʼ αá½Ïá¿Ï Ïá¿Ï á¼Î» ., Ïοῦ á¼Î½ÎµÏÎ³Î¿á¿¦Ï Î»Ïγοι · εἰÏá½¶ Î³Î¬Ï ÏÎ¹Î½ÎµÏ Î¿á¼·Ï Î¼Î±ÏÏÏ Ïεá¿Ïαι μὲν á¼ÏεÏή , καÏεÏÎµÏ ÏμÎνη δὲ á¼Ïá½¶ á¼ÏÏάκÏῳ λÏγῳ ), Corn.-a-lap., Bart.-Petr., Grot., (“rebus ipsis”), Joach.-Lange, Carpzov., G. Lange, al., and Beausobre, who (Düsterd.) explains it “sa conduite est un témoin réel de sa vertu.” But there are two reasons against this view: 1) that it does not correspond to the objective fact asserted in the μεμαÏÏÏÏηÏαι , nor to the parallelizing of this testimony with that of the ÏάνÏÎµÏ and that of the Apostle: and 2) that thus the Christian and divine sense of ἡ á¼Î»Î®Î¸ÎµÎ¹Î± which St. John seems always to put forward, would be entirely sunk. Nor is the former of these met either by Schlichting, who says, “si ipsa veritas loqui posset, homini isti præberet testimonium virtutis et probitatis,” or by Lücke, “if infallible Christian truth itself, cf. 3 John 1:3 , could be asked, it would bear favourable witness of him.” Against both there is the μεμαÏÏÏÏηÏαι , as matter of fact, not of hypothesis. Baumg.-Crus. would understand that Demetrius had done much for the truth, and his deeds were his witness: but this is hardly a witness of ἡ á¼Î»Î®Î¸ÎµÎ¹Î± to him. Sander takes refuge in the extraordinary supposition, that the Holy Spirit had revealed to the Apostle the truth respecting Demetrius. Huther regards the testimony borne by the truth to be that furnished by the ÏάνÏÎµÏ , whose evidence was decisive, not from their credit as men, but because they all spoke of and from the truth of Christ dwelling in them. This would reduce this new μαÏÏÏ Ïία to the former, and would in fact besides include the following in it likewise. The best interpretation is that of Düsterdieck (from whom much of this note is derived). The objective Truth of God, which is the divine rule of the walk of all believers, gives a good testimony to him who really walks in the truth. This witness lies in the accordance of his walk with the requirement of God’s Truth. It was the mirror in which the walk of Demetrius was reflected: and his form, thus seen in the mirror of God’s Truth, in which the perfect form of Christ is held up to us ( 1Jn 2:6 ; 1 John 3:3 ; 1Jn 3:16 ), appeared in the likeness of Christ; so that the mirror itself seemed to place in a clear light his Christian virtue and uprightness, and thus to bear witness to him): yea, we too (see ref. and note there. The contrast here is between his own personal testimony (for to that and not to any collective one does ἡμεá¿Ï refer) and the two testimonies foregoing) bear testimony, and thou knowest that our testimony is true (see reff.).
Verses 13-14
13 15 .] Close of the Epistle . I had (not, as Huther, for εἶÏον á¼Î½ : it is a pure imperfect, describing that which has not come to pass, but might have done so under certain conditions: cf. Acts 25:22 ; Romans 9:3 , also alleged by Düsterd. is not quite a case in point. He gives the meaning here well: “I had indeed much to write: that I have not written it is owing to this, that I wish not, &c.”) many things to write to thee, howbeit I will not to write (present, not only “to write them,” which would be aorist, but to write at all, to write any more) by means of ink and reed (see on 2Jn 1:12 ): but (on the other hand) I hope immediately to see thee, and (then) we shall speak mouth to mouth (see 2Jn 1:12 ). Peace be to thee (beautifully paraphrased by Lyra, “interna conscientiæ, pax fraterna amicitiæ, pax superna gloriæ.” Remember our Lord’s legacy, John 14:27 , and His greeting after the Resurrection, εἰÏήνη á½Î¼á¿Î½ , John 20:19 ; Joh 20:26 ). The friends salute thee. Salute the friends by name (“non secus ac si nomina eorum præscripta essent.” Bengel). The reason why St. John mentions Ïίλοι (see John 11:11 ; John 15:15 ; Act 27:3 ), and not á¼Î´ÎµÎ»Ïοί (1 Corinthians 16:20 ; Philippians 4:21 ; Eph 6:23 ), is probably to be found in the personal character of the Epistle, not addressed as from an Apostle to a church, but as from a friend to his friend, in which mutual friends on both sides would be the senders and receivers of salutation.