3 John 1
LenskiThe Third Epistle of St. John
The Greeting, v. 1, 2
3 John 1:1
1 Although this letter is called John’s third epistle because it is a trifle shorter than the second, the two letters were probably written on the same day and were sent to the same place, the second to the congregation, the third to one of the members. Each little letter was written on one sheet of papyrus, which accounts in part for their nearly equal length. The Elder, to Gaius, the beloved, whom I on my part love in connection with truth.
“The Elder” and the relative clause “whom I on my part love in connection with truth” are the same as those found in 2 John 1, which see. Note that John loves whomever he loves only in connection with what is truth (anarthrous). His love is governed by this truth even as his love is that of true comprehension and corresponding purpose. All that we know about the Gaius who is here addressed is contained in this letter. We can safely say that he is not one of those men of this name who are mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament.
3 John 1:2
2 We have seen in connection with Second John that John formulates his letter headings in his own way. He does so here, for he does not write χαίρειν as James does, nor “grace and peace” as Paul does, nor a greeting like the one found in Second John 3. Instead he addresses Gaius anew: Beloved, in regard to everything I pray for thee to prosper and to be in health even as thy soul prospers.
We need not wonder at this threefold mention of John’s love for Gaius. Diotrephes hated Gaius because of what Gaius had been doing, namely lodging and helping John’s missionaries on their journeys. John is asking Gaius to do this again with regard to the missionaries who bring him this letter, which we see is a letter of recommendation of them to Gaius. Diotrephes will then hate Gaius all the more. Here is compensation for Gaius; John sends him these repeated assurances of his love. To have this love of the great apostle, a love that is wholly in connection with truth, is better than to have the favor of a man like Diotrephes whose love is turning toward the Gnostic heresy and to the emissaries that are traveling as proselyters from city to city.
Εὕχομαι means to wish or to pray. Περὶπάντων fits only the first infinitive. John prays that Gaius may be prosperous in all respects; then also that he may continue in good health. John is scarcely referring to a damage that was caused to Gaius in his business by the hatred of Diotrephes. This concern about the earthly prosperity of Gaius in all his affairs and about his good health refers to the ability of Gaius to take care of the missionaries whom John is sending from time to time. We must remember that these missionaries traveled on their own resources (verse 7), that Christian congregations gave them not only lodging when they passed through their city but also supplied them with whatever they needed as they went on to the next city. This required funds.
When a whole congregation contributed such funds, no one was really burdened even when such missionaries came rather frequently. It was another matter when, as in this city, the whole burden fell upon one man. It was asking not a little of him to do all of it. We shall see how Diotrephes prevented the congregation from doing its part. So John prays that the Lord will keep Gaius prosperous, and this includes the health of Gaius. John would not want to send his missionaries to a sick man’s home and to burden a sick man with lodging them and outfitting them for the next stage of their journey. What John writes becomes clear as soon as we see its bearing.
As far as the spiritual prosperity of the soul of Gaius is concerned, John is fully assured of that and says so. His prayer is that the earthly prosperity of Gaius may be equal to his spiritual prosperity. John makes the well-being of the soul the governing concern; the material is to be “even as” (καθώς) the spiritual. The two cannot be reversed.
Some commentators refer to what they regard as illustrations like that about Flavia, who would be a miracle of piety if she were half as careful of her soul as she was of her body; or that of the gentleman who washed, dressed, and perfumed his body and spent hours doing this but was careless of his soul and spent not even as many minutes upon it. In what John says of Gaius this is wholly reversed; in the case of the Christian it must be. Εὑοδόω = to help on one’s way; the passive means to prosper, to be prospered, to be successful. John wants prosperity and health for Gaius for spiritual ends. We cannot but think of Diotrephes, whose soul was in so sad a state that he had no love for John, that he tried to keep John’s missionaries from any help which they might receive, and acted the tyrant toward those who wanted to help them.
The Body of the Epistle, v. 3–12
3 John 1:3
3 John explains what he says in v. 2. For I was greatly rejoiced (ἐχάρηνλίαν, the same as in 2 John 4), brethren coining and testifying to thy truth, even as thou on thy part dost walk in connection with truth.
