Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 3 John 1:12
Demetrius hath good report of all [men], and of the truth itself: yea, and we [also] bear record; and ye know that our record is true.
12. While Diotrephes sets an example to be abhorred, Demetrius sets one to be imitated. We know of him, as of Diotrephes, just what is told us here and no more. Perhaps he was the bearer of this letter. That Demetrius is the silversmith of Ephesus who once made silver shrines for Artemis (Act 19:24) is a conjecture, which is worth mentioning but cannot be said to be probable.
Demetrius hath good report, &c.] Literally, Witness hath been borne to Demetrius by all men and by the truth itself; or less stiffly, as R. V., Demetrius hath the witness of all men. See on 1Jn 1:2. ‘All men’ means chiefly those who belonged to the Church of the place where Demetrius lived, and the missionaries who had been there in the course of their labours. The force of the perfect is the common one of present result of past action: the testimony has been given and still abides.
and of the truth itself ] A great deal has been written about this clause; and it is certainly a puzzling statement. Of the various explanations suggested these two seem to be best. 1. ‘The Truth’ means “the divine rule of the walk of all believers:” Demetrius walked according to this rule and his conformity was manifest to all who knew the rule: thus the rule bore witness to his Christian life. This is intelligible, but it is a little far-fetched. 2. ‘The Truth’ is the Spirit of truth (1Jn 5:6) which speaks in the disciples. The witness which ‘all men’ bear to the Christian conduct of Demetrius is not mere human testimony which may be the result of prejudice or of deceit: it is given under the direction of the Holy Spirit. This explanation is preferable. The witness given respecting Demetrius was that of disciples, who reported their own experience of him: but it was also that of the Spirit, who guided and illumined them in their estimate. See note on Joh 15:27, which is a remarkably parallel passage, and comp. Act 5:32; Act 15:28, where as here the human and Divine elements in Christian testimony are clearly marked.
yea, and we also bear record ] Better, as R. V., yea, we also bear witness (see on 1Jn 1:2): the ‘and’ of A.V. is redundant. The Apostle mentions his own testimony in particular as corroborating the evidence of ‘all men.’
and ye know that our record is true ] Rather, as R.V., and thou knowest that our witness is true. The evidence for the singular, ( ABC and most Versions), as against the plural, (KL), is quite decisive: a few authorities, under the influence of Joh 21:24, read ‘ we know:’ comp. Joh 19:35. The plural has perhaps grown out of the belief that the Epistle is not private but Catholic.
John 21 is evidently an appendix to the Gospel, and was possibly written long after the first twenty chapters. It may have been written after this Epistle; and (if so) Joh 21:24 may be “an echo of this sentence” (Westcott).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Demetrius hath good report of all men – Little is known of Demetrius. Lucke supposes that he resided near the place where the author of this Epistle lived, and was connected with the church there, and was probably the bearer of this Epistle. It is impossible to determine with certainty on this point, but there is one circumstance which seems to make it probable that he was a member of the same church with Gaius, and had united with him in showing Christian hospitality to these strangers. It is the use of the phrase hath good report of all, implying that some testimony was borne to his character beyond what the writer personally knew. It is possible, indeed, that the writer would have used this term respecting him if he lived in the same place with himself, as expressing the fact that he bore a good character, but it is a phrase which would be more appropriately used if we suppose that he was a member of the same church with Gaius, and that John means to say than an honorable testimony was borne of his character by all those brethren, and by all others as far as he knew.
And of the truth itself – Not only by men, who might possibly be deceived in the estimate of character, but by fact. It was not merely a reputation founded on what appeared in his conduct, but in truth and reality. His deportment, his life, his deeds of benevolence, all concurred with the testimony which was borne by men to the excellency of his character. There is, perhaps, particular reference here to his kind and hospitable treatment of those brethren.
Yea, and we also bear record – John himself had personally known him. He had evidently visited the place where he resided on some former occasion, and could now add his own testimony, which no one would call in question, to his excellent character.
And ye know that our record is true – This is in the manner of John, who always spoke of himself as having such character for truth that no one who knew him would call it in question. Every Christian should have such a character; every man might if he would. Compare the notes at Joh 19:35; Joh 21:24.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
3Jn 1:12
Demetrius hath good report of all men.
The Christian character will stand every test
1. The test of public opinion. All men had a good word for Demetrius. But there are antipathies in the worldly mind; how, then, can we expect an unbiassed judgment? We answer that truth must vanquish error as the light does the darkness. Dishonesty can only obtain a temporary triumph over integrity (1Pe 2:12).
2. The test of the Word of God. The standard of character is the law of the Lord. We use the Bible for comparison as well as for instruction. It is a mirror in which to see our true condition.
3. The test of Church fellowship. Christians know each other intimately, and as such they know each others failings; yea, and they know the difficulties which beset a holy life. To have a good word from those who thus know us testifies to the genuineness of our character.
4. The test of the final judgment. (The Weekly Pulpit.)
Demetrius
An evangelist, possibly a prophet, animated by a most self-sacrificing and disinterested spirit, which sprang from an ardent love for Christ the Saviour of men, Demetrius won for himself a threefold testimony.
1. He won the witness of all, says St. John, i.e., the witness of all good men, of all who were capable of appreciating goodness. Even those who rejected his message had nothing to allege against the man, save the sublime folly of a perilous and unprofitable enthusiasm; while those who accepted it from him, or had already accepted it from other lips, could not but admire the fineness of his spirit and the fire of his zeal.
