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.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

MacLaren's Expositions

3 John

THE CHRISTIAN’S WITNESSES TO CHARACTER

3 John 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.

Benson Commentary

3 John 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.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

1:9-12 Both the heart and mouth must be watched. The temper and spirit of Diotrephes was full of pride and ambition. It is bad not to do good ourselves; but it is worse to hinder those who would do good. Those cautions and counsels are most likely to be accepted, which are seasoned with love. Follow that which is good, for he that doeth good, as delighting therein, is born of God. Evil-workers vainly pretend or boast acquaintance with God. Let us not follow that which is proud, selfish, and of bad design, though the example may be given by persons of rank and power; but let us be followers of God, and walk in love, after the example of our Lord.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

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 John 19:35; John 21:24.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

12. of all men—who have had opportunity of knowing his character.

of the truth itself—The Gospel standard of truth bears witness to him that he walks conformably to it, in acts of real love, hospitality to the brethren (in contrast to Diotrephes), &c. Compare Joh 3:21 "He that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest that they are wrought in God."

we also—besides the testimony of "all men," and "of the truth itself."

ye know—The oldest manuscripts read, "thou knowest."

Matthew Poole's Commentary

Some eminent Christian, whom he could with confidence recommend as a pattern.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire 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, Acts 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 John 19:35; and it will give a further proof of this epistle being the Apostle John's.

Geneva Study Bible

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.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Meyer's NT Commentary

3 John 1:12. As the apostle, by μὴ μιμοῦ τὸ κακόν, has warned Caius against imitation of Diotrephes, so he now puts Demetrius before him as an example for imitation—corresponding to ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀγαθόν. Who this Demetrius was, however, and where he had his abode, is not stated. Ebrard thinks that he had been one of the βουλόμενοι (3 John 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 (Düsterdieck. Lücke, etc.) is more probable.

μεμαρτύρηται refers—in accordance with John’s usage of the perfect—not merely to a past, but also to a present record. μαρτυρεῖσθαι frequently appears in the same absolute way as here, especially in the Acts; comp. chap. Acts 6:3; Acts 10:22, and passim.

πάντων 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,” 3 John 1:10; 3 John 1:7; 3 John 1:5; the apostle would have distinctly mentioned them, and besides, the πάντων, which is clearly used emphatically, would be unsuitable in reference to them.

καὶ ὑπʼ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀληθείας] 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 ἀλήθεια = 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 à dire, que sa conduite est un témoin réel de sa vertu). This, however, is incorrect, as both the expression itself (αὐτὴ ἡ ἀλήθεια) and also its position (between πάντες and ἡμεῖς) indicate that the apostle meant by ἡ ἀλήθεια something objectively contrasted with Demetrius. Düsterdieck (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 Lücke: “if the infallible Christian truth, comp. 3 John 1:3, itself were asked, it would give him a good testimony” (similarly Schlichting), does not suit the positive μεμαρτύρηται. 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 ὑπʼ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀληθείας in close connection with ὑπὸ πάντων, 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 ἀλήθεια which dwells in them (so also Brückner); and that the expression αὐτὴ ἡ ἀλήθεια is not merely a personification, but is a description of the Holy Ghost (comp. 1 John 5:6 : τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια). The opinion that αὐτὴ ἡ ἀλήθεια, in contrast with πάντες, cannot be the truth that produces their testimony, and that testifies for Demetrius (Ebrard,[23] Braune), is refuted by John 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: καὶ ἡμεῖς δὲ μαρτυροῦμεν] By καὶ … δέ a stronger emphasis is laid on ἡμεῖς.

With καὶ οἶδας κ.τ.λ., comp. John 19:35; John 21:24.

By the reading: οἴδατε, 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 ἀλήθεια he endured serious ill-treatment or suffering”—is clearly affected, apart from other defects, by arbitrary importations.

Expositor's Greek Testament

3 John 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 (Acts 19:24). B. Weiss (Einleit.), supporting the ecclesiastical interpretation of 2 John (see Introd. p. 162) and finding a reference to it in 3 John 1:9, regards Demetrius as the recipient (Empfänger) 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 (ὑπὸ πάντων); (2) that of “the Truth” (see note on 1 John 1:8): he fulfilled the requirements of the Gospel and exemplified its saving power; (3) that of the Apostle and his colleagues at Ephesus (ἡμεῖς): he has long been honoured by his community as an embodiment of the Truth (μεμαρτύρηται), and the Apostle testifies this when he is going among strangers ignorant of his past (μαρτυροῦμεν). καὶ … δὲ, see note on 1 John 1:3. οἶδας ὅτι, κ.τ.λ.: because St. John knew him so well. Demetrius belonged to the Church of Ephesus and was probably a convert of the Apostle.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

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 (Acts 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 1 John 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 (1 John 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 John 15:27, which is a remarkably parallel passage, and comp. Acts 5:32; Acts 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 1 John 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, οἶδας (אABC and most Versions), as against the plural, οἵδατε (KL), is quite decisive: a few authorities, under the influence of John 21:24, read ‘we know:’ comp. John 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) John 21:24 may be “an echo of this sentence” (Westcott).

Bengel's Gnomen

3 John 1:12. Δημητρίῳ, Demetrius) He seems to have been a minister who was a pattern of hospitality.—ἡμεῖς, we) I, and they who are with me.—δὲ) yet: although Demetrius is already supplied with many testimonies.—καὶ οἴδατε, and ye know) for we do not deceive in anything.

Pulpit Commentary

Ver. 12. - Respecting Demetrius we know no more than is told us here. All that we can safely infer from what is stated is that he is a person of whom Gaius has not hitherto known much; otherwise this elaborate commendation would scarcely be necessary. Conjectures about him are

(1) that he was the bearer of this Epistle to Gaius, - which is not improbable;

(2) that he was a member of the same Church as Diotrephes, and had done good service in opposing him, - which is possible;

(3) that he is the silversmith of Artemis (Acts 19:24), now "preaching the faith of which he once made havoc," - which is not probable. The name was a common one. It is not easy to determine the meaning of the statement that Demetrius hath the witness of all men, and of the truth itself. Perhaps it means that those who bore testimony to Demetrius were something more than a large body of unanimous human witnesses, strong as such testimony would be; in giving their witness they were guided by "the Spirit of truth." Or it may mean that the facts speak of themselves: as soon as Gaius knows Demetrius he will see that the universal commendation of him is amply justified. The true reading in what follows is, "and thou knowest that our witness is true" (comp. John 19:35; John 21:24). The calm confidence with which the writer asserts his authority, both over Diotrephes and also as a witness, confirms us in the belief that "the elder" is no less than the apostle. 3 John 1:12

Vincent's Word Studies

Demetrius hath good report (Δημητρίῳ μεμαρτύρηται)

Lit., unto Demetrius witness hath been born. See John 3:26.