Brethren had returned to John from their missionary tours and had reported how Gaius had treated them despite the ugly hostility of Diotrephes. But John does not say that these brethren testified to the love of Gaius; they testified to Gaius’ truth. Regarding his own love John says that it is “in connection with truth.” To have the divine truth in the heart is the essential thing. Then the love for all who have the same truth in their hearts will flourish, especially also if these others are missionaries, preachers of this truth far and near. To have this truth means to have faith, and this always brings forth love. Those who think that they can have love while they let go of more or of less of the truth are mistaken as to the nature of the truth and as to the nature of the love.
By ἀλήθεια, which is used three times, John refers to the same thing, the objective divine truth or reality which forms the Word and gospel. This always remains objective whether we have it as ours or not, whether we walk in it or in its opposite, the lie. Having it in our hearts does not change it and make it subjective; the subjectivity—if we must use the word—is only our possession. All comments which make either σουτῇἀληθείᾳ or ἐνἀληθείᾳ or both subjective are unwarranted. These brethren reported that Gaius acted in harmony with the gospel truth and doctrine (2 John 9, 10), that thus this truth was his (σου), in his heart. The conduct of Gaius was the open evidence for what was in his heart. This rejoiced John greatly. The conduct of Gaius was his expression of love.
The genitive σου is no more emphatic here than it is in v. 2 and 6; there is a tendency to place these genitive pronouns forward. When they are to be emphatic they are made possessive adjectives as is done in v. 4. But σύ is emphatic just as is ἐγώ in v. 1. John could not say of Diotrephes that he, too, is walking in what is truth. Ἐνἀληθείᾳ lacks the article here and in v. 1 only because of its qualitative force.
3 John 1:4
4 Regarding his own joy John adds: Greater joy than this I do not have that I hear that my own children are walking in the truth, i.e., in this truth of which I am speaking (the article is in place here). To receive reports such as this one about Gaius is John’s greatest joy. We can judge how the report about Diotrephes affected John. John reveals the type of man that he was. Many do not have their joy rooted thus completely in the truth. Μειζότερος is a double comparative which B.-D. does not explain by calling it vulgar; B.-P. 781 does explain it: such comparatives were formed in the Koine when the feeling for the comparative force of the usual forms was fading and needed re-enforcement.
The plural τούτων means greater “than this,” than these things that are comprised in such reports, and ἵνα states what they are. This clause is appositional, R. 699; yet not accusative (R. 992) in apposition with χαράν but a genitive apposition of τούτων. John is rejoiced to hear about anyone that walks in the gospel truth, but his greatest joy is to hear this about his own children; note that he writes the possessive adjective ἐμά and not the enclitic μου. His own children are those who have been under his personal spiritual care for a long time.
3 John 1:5
5 John comes to the burden of his letter, his request that Gaius may receive and help onward the missionaries whom John is now sending out, this letter serving as a credential and as a recommendation for them. Beloved, a faithful thing thou art doing, whatever thou mayest (actually) perform for the brethren and at this strangers, who testified to thy love in the presence of the church; whom thou wilt do well in sending them forward in a manner worthy of God, for in behalf of the name they went out, taking nothing from the pagans.
Without directly asking him John yet asks Gaius to take care of the missionaries once more. No greater compliment could be paid to Gaius than that John should take for granted that Gaius will do what is not even asked but is only implied. John does better than to ask, he commends what Gaius will do for these missionaries as though Gaius had already started upon the doing. The apostles certainly knew how to call out and how to acknowledge the best that is in a man.
Πιστόν is “a faithful thing,” and it need not be translated “a believing thing”; only a believer will do a faithful thing. Ποιεῖς is an epistolary present; note the future ποιήσεις in v. 6. What Gaius “will do” for the missionaries whom John is sending “thou art doing” describes from the standpoint of the time when Gaius receives this letter. As John writes he places himself beside Gaius as he is reading and acting on this letter. When this present tense is understood, the aorist ἐργάσῃ becomes clear: “whatever thou mayest actually perform for the brethren” whom I am now sending and whom I already see with thee when they place this letter into thy hands. This aorist is constative. Moulton, Einleitung, 188, says that it summarizes in perspective all the trouble to which Gaius will go for these brethren until he has expedited them on their further journey. Ἐργάζεσθαι often expresses the trouble or effort (Muehe) to which one goes.
John writes: “for the brethren and at that (τοῦτο, adverbial accusative) strangers” (one article with the two nouns). We may say “and this strangers.” The missionaries whom John is sending have, indeed, been with Gaius before (v. 6), yet only on a previous journey, so that Gaius knows them only superficially; they are still only ξένοι to him, “strangers.” This enhances all that Gaius will do for them, and John does not fail to note it and to credit Gaius in advance.