2. More, and better still, he won the testimony of the truth itself. For he who daily sets his life upon the die that he may be true to his convictions, he who, moved by the grace and love of Christ, seeks not his own things, but the things of others; he who devotes himself with burning zeal and all-enduring courage to the service of truth and the salvation of men–to him the truth itself, which has made him what he is, bears witness. Men do not despise ease and a sure provision for their daily wants; they do not daily affront every form of danger and loss, for truths, or beliefs, which have no real, no vital, hold upon them. They who do such things as these declare plainly; they make it manifest that they are the servants of a truth, which they love more than they love them selves. It is the truth itself which speaks through them, and bears witness to them.
3. Last of all, St. John adds his own testimony to that of the previous witnesses: We also bear witness. And any man who has devoted himself to the service and spread of a truth which has not met with wide or general recognition will understand the special charm which this testimony would exert on Demetrius. A very noble character, on which, simply by describing it, St. John has pronounced a very noble eulogium. Let me also remind you that great as Demetrius looks to us–great in his disinterestedness, his devotion, his zeal–he was not a man of any great mark in the primitive Church. It is not some hero of distinction, some honoured and beloved man of spiritual genius, whom I have tried to place before you; but a man of whom we should never have heard but for the prating insubordination of Diotrephes. (S. Cox, D. D.)
A good name
There be two things which we ought all to procure–a good conscience in respect of God, and a good name in regard of men.
1. A good name is sweet and comfortable; it is preferred before the most precious things that men have in greatest estimation (Pro 22:3).
2. It is profitable. A good name maketh the bones fat. A good name maketh a man fat; he eats, he drinks, he sleeps the better for it.
3. It secures a man while he is alive; they that have a bad report for their injurious dealing are maligned; they go, in some sort, in danger of their lives; they that have a good report walk cheerfully and safely.
4. It is a consolation to a man, even on his deathbed; he hath the less, then, to vex and trouble his mind.
5. It leaves a sweet savour after us; when we be dead it is an odoriferous ointment; the house will smell of it a good while after. Therefore let us so live, that we may be well reported of, so far as it is possible of all men. I say, so far as it is possible; for in truth it is impossible; the best of us all must make account to pass through good report and ill report into the kingdom of heaven. (W. Jones, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 12. Demetrius hath good report] Perhaps another member of the Church where Caius was; or he might have been one of those whom the apostle recommends to Caius; or, possibly, the bearer of this letter from John to Caius. He seems to have been an excellent person: all testified of his righteousness; the truth – Christianity, itself bore testimony to him; and the apostles themselves added theirs also.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Some eminent Christian, whom he could with confidence recommend as a pattern.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
ofall men who have had opportunity of knowing his character.
ofthe truth itself The Gospel standard of truthbears witness to him that he walks conformably to it, in acts of reallove, hospitality to the brethren (in contrast to Diotrephes), etc.Compare Joh3:21He that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may bemade manifest that they are wrought in God.
wealso besides the testimony of all men, and of the truth itself.
yeknow The oldest manuscripts read, thou knowest.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Demetrius hath good report of all [men], This man was of a quite different cast from Diotrephes, and therefore the apostle makes mention of him to Gaius, to be followed by him, and not the other; he was either the same with Demas, which is a contraction of this name, or the person that John sent from Ephesus with this letter: we read of an Ephesian of this name, Ac 19:24; though not the same person; or else one that also was a member of the same church with Gaius and Diotrephes; and he being kind and beneficent, obtained a good report of the generality of men, not only of the brethren, but of those that were without; for a liberal man is universally respected. The Syriac version adds, “and of the church itself”; as distinct from all men, or the generality of the men of the world:
and of the truth itself; that is, whoever speaks truth must give him a good character, for this cannot be understood with any propriety of the Gospel, nor of Jesus Christ:
yea, and we also bear record; or a testimony to the character of Demetrius; that is, I, John, the apostle, and the saints at Ephesus:
and ye know that our record is true; faithful, and to be depended upon. The Alexandrian copy, and several others, read, “thou knowest”, as does also the Vulgate Latin version, which seems most agreeable, since this epistle is directed to a single person; compare this with Joh 19:35; and it will give a further proof of this epistle being the Apostle John’s.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| The Character of Demetrius; Conclusion and Salutation. | A. D. 90. |
12 Demetrius hath good report of all men, and of the truth itself: yea, and we also bear record; and ye know that our record is true. 13 I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee: 14 But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face. Peace be to thee. Our friends salute thee. Greet the friends by name.
Here we have, I. The character of another person, one Demetrius, not much known otherwise. But here his name will live. A name in the gospel, a fame in the churches, is better than that of sons and daughters. His character was his commendation. His commendation was, 1. General: Demetrius has a good report of all men. Few are well spoken of by all; and sometimes it is ill to be so. But universal integrity and goodness are the way to (and sometimes obtain) universal applause. 2. Deserved and well founded: And of the truth itself, v. 12. Some have a good report, but not of the truth itself. Happy are those whose spirit and conduct commend them before God and men. 3. Confirmed by the apostle’s and his friends’ testimony: Yea, and we also bear record; and that with an appeal to Gaius’s own knowledge: And you (you and your friends) know that our record is true. Probably this Demetrius was known to the church where the apostle now resided, and to that where Gaius was. It is good to be well known, or known for good. We must be ready to bear our testimony to those who are good: it is well for those who are commended when those who commend them can appeal to the consciences of those who know them most.
