Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary
3 John 1:10

Clarke's Commentary

Verse 3 John 1:10. If I come, I will remember — I will show him the authority which, as an apostle of Jesus Christ, I possess.

Prating against us — Diotrephes might have been a converted Jew, who was unwilling that the Gentiles should be received into the Church; or a Judaizing Christian, who wished to incorporate the law with the Gospel, and calumniated the apostles who taught otherwise. This haughty and unfeeling man would give no countenance to the converted Gentiles; so far from it, that he would not receive any of them himself, forbade others to do it, and excommunicated those who had been received into the Church by the apostles. This appears to be the meaning of neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the Church. He had the complete dog in the manger principle: he would neither do, nor let do; and when good was done that he did not approve, he endeavoured to undo it.

Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible

Therefore, if I come, I will bring to remembrance his works which he doeth, prating against us with wicked words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and them that would he forbiddeth and casteth them out of the church.

If I come … In 3 John 1:13, the apostle made this much more definite: "I hope shortly to see thee, and we shall speak face to face."

I will bring to remembrance … Wilder supposed that, "at the same time (John) will refute his empty charges";Amos N. Wilder, op. cit., p. 311. but it is a mistake to understand it in this way. What John evidently intended to do was to bring the words and conduct of Diotrephes "to remembrance, not of himself, but of the whole church, exposing his wicked conduct that it might receive the censure to which it was entitled. Nothing that Diotrephes had said concerning the blessed apostle required any refutation.

His works which he doeth … wicked words … It is interesting that "words" here are equated with "works." Words are indeed works, wicked words being works of Satan, and righteous words