3 John 1:6
6 These brethren had previously enjoyed the loving generosity of Gaius. In verse 3 John says that he was rejoiced to hear their report about the truth to which Gaius was holding; he now says that these brethren also testified to the love of Gaius “in the presence of the church,” namely when they made their public report about their previous missionary tour to the church at Ephesus which had provided their first supplies. The love and the generosity of Gaius were appreciated not only by John but also by this entire church. All of the Ephesians were happy to know that Gaius joined them in enabling these missionaries to go out with the gospel. The whole congregation at the place where Gaius lived should have done that; but since Diotrephes was bossing it, Gaius bore the whole burden alone.
With the future tense, and no longer projecting himself forward to the day when Gaius receives the letter (as in v. 5), John says: “whom thou wilt do well in sending forward in a manner worthy of God.” Gaius will lodge these missionaries, but this is the least that he will do; he will also send them forward on their journey, which does not mean with only a friendly goodbye but with adequate supplies. Since they traveled on foot and often covered considerable distances until some other congregation or some friend like Gaius gave them new supplies, this sending forward required money. The love of Gaius would not be miserly. John knows that Gaius will send these brethren forward “in a manner worthy of God,” of him in whose cause they are assuming no little hardship even when they receive much help. Προπέμψας is a sample of the complementary participle (which is dying out in the Koine); it is aorist because it denotes a single act.
3 John 1:7
7 Why will Gaius do so well by sending these missionaries forward in such a manner? “For” explains. “In behalf of the name they went out” on this tour, and they did this “receiving nothing from the pagans,” ἐθνικοί, the heathen to whom they went out to preach “the name.” See the weight that lies in the brief phrase “in behalf of the name.” This means “Christ,” but always the full revelation of Christ; see further on 1 John 3:23. These missionaries not only could not expect to get anything from the pagans whom they would win for the name; like Paul, they would not take anything lest their converts and others might think that this was what they were after. The name dared not be compromised in any way. So the missionaries went with their own means and relied on the support of the older congregations. Noble work they did, and noble (καλῶς) is the work of helping them in every way. Diotrephes did not think so.
3 John 1:8
8 We on our part, therefore, ought to undertake for such in order that we may be joint workers (with them) for the truth. This is the proper deduction from the fact that these missionaries go out in behalf of the name and receive or take nothing. We on our part, all the rest of us Christians, ought to join hands with them in helping them. Ὑπολαμβάνειν cannot here mean to receive under one’s roof (R. 633), “to welcome” (R. V.), to bestow hospitality, because the ἵνα clause says that we thus become “joint workers” with these missionaries. The word means “to assist.”
There is a fine paronomasia between “taking nothing from the pagans” and “undertaking for such,” i.e., providing for them. The R. V. misunderstands συνεργοί and the dative as though the truth were a worker and we its fellow workers; the A. V. has a better understanding of the Greek. We are joint workers with the missionaries when we help support them; they and we jointly work “for the truth” (gospel), τῇἀληθείᾳ, a dativus commodi.
3 John 1:9
9 We now learn about the situation obtaining in the local church in the city where Gaius lived. I wrote something to the church. This is Second John. After he had completed Second John, John took another sheet of papyrus and wrote Third John. See the introduction. If Second John is addressed to some woman and her family of children, then we know nothing about this letter to the church to which John refers.
We are told that it has been lost. Some think of a letter that was written on a former occasion when John sent missionaries. We believe that John refers to Second John. All the similarities in phrasing substantiate this view. The situation seems to call for it. In both letters John says that he is coming; Second John 12 indicates why, and this letter to Gaius openly states why.
Some manuscripts insert an ἄν, and then John says: “I would have written something to the church.” But this makes the impression that John did not write.
Gaius will learn what John wrote to the church. John informs Gaius about this letter. In case Diotrephes tries to prevent its public reading, Diotrephes is not to succeed. To say that Second John cannot be this letter because of its contents is to misunderstand its contents and its language.
John is, of course, not sending his missionaries to the church in order to have the church care for them, he is sending them to Gaius, but certainly not without also saying something to the church. We have seen in Second John how what he writes to the church fits the situation exactly. In a way it says less than what John writes to Gaius, for it does not condescend to name Diotrephes; in a way it says more, for it openly names and describes the deceivers, it openly warns against them, even against taking them into the house or greeting them. The true missionaries alone are to be treated thus. Even to greet these deceivers is fellowship with their wicked works; to help the true missionaries of the name is to be joint workers with them for the truth. Every item in both letters corresponds.