II. The conclusion of the epistle, in which we may observe, 1. The referring of some things to personal interview: I have many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen, but I trust I shall shortly see thee,3Jn 1:13; 3Jn 1:14. Many things may be more proper for immediate communication than for letter. A little personal conference may spare the time, trouble, and charge, of many letters; and good Christians may well be glad to see one another. 2. The benediction: Peace be to you; all felicity attend you. Those that are good and happy themselves wish others so too. 3. The public salutation sent to Gaius: Our friends salute thee. A friend to the propagation of religion deserves a common remembrance. And these pious persons show their friendship to religion as well as to Gaius. 4. The apostle’s particular salutation of the Christians in Gaius’s church or vicinity: Greet thy friends by name. I doubt they were not very many who must be so personally saluted. But we must learn humility as well as love. The lowest in the church of Christ should be greeted. And those may well salute and greet one another on earth who hope to live together in heaven. And the apostle who had lain in Christ’s bosom lays Christ’s friends in his heart.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Demetrius hath the witness of all men ( ). Perfect passive indicative of , “it has been witnessed to Demetrius (dative case) by all.” We know nothing else about him, unless, as is unlikely, he be identified with Demas as a shortened form (Phlm 1:24; Col 4:4; 2Tim 4:10), who has come back after his desertion or with the Ephesian silversmith (Ac 19:21ff.), who may have been converted under John’s ministry, which one would like to believe, though there is no evidence for it. He may indeed be the bearer of this letter from Ephesus to Gaius and may also have come under suspicion for some reason and hence John’s warm commendation.
And of the truth itself ( ). A second commendation of Demetrius. It is possible, in view of 1Jo 5:6 (the Spirit is the truth), that John means the Holy Spirit and not a mere personification of the truth.
Yea we also ( ). A third witness to Demetrius, that is John himself (literary plural).
Thou knowest (). “The words in Joh 21:24 sound like an echo of this sentence” (Westcott). John knew Demetrius well in Ephesus.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Demetrius hath good report [ ] . Lit., unto Demetrius witness hath been born. See Joh 3:26.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
DEMETRIUS OF GOOD REPORT
1) “Demetrius hath good report of all men”. To Demetrius a good report had been given by all. He had a good witness of all men. 1Ti 3:7.
2) “And of the truth itself”. He also was confirmed to be a holder to and contender fox the truth, the Word of God, and the spirit of God.
3) “Yes, and we also bear witness.” Thus Demetrius had a three fold testimony or witness to his person.
a) A good report of all – general, moral.
b) A good report of the truth – doctrinal.
c) A good report (witness) from John and his Missionary companions.
4) “And ye know. (Kaioidas) and thou, singular, (Gaius) knowest.
5) “That our record is true”. The term record means witness or testimony. John had commended certain missionary brethren to the church of Gaius’ membership. His commendation as an elderly apostle was honorable. Diotrephes a preeminent desiring church member, perhaps young pastor, led a church insurrection against the commendation. 3Jn 1:5-9; He apparently disregarded 1Pe 5:5.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
3.
Demetrius, who has the witness of truth . . . 3Jn. 1:12
(3Jn. 1:12) It has been witnessed to Demetrius by all and by the truth itself and we also are bearing witness, and you know that our witness is true.
It has been suggested that Demetrius was the leader of the visiting delegation to whom John would have the congregation extend hospitality. Perhaps he was himself the bearer of the letter to Gaius.
It is not possible to identify him positively, Some have thought he might be Demetrius of Ephesus, the silversmith of Act. 19:21ff. If this be true, the three-fold witness to his genuineness is necessary as was Barnabus intercession on behalf of Saul of Tarsus just after his conversion.
Others have thought that Demetrius is Demas mentioned by Paul in Col. 4:14, Phm. 1:24 and 2Ti. 4:10. Demas is a shortened form of Demetrius. Again, if this be true, the witness would certainly be necessary after what Paul had written about him.
There is no conclusive evidence that Johns Demetrius is either of these.
Whoever Demetrius may have been, John is apprehensive lest the lack of aggressiveness in Gaius cause him to succumb to Diotrephes forcefulness and turn Demetrius and his party away. Pursuant to this end, John lists three witnesses in behalf of Demetrius.
First, Demetrius had the witness of all who know him. If he was indeed either Demetrius of Ephesus or the second Demetrius, this is significant testimony. In the case of Demetrius of Ephesus, the whole church knew by this time that he had been the leader of the opposition to the Gospel in the very area to which he now came as a missionary! If he was, on the other hand, the Demas accused by Paul of having turned away from the faith because he loved the things of the world, the church also knew of him. Testimony to his repentance was needed.
In either case, or indeed if Demetrius is neither of these, John presents as evidence of his present genuineness the witness of those who know him now.
From the Christian view point it is a mans present genuineness that is to determine his relationship to the church, not his past behavior as either a heathen or a backslider!
The second witness to the genuineness of Demetrius is the truth. A. T. Robertson suggests that the truth here refers to the Holy Spirit Himself as in 1Jn. 5:6. It seems more likely that the term is meant rather to refer to the truth of the Gospel as opposed to the error of gnosticism. Demetrius stand for the truth in the face of his falsehood would indeed mark him as a genuine Christian.
John is the third witness on Demetrius behalf. The apostle expects the elder Gaius to take his word for Demetrius character. It is to be hoped that now as well as then, the word of an inspired apostle is enough for any elder!
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
12. Demetrius Elder or pastor, as we suppose, of another congregation of the Pergamos Church.
Of the truth itself He was certified by men as adhering to the truth; and the truth itself, by agreeing with his faith and doctrine, attested and bore record of his genuineness.
Our record is true Being that of an original witness of Christ. See our notes on 1Jn 1:1.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Demetrius has the witness of all, and of the truth itself. Yes, we also bear witness: and you know that our witness is true.’
Demetrius may have been another church leader, or a more probably a visiting preacher, a representative of John, and he may well also have been the letter bearer. He too is a man who adorns the truth, witnessed to by all. He is to be welcomed. Even John bears witness to his godliness. And Gaius can know that his testimony is reliable. Thus he can know that he can place complete confidence in Demetrius. His coming would give Gaius comfort at a distressful time. John is very practical as well as spiritual.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Praise to Demetrius 3Jn 1:12 serves as a praise to Demetrius for his good deeds.
3Jn 1:12 Demetrius hath good report of all men, and of the truth itself: yea, and we also bear record; and ye know that our record is true.
3Jn 1:12
[47] William Alexander, The Epistles of St. John, in The Expositor’s Bible, eds. William R. Nicoll and Oscar L. Joseph (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1956), in Ages Digital Library, v. 1.0 [CD-ROM] (Rio, WI: Ages Software, Inc., 2001), comments on 3Jn 1:1:12.
[48] Jessie M. Tatlock, Greek and Roman Mythology (New York; The Century Company, c1917), 154-162.
Comments – An individual by the name of Demetrius is found within the book of Acts. It is possible that this Demetrius was the same one who called such a riot in Ephesus years earlier over the preaching of the Gospel by Paul and his companions. This may be the reason that Luke gave some attention to this individual when writing the book of Acts, as such a conversion would have been of much interest to his readers.
Act 19:24, “For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, which made silver shrines for Diana, brought no small gain unto the craftsmen;”
The Apostolic Constitutions, a collection of ecclesiastical law that is believed to have been compiled during the latter half of the fourth century, states that there was a man by the name of Demetrius who became the bishop of the church at Philadelphia. It is very possible that this was the same person mentioned in John’s third epistle. It is interesting to note that the name of Gaius (3Jn 1:1) is mentioned next to the name of Demetrius in this passage.
“Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are theseOf Pergamus, Gains. Of Philadelphia, Demetrius , by me.” ( Constitutions of the Holy Apostles 7.4.46)
3Jn 1:12 Comments – Donald Guthrie tells us that 3Jn 1:12 makes the epistle of 3 John take the form of “a letter of commendation to Demetrius.” [49] It is not likely that Demetrius was previous acquainted with Gaius, and thus not a member of the recent group of itinerate preachers that were rejected by Diotrephes. Guthrie concludes that Demetrius was most likely the bearer of this short epistle. [50]
[49] Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Downers Grover, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1990), 893.
[50] Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Downers Grover, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1990), 894.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Commendation of Demetrius and conclusion:
v. 12. Demetrius hath good report of all men and of the truth itself; yea, and we also bear record; and ye know that our record is true.
v. 13. I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee;
v. 14. but I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face. Peace be to thee. Our friends salute thee. Greet the friends by name. The apostle now commends Demetrius, who was apparently the bearer of this letter To Demetrius testimony has been borne by all and by the truth itself; and we also testify, and thou knowest that our testimony is true. Demetrius was held in the highest regard and esteem by all the brethren that knew him; everybody testified to the soundness of his Christian conduct. He fulfilled the requirements of the Gospel and testified to its saving truth. His faith in the Gospel-message was expressed in his entire life. But to make assurance doubly sure, St. John adds his own testimony, with the remark that, as Gaius knew, his testimony was reliable, he was writing the truth.
In conclusion John states that he indeed had many things to write to Gaius; his heart was so full of the Gospel-message and of its application under the varying circumstances of the congregations that he might have written a long letter with ink and pen. But he had the hope of seeing Gaius very soon, and it would be so much easier and more satisfactory to speak face to face. The ancient greeting, “Peace to thee,” has now acquired a new meaning, since the peace of the Christians is in the merits of Jesus, in whom they put their only trust for salvation. Friends of Gaius in the congregation at Ephesus sent greetings by the apostle’s hand, for Christian fellowship in those days was very intimate and sincere. And John himself, as his last word, bids Gaius greet the friends by name in token of the fact that the apostle was thinking of them all in love. Such love ought to be a pattern and example for all Christians until the end of time.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
3Jn 1:12. Demetrius hath good report Good men are in scripture often and justly praised; and the giving of such characters did not proceed from selfishness, flattery, or respect of persons, but from the real truth of the case. When the scriptures condemn persons, it is not from malice or personal resentment, but because of their wickedness; and they applaud no man, but for his holiness, virtue, and piety. Demetrius has been taken for a member of that church to which Gaius belonged. Others, however, take Demetrius for the bearer of this letter, and one of the most eminent and zealous of the persons who had then got out into those parts, preaching the gospel gratis to the Gentiles. This would probably exasperate Diotrephes the more against him, and render it proper for the apostle to be more particular and earnest in recommending Demetrius to the peculiar protection and regard of G
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
3Jn 1:12 . As the apostle, by , has warned Caius against imitation of Diotrephes, so he now puts Demetrius before him as an example for imitation corresponding to . Who this Demetrius was, however, and where he had his abode, is not stated. Ebrard thinks that he had been one of the (3Jn 1:10 ) in the Church of Diotrephes, and had perhaps been excommunicated by him; but in that case Caius must have known him, so that he did not require this strong testimony of the apostle in his favour; the view that he was the bearer of the Epistle (Dsterdieck. Lcke, etc.) is more probable.