Ἀλλά does not state why John must write but why this is all that there is left to be done at this moment before John himself comes and reckons with Diotrephes: but Diotrephes, who loves to be the foremost of them, does not receive us. We make the attributive adjective with its genitive a relative clause. The sense is: “the ambitious Diotrephes.” The adjective means that Diotrephes loves to be first, to be considered the leader. He wants to be a boss, a dictator, a lord of all the rest, instead of letting the congregation be the κυρία or mistress who manages all her affairs as ἐκλεκτή, chosen to do so by the Lord (see 2 John 1, κυρία).
From 2 John 7–11, in particular from verse 11, we learn enough to know that Diotrephes barred out John’s missionaries in order to let the roaming Gnostic emissaries in. To disregard Second John because the love of Diotrephes for Gnosticism is not mentioned in Third John is to overlook the fact that such repetition is not necessary; Gaius will hear Second John read. Third John is intended only for Gaius and thus points out the viciousness of Diotrephes, his unholy love of dominance.
“He is not receiving us” means: he is turning the cold shoulder to me and to my missionaries and to all that is connected with us. “Us” is not the editorial plural since verbs that use “I” precede and follow. The present tense indicates the entire attitude of Diotrephes.
3 John 1:10
10 For this reason all that John can do at the moment is to write something appropriate to the congregation (Second John) and to postpone decisive action for the present. Because of this, if I come, I will remind (them) of his works which he is doing, with wicked words prating against us; and not satisfied on this score, neither is he himself receiving the brethren, and those wanting (to do so) he is forbidding and is throwing out of the church.
In connection with First John we have noted that ἐάν is used practically in the sense of “when”; it is used so here: “when I come”; yet ἐάν leaves the matter in God’s hands, hence also in verse 14 as in 2 John 12 we have: “I hope.” It is only a supposition to say that John was so old and feeble that he did not know whether he could come or not. He is still the mighty man with love for the truth, so mighty that he will crush this upstart Diotrephes with his evil words and deeds.
“I will remind” means that John will appear in the public assembly of the congregation and will there in public remind all the members what this man’s works are. The members know, John needs only to remind them. What Diotrephes has been doing with his vicious tongue John puts into a subordinate participial modifier: “with wicked words prating against us” (me, my missionaries, etc.). Φλυαρῶ = to babble without sense, to spout or prate. Nothing is too wickedly vicious for Diotrephes to hurl at us. When John quotes all his language, and many witnesses testify as to its truth, these words will terrify this lordly boss.
John states the man’s deeds with finite verbs, three of them. Not satisfied with words, the fellow proceeds to deeds. John uses “neither … and” as he did in John 4:11. Diotrephes himself is not receiving the brethren, the missionaries that John is sending out; he closes the door of his own house to the men who are bearing the name to the pagans. In this way he loves the truth, the holy name, “Jesus Christ, the Son of God,” and what this name embodies. In order to catch the force of this one must know First John and what these earliest Gnostics made of Jesus. Then look at 2 John 7–11, noting verses 10, 11.
Still worse: those of the members who want to receive and to aid the missionary bearers of the name Diotrephes is forbidding to do anything of the kind and is shouting his wicked words against them. And to cap the climax, he is throwing out of the church those who do not take his orders. This first church boss was a thorough boss.
Was he one of the congregational elders? John does not say. Since in those days the elders were merely men who were chosen from the congregation itself, a man who was not an elder could, if he was of the mean and ambitious type, try to dominate both the elders and the congregation. John’s failure to mention any official position which Diotrephes occupied seems to me to agree best with this status of Diotrephes although I cannot venture to say more.
Had Diotrephes thrown Gaius out of the church? These present tenses say what Diotrephes is engaged in doing, they do not say that he accomplished his will in every case. He certainly kept his own house closed. Very likely, too, in most cases he succeeded in enforcing his demand that the rest also do so. He attained so much that John could send no missionaries to the congregation as such to be lodged with various members. We see this from the fact that John sends his missionaries directly to Gaius. Diotrephes would create so much trouble in the congregation that taking care of John’s missionaries on the part of the congregation was practically at an end.