refers in accordance with John’s usage of the perfect not merely to a past, but also to a present record. frequently appears in the same absolute way as here, especially in the Acts; comp. chap. Act 6:3 ; Act 10:22 , and passim.
is not to be extended to the heathen, with Oecumenius and Theophylact, but refers to the Church to which Demetrius belonged; Ebrard incorrectly understands by it “the brethren,” 3Jn 1:10 ; 3Jn 1:7 ; 3Jn 1:5 ; the apostle would have distinctly mentioned them, and besides, the , which is clearly used emphatically, would be unsuitable in reference to them.
] Whilst the commentators are agreed in this, that the truth is here personified, they deviate widely from one another in their more particular definition of the idea; most of them understand by it the life of Demetrius as that which testifies for him, whether they interpret = reality (Hornejus: ipsa rei veritas; Grotius: res ipsae) or as the life itself, in so far as it is a testimony to his virtue (Beausobre: c’est dire, que sa conduite est un tmoin rel de sa vertu). This, however, is incorrect, as both the expression itself ( ) and also its position (between and ) indicate that the apostle meant by something objectively contrasted with Demetrius. Dsterdieck (with whom Braune agrees) has rightly perceived this; but as he at the same time retains the reference to the life, he finds the testimony of the objective Christian truth in the fact that it gives commandments to man, and that inasmuch as Demetrius fulfils them, it is by these commandments that the truth bears a good testimony to him. But apart from the fact that this introduction of the commandments cannot be justified, the whole interpretation has something too artificial to permit of its being regarded as correct. The hypothetical interpretation of Lcke: “if the infallible Christian truth, comp. 3Jn 1:3 , itself were asked, it would give him a good testimony” (similarly Schlichting), does not suit the positive . It is too far-fetched, with Baumgarten-Crusius, to regard the result of the Christian activity of Demetrius as the testimony of the truth to him. A simple, clear idea would be brought out if, with Sander, we could regard it as “a special testimony which John had received through the Holy Ghost in reference to Demetrius;” but there is no justification for this. The correct way will be to interpret in close connection with , and to conclude that the apostle adds the former in order to bring out the fact that the good report of all has its origin not merely in their human judgment, but in the testimony of the which dwells in them (so also Brckner); and that the expression is not merely a personification, but is a description of the Holy Ghost (comp. 1Jn 5:6 : ). The opinion that , in contrast with , cannot be the truth that produces their testimony, and that testifies for Demetrius (Ebrard, [23] Braune), is refuted by Joh 15:26-27 , as here, in a quite similar way, the testimony of the Spirit of truth is conjoined with the testimony of the disciples, the latter being produced and confirmed by the former.
To the testimony of all the apostle further specially adds his own: ] By a stronger emphasis is laid on .
With . . ., comp. Joh 19:35 ; Joh 21:24 .
By the reading: , Caius and his friends are addressed together.
[23] Ebrard’s view that we are here “to consider the truth as a power and might showing itself in the life of Demetrius; the truth which mightily showed itself in him in those days in the relations with Diotrephes, without doubt (!) in the fact that for the sake of the he endured serious ill-treatment or suffering” is clearly affected, apart from other defects, by arbitrary importations.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
12 Demetrius hath good report of all men , and of the truth itself: yea, and we also bear record; and ye know that our record is true.
Ver. 12. Of all men ] Of all good men; for God reckons of men according to their goodness. As a good name only is a name, Ecc 7:1 , and a good wife only a wife,Pro 8:22Pro 8:22 .
And of the truth itself ] That is enough. Doth the truth report well of a man? then he needs not care what the world can say.
And ye know that our record is true ] This is one of John the Evangelist’s praises, Joh 21:24 , and may confirm that he was the author of this and the two former Epistles. For this truth, we may better say of him than Sophronius doth of John Chrysostom, Nunquam eum mentitum fuisse, that he never told lie; and that he was eximium orbis terrarum luminare, as Theodoret styles him.
Yea, and we also ] Which we do not use to do without special caution. It is a fault to be too forward to testify of any.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
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 , we have abundance of authority for the expression in classical usage: Wetst. gives, from Demost. contra Ner. (qu. page?), : de corona, p. 232, . And from sch., contra Timarch., . And thus c. ( ., , ), Corn.-a-lap., Bart.-Petr., Grot., (“rebus ipsis”), Joach.-Lange, Carpzov., G. Lange, al., and Beausobre, who (Dsterd.) explains it “sa conduite est un tmoin rel de sa vertu.” But there are two reasons against this view: 1) that it does not correspond to the objective fact asserted in the , nor to the parallelizing of this testimony with that of the and that of the Apostle: and 2) that thus the Christian and divine sense of 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 prberet testimonium virtutis et probitatis,” or by Lcke, “if infallible Christian truth itself, cf. 3Jn 1:3 , could be asked, it would bear favourable witness of him.” Against both there is the , 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 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 , 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 to the former, and would in fact besides include the following in it likewise. The best interpretation is that of Dsterdieck (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 ; 1Jn 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 refer) and the two testimonies foregoing) bear testimony, and thou knowest that our testimony is true (see reff.).
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
3Jn 1:12 . Application of the warning against evil example: Do not imitate Diotrephes, but imitate Demetrius. Demetrius was probably the bearer ( Ueber-bringer ) of the epistle. There is no reason for identifying him with Demetrius the silversmith of Ephesus (Act 19:24 ). B. Weiss ( Einleit .), supporting the ecclesiastical interpretation of 2 John (see Introd. p. 162) and finding a reference to it in 3Jn 1:9 , regards Demetrius as the recipient ( Empfnger ) of the former a member of the Church and a striking contrast to his fellow-member Diotrephes. But evidently he was a stranger to Gaius and needed introduction and commendation. St. John gives him a threefold testimony: (1) that of the whole community at Ephesus ( ); (2) that of “the Truth” (see note on 1Jn 1:8 ): he fulfilled the requirements of the Gospel and exemplified its saving power; (3) that of the Apostle and his colleagues at Ephesus ( ): he has long been honoured by his community as an embodiment of the Truth ( ), and the Apostle testifies this when he is going among strangers ignorant of his past ( ). , see note on 1Jn 1:3 . , . . .: because St. John knew him so well. Demetrius belonged to the Church of Ephesus and was probably a convert of the Apostle.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
3 John
THE CHRISTIAN’S WITNESSES TO CHARACTER
3Jn 1:12 .
What a strange fate this Demetrius has had! He has narrowly escaped oblivion, yet he is remembered for ever and his name is known over all the world. But beyond the name nothing is certain. Who he was, where and when he lived, what he had done to earn the old Apostle’s commendation are unknown. All his surroundings are swallowed up in darkness, and there shines out only that one little point of light that he ‘hath a good report’-or, as the Revised Version better renders it,’ he hath the witness of all men, and of the truth itself.’ A great many brilliant reputations might be glad to exchange a fame that has filled the world for a little epitaph like that.
I said we did not know anything about him. What if he should be the Demetrius whose astute appeal to profit and religion roused the shrine-makers at Ephesus and imperiled Paul’s life? Of course, that is mere conjecture, and the identity of name is not a strong foundation to build on, for it was a very common one. If this disciple, thus praised by John, is our old acquaintance in Acts, what a change had come over him! Truly, to him, ‘ old things had passed away, all things were become new.’ If we remember John’s long connection with Ephesus, the conjecture will perhaps seem reasonable. At all events, we do no harm if, perhaps led by sentiment, we give as much weight as we can to the supposition that here we have, reappearing within the Church, the old antagonist, and that ‘this Paul’ had ‘persuaded’ him, too, that ‘they be no gods which are made with hands,’ and so had turned him to Jesus Christ. I wonder what became of his craft, and his silver shrines, if this is the same man as he who mustered the Ephesian silversmiths.
But be that as it may, I desire-keeping in mind the alteration of rendering that I have suggested-’hath witness of all men,’ and of the truth itself-to look at the sort of witnesses to character that a Christian man should be able to call.
I. The first witness is Common Opinion.
There is something wrong unless a Christian can put popular opinion into the witness-box in his favour. Of course there is a sense in which there is nothing more contemptible than seeking for that, and in which no heavier woe can come upon us, and no worse thing can be said about us, than that all men speak well of us. But, on the other hand, whether men speak well of us or not, there should be a distinctive characteristic plainly visible in us Christians which shall make all sorts of observers say to themselves, ‘ Well I that is a good man anyhow. I may not like him; I may not want to resemble him; but I cannot help seeing what sort of a man he is and that there is no mistake about his genuine goodness.’ That is a testimony which Christians ought to be more ambitious of possessing than many of them are, and to lay themselves out more consciously to get, than most of them do. For bad men generally know a good one when they see him and a great many of them
‘Compound for sins they are inclined to By praising virtues they’ve no mind to,’
and substitute admiration of uncongenial goodness for imitation of it. It is nothing uncommon to find the drunkard praising the temperate man, and evil-livers of all sorts recognizing the beauty of their own opposites. The worst man in the world has an ideal of goodness in his conscience and mind, far purer and loftier than the best man has realized.
And, again, it is a very righteous and good thing that people who are not Christians should have such extremely lofty and strict standards for the conduct of people that are. We sometimes smile when we see in the newspapers, for instance, sensational paragraphs about the crime of some minister, or clergyman, or some representative religious man. No doubt a dash of malice is present in these; but they are an unconscious testimony to the high ideal of character which attaches to the profession of Christianity. No similar paragraphs appear about the immoralities or crimes of non-religious men. They are not expected to be saints. But we are, and it is right that we should be thus expected. The world does not demand of us more than it is entitled to do, or that our Lord has demanded. There is nothing more wholesome than that Christian people should feel that there are lynx eyes watching them, and hundreds who will have a malicious joy if they defile their garments, and bring discredit on their profession.
I have not the smallest objection to that; and I only wish that some of us who talk a great deal about the depth of our spiritual life could hear what is thought of us by our next-door neighbors, and our servants, and the tradesmen that we deal with, and all those other folk that have no sympathy with our religion, and are, therefore, rigid judges of our conduct.