As to the throwing out, this, I think, was no more than a vicious attempt. Throwing out required a formal resolution on the part of the congregation. From the way in which Second John reads I doubt that Diotrephes had achieved the actual expulsions which he demanded. But his raging against the members who did not obey this boss may well have caused them to stay away from the church for the time being.
3 John 1:11
11 John adds the brief admonition: Beloved, be not imitating the base but the good! Τὸκακόν = “the base,” “the bad,” anything that is spiritually and morally inferior; τὸἀγαθόν = anything that is spiritually and morally beneficial. The adjectives are neuter singulars and are substantivized. They are used like abstract nouns yet are more concrete in force. To imitate is to see the base or the good in someone else and then to copy it ourselves. So Paul urges: “Be imitators of me!” 1 Cor. 4:16; also 11:1; and in 2 Thess. 3:7, 9 he uses the verb: “you ought to imitate us”—“ourselves an example to you that you imitate us.” John is, of course, thinking of Diotrephes and his base example but generalizes here: never copy anything that is base, copy only what is good.
Beside this brief injunction John places the axiomatic fact: The one doing good is from God; the one doing the base has not seen God. This is not intended as a deduction; one does not make deductions from an admonition, one fortifies an admonition. The logic is: Copy the good because doing this is evidence that one is from God, but shun the base because to do the base is evidence that one has not even gotten near enough to have as much as caught a glimpse of God.
In 1 John 2:29 we have the fuller expression “has been born from God” (also in 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 18), which makes one “a child of God” (3:1, 2). In 1 John 5:19 John abbreviates to the simple phrase “we are from God” just as he has it here; ἐκ denotes spiritual origin. With this goes our being “in God” and remaining in God, and he “in us”; ἐν denotes the inner connection, the unio mystica (1 John 3:24), the fellowship with God (1:3, 6, 7). “In” rests on “from” (out of).
The commentary on seeing God is John 1:18. No one has ever seen God with his actual eyes, yet his only-begotten Son has revealed God so that we do see him with the eyes of faith in his Word. John is speaking of the latter. He whose characteristic it is to do what is base has not seen God in his Word as all those see him who have been born from God and are thus from God, yea “in him,” and “he in us.” On this seeing God compare John 14:9; 10:30. All contact with God is made through Jesus, his Son, who is the personal medium while the Word is the instrumental medium. Not to have seen God is not to have been brought into a saving contact with God despite Jesus and the Word.
3 John 1:12
12 To Demetrius testimony has been given by all and by the truth itself; and, moreover, we ourselves give him testimony, and thou knowest that our testimony is true.
John is not holding this Demetrius up as an example which Gaius should follow. The opinion that this Demetrius lived in the city where Gaius resided and was one of the noble members of the congregation, to whom, therefore, the missionaries brought Second John, who would certainly see to it that this letter would be read to the congregation, is untenable. For then Gaius would know Demetrius, would not need this testimony in regard to his character. It does not help matters to say that the testimony “by all” means “by all the true members in the local congregation of Gaius.” Gaius would know this local testimony better than John, who was living in Ephesus, could know it. Of less value would be the testimony that “we ourselves” offer, namely John and the missionaries whom he is sending; for how could men from Ephesus know this man who lived in a distant city so well that their testimony was weightier than even that of the good members who resided in the city where this man lived? Gaius himself would be one of these good members.
The only tenable view is that Demetrius was not known or was only little known to Gaius; that he was the leader of the missionaries who were sent by John, whom Gaius was to lodge and to send forward. This entire weighty endorsement of Demetrius, the leader of the delegation that John is sending, is a part of the recommendation and the certification that John is sending along with and for his agents and thus goes with verse 7. Endorsing the leader in a special way in addition to endorsing the delegation as such (verse 7) is entirely in place because so much depends on the leader. Paul does the same in 2 Cor. 8:16–29 where he sends a delegation of two men, Titus being the leader, the other not being named. Paul recommends the latter but makes Titus chief (verse 23) and tells especially that Titus consented to come.
Everything is clear when we accept this view. All of the Ephesian Christians endorse Demetrius. “We ourselves” includes John and the other missionaries whom John is sending, and Gaius certainly knows that their testimony is true, that they would not endorse as a leader a man concerning whom they had the least doubt. When John inserts the statement that “the truth itself” has testified to the character of Demetrius he refers to the Word as an objective witness and thus places its testimony beside that of all the Ephesian Christians who subjectively compared the life of Demetrius with the Word.
These two witnesses “have testified,” i.e., throughout the past and until now. “We ourselves” adds a third testimony even as two or three witnesses are always required (Matt. 18:16 and all the parallel passages, plus the example of Jesus himself). “We are testifying” means right now. Δέ adds this as the weightiest testimony, and thus John writes “thou knowest” that this testimony is beyond all question.
Yet one may ask why verse 7 is not sufficient, why John felt that he must endorse the leader of his delegation in so strong a manner. When a delegation arrives from afar in a place where there is serious trouble as there is here, when the leader of this delegation also bears a special letter to the congregation, which he will either read to the congregation or will place into the hands of one who certainly will read it, everything depends on this leader. John would make Gaius feel easy on this score. Gaius may trust Demetrius completely, he need not worry in the least, need not himself take any steps about the letter to the congregation. John has sent the right man.
Conclusion, v. 13–15
13, 14) Many things I had to write to thee, but I do not want to write (them) to thee by means of ink and pen; moreover, I hope immediately to see thee, and we shall speak mouth to mouth.
John ends this letter so much similarly to Second John (verse 12) that, with all else corresponding closely, it becomes impossible for us to assume that these two letters were not written on the same day and to the same place. The variations are interesting.
John states the fact that he has many things to write to Gaius by means of an independent sentence and thus uses the imperfect: John had them but finally decides not to write them. The aorist infinitive means actually to write and thus to dispatch these many things. In Second John we have the aorist ἠβουλήθην, now we have the present θέλω, the former refers to a past decision, the latter to one that is being made as John writes. John had arrived at the decision not to write all he has to say to the congregation; regarding Gaius he arrives at such a decision when he writes this letter to Gaius. The present infinitive is in place here just as it is in Second John, for writing many things is thought of as taking some time. The aorist = to write and be done with; the present = to be writing and taking the time.
3 John 1:14
14 In Second John John says: “I hope to get to you”; to Gaius he writes: “I hope immediately to see thee,” hence I do not use “ink and pen” (κάλαμος, writing reed), in Second John it is “paper and ink.” “Shortly” in our versions is not exact enough; εὑθέως = “immediately.”
We ask why John did not come at once with these missionaries, why he started immediately after they have left. John does not want these missionaries to become involved in the matter when he reckons with Diotrephes before the congregation. John also does not intend to come to the congregation unannounced (2 John 12). He will follow on the heels of his missionaries; they will scarcely have left Gaius and have gone forward before John hopes to arrive and to attend to Diotrephes. When he is writing to the congregation John does not say “immediately,” for he had sent no missionaries to the congregation, immediately after whom he intended to appear in person; he had sent them only to Gaius.
All of this is more than interesting. The congregation plus Diotrephes learn only that John is coming but not how soon he will arrive. Gaius is informed that John is coming at once and is timing his arrival so that he will appear a day or two after the missionaries have left. Thus John will suddenly appear on the scene, will have the congregation called together for a meeting, and will settle accounts with Diotrephes. This boss is not to have time to stir up and to marshal his forces.
I should like to have been present at this meeting to see and to hear how John dealt with Diotrephes and freed the congregation from his domination. The scene of that meeting must have been dramatic. John would, of course, appear with a few companions; the apostles seldom traveled alone. The fact that John and those coming with him would lodge with Gaius is implied in the statement made to Gaius: “We shall speak mouth to mouth.” Gaius is thus informed when to look for John, and he will be glad to lodge him and his little party when they arrive.
John’s “I hope” does not express an uncertainty. All of the apostles let the Lord control all of their movements. The aorist = “actually to see thee.” In 2 John 12 the “face-to-face” preposition (R. 625) is significant. To Gaius, John writes “mouth to mouth” and “we shall speak,” thou Gaius and I, as friends love to speak. Even these little expressions are exactly right.
3 John 1:15
15 Peace to thee! is exclamatory, God’s and Christ’s peace, which no Diotrephes shall disturb. There salute thee the friends, the many friends that Gaius has in Ephesus. Salute the friends by name! all the friends that John has in the place where Gaius lives. Each is to be greeted individually by name as Gaius meets them.
This letter is a jewel from the pen of John; it is like its companion, and thus these two letters have been cherished by the church.
Soli Deo Gloria
B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neu-gearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.
B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschem Handwoerterbuch, etc.
R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.