Then there is another consideration which I suggest -that a great many good people think that it is their Christianity that makes folk speak ill of them, when it is their inconsistencies and not their Christianity that provoke the sarcasm. If you wrap up the treasure of your Christianity in a rough envelope of angularity, self-righteousness, sourness, censure, and criticism, you need not wonder that people do not think much of your Christianity. It is not because Christian professors are good, but because they are not better, that ninety-nine out of a hundred of the uncharitable things that are said about them are said, and truly said.
So, dear friends, let us-not in any cowardly spirit of trying to disarm censure, nor because we have an itch to be caressed, like a parrot to have its head scratched, nor because we are pleased that men shall think well of us, but because the judgment of the world is, in some degree, a more wholesome tribunal than the judgment of our own consciences, and is, in some sense, an anticipation, though with many mistakes, of the judgment of God-let us try to have a good report of ‘them that are without,’ and to he ‘living epistles, known and read of all men,’ who will recognize the handwriting, and say, ‘That is Christ’s.’
Remember Daniel in that court where luxury and vice and sensuality, and base intrigues of all sorts rioted, and how they said of him, ‘We shall find no occasion against him except it be concerning the law of his God.’ And let us try to earn the same kind of reputation; and be sure of this that, unless the world endorses our profession of Christianity, which it may do by disliking us-that is as it may be-there is grave reason to doubt whether the profession is a reality or not.
II. Then there is another witness here mentioned- ‘the truth itself.’
The Gospel of Jesus Christ witnesses for the man who witnesses for, and lives by it. A law broken testifies against the breaker; a law kept testifies for him. And so, if there be an approximation in the drift of our lives to the great ideal set forth in the law of God, that law will bear witness for us. But there must be in us the things that Christianity plainly requires before ‘the truth’ can be put into the witness box for us. There must be manifest self-surrender.
Let us go back to our supposition, which, of course, I freely admit is the only conjecture. If this is the Demetrius of the Acts, and he became a Christian, the first thing that ‘the truth’ required of him would be to shut up shop, to give up the lucrative occupation by which he had his wealth, and to cast in his lot with the men that were warring against idols. We, in our degree, will have, in some form or other, the same self-surrender to exercise.
I have a letter which tells me the story of a man, who for years has been trying to serve God, in the employ of some establishment where they sell wines and spirits, but now his conscience has smitten him, and he has had to give it up, and writes to ask me if I can find him a situation. Well! He is borne witness to by the truth itself, which he has loyally obeyed. We all, as Christians, have to do the like, and not only in the great acts of our lives to rid ourselves of everything that is contrary to the principles and commandments of the Word, but in the small things to be ever seeking to come nearer and nearer to the ideal which He requires.
When looking into the perfect law of liberty we see in its precepts our own characters reflected, if I may so say; because we keep these we may be sure that we are right. If we do not, we may be sure that we are wrong. The truth will bear witness against lives that are ordered in defiance of it and for those which are conformed to it. It is possible that even the lofty and perfect examples of conduct and character which are in the history of the Master, and the principles that are drawn from Him, may testify of us; and if so, what quiet blessedness will be ours!
III. But there is a last thought here. Christ Himself will be a witness.
I do not know that in these profound and mystical letters of the Apostle John, that great designation ‘the truth’ is ever employed to mean only the body of teaching contained in what we call the Gospel. I think that there is always trembling in the expression, and sometimes predominating in it, in these letters, the personal application of which our Lord, as reported by the same Apostle when he was playing the part of Evangelist, gives us the warrant, when He says, ‘I am the Truth.’ And if that personal meaning is, as I think it is, shimmering through these words, then we may venture to deal with it separately in conclusion, and to say that the third witness is Jesus Christ Himself.
‘With me,’ said Paul, ‘it is a very small matter to be judged of you, or of man’s judgment’; and that wholesome disregard of opinion is part of the attitude which we should bear towards popular or any human estimate-but’ he that judgeth me is the Lord”.’
Now, notice Paul’s tenses. He does not say, ‘He that is going to judge me,’ away out yonder in the indefinite future, at some great Day of Judgment after death, but he says, ‘He that judgeth me’; and he means us to feel that, step by step, all through our lives, and in reference to each individual action at the time of its commission, there is an act of Christ’s judgment, in infallible determination by Him of the moral good or evil of our deed. So, moment by moment, we are at that tribunal, and act by act, we please or we displease Him; and of each feeling and thought, word, and deed, He says, ‘Well,’ or ‘ 111, is it done.’
We may have Him for our Witness as well as for our Judge. How does He witness? To-day, and all through our earthly days, He will witness by His voice in the inner man, enlightened and made sensitive to evil by His own gracious presence. I believe that conscience is always the irradiation of the ‘Light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world’; but I believe that the conscience of the man who is born again by faith in Jesus Christ is in a more special manner the voice of Christ Himself speaking within him. And when there rises in the heart that quiet glow which follows His approval, there is a Witness that no voices around, censuring or praising, have the smallest power to affect. Never mind what the world says if the voice within, which is the voice of Jesus Christ, testifies to integrity and to the desire to serve Him.
And covet this, dear friends, as by far the best and the happiest thing that we can possess in this world, when we hear Him, in the recesses of our hearts, saying to us, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant,’ then our thoughts are carried forward still further; and we may venture, with all our imperfections, to look onward to the day when again the Judge will be the Witness for us, even to the surprise of those whose acts He then attests. He Himself has taught us so, when He pictures the wondering servant saying, ‘Lord, when did I do all these things, which Thou hast discovered in me?’ And He has assured us that ‘never will He forget any of our works,’ and that at the last solemn hour, when we must be manifested before the Judgment-seat of Christ, He Himself will confess our deeds before the Father and before His holy angels. It is well to have the witness of man; it is heaven to have the witness of the Truth Himself.
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
hath good report = is borne witness to. See 3Jn 1:6.
of = by. App-104.
bear record = testify, 3Jn 1:3.
ye know. The texts read, “thou knowest”. App-132.
record = testimony. See p. 1511.
true. App-175.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
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 , we have abundance of authority for the expression in classical usage: Wetst. gives, from Demost. contra Ner. (qu. page?), : de corona, p. 232, . And from sch., contra Timarch., . And thus c. ( ., , ), Corn.-a-lap., Bart.-Petr., Grot., (rebus ipsis), Joach.-Lange, Carpzov., G. Lange, al., and Beausobre, who (Dsterd.) explains it sa conduite est un tmoin rel de sa vertu. But there are two reasons against this view: 1) that it does not correspond to the objective fact asserted in the , nor to the parallelizing of this testimony with that of the and that of the Apostle: and 2) that thus the Christian and divine sense of 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 prberet testimonium virtutis et probitatis, or by Lcke, if infallible Christian truth itself, cf. 3Jn 1:3, could be asked, it would bear favourable witness of him. Against both there is the , 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 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 , 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 to the former, and would in fact besides include the following in it likewise. The best interpretation is that of Dsterdieck (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 Gods Truth. It was the mirror in which the walk of Demetrius was reflected: and his form, thus seen in the mirror of Gods Truth, in which the perfect form of Christ is held up to us (1Jn 2:6; 1Jn 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 refer) and the two testimonies foregoing) bear testimony, and thou knowest that our testimony is true (see reff.).
Fuente: The Greek Testament
3Jn 1:12. , Demetrius) He seems to have been a minister who was a pattern of hospitality.-, we) I, and they who are with me.-) yet: although Demetrius is already supplied with many testimonies.- , and ye know) for we do not deceive in anything.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
good: Act 10:22, Act 22:12, 1Th 4:12, 1Ti 3:7
and we: Joh 19:35, Joh 21:24
Reciprocal: 1Sa 2:24 – no good 1Sa 12:4 – General Act 6:3 – honest 1Co 16:18 – therefore 2Co 6:8 – evil 1Th 1:8 – in every 1Ti 5:10 – reported 1Pe 5:12 – testifying 1Jo 5:11 – this 3Jo 1:6 – have borne witness of thy charity Rev 1:2 – bare
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
3Jn 1:12. This Demetrius is not found in any other place that I have seen. He was a disciple well spoken of by all who knew him. Of all, and of the truth itself. A man could have a good name without deserving it, but the report for Demetrius was a truthful one. John adds his testimony for the good name of this brother by saying we also bear record. It is probable that he was to be the bearer of this epistle.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Having propounded the example of God in the former verse, he propounds in this the example of Demetrius, as a pattern to them for their imitation in works of piety and charity; not only common report, and the apostle’s testimony, but his own good works, did justly recommend him as an extraordinary pattern to their imitation.
Note, That the commendations, which our own good works do give us before the world, are more valuable than all the praises and applauses which can be given to us by men, yea, by the best of men. Demetrius has a good report of all men, yea, of the truth itself.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Demetrius and Some Closing Words
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
3Jn 1:12. Demetrius, on the contrary, hath good report Hath a good testimony from all that know him; and of the truth The gospel; itself His temper and conduct being conformable to its precepts, and he having exerted himself greatly to propagate it. Yea, and we also bear record I, and they that are with me; and ye know that our record is true That every commendation I give is well founded.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Verse 12
Demetrius; named, apparently, as one of the brethren above referred to.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
John urged Gaius to show hospitable love to Demetrius to give Gaius an opportunity to practice love and thereby reprove Diotrephes’ lack of love. Demetrius may have carried this letter from John to Gaius. [Note: Westcott, p. 241; Hodges, "3 John," p. 911.] Or he may have visited Gaius later. He may have been one of the controversial itinerant preachers. [Note: William Barclay, The Letters of John and Jude, p. 178.]
John gave three recommendations (witnesses) of this brother’s worth. He had a good reputation among all who knew him, his character and conduct were in harmony with the truth, and John personally knew him and vouched for him.
"Like Gaius, Demetrius is ’walking in the truth.’ His life matches his confession. In Pauline terms, he manifests the fruit of the Spirit. In Johannine terms, he lives the life of love." [Note: Barker, p. 376.]
It will be interesting to get to heaven and see if this Demetrius is the same man who gave Paul so much trouble in Ephesus (Act 19:24). Several commentators have concluded that he was. [Note: E.g., W. Alexander, "The Third Epistle of John," in The Speaker’s Commentary: New Testament, 4:381; and Lloyd John Ogilvie, When God First Thought of You, pp. 201-6.] The odds are against this possibility since there were undoubtedly many men named Demetrius (lit. belonging to Demeter [the goddess of agriculture]) living in that area then. Furthermore Paul ministered in Ephesus in the early 50s whereas John probably wrote this epistle in the early 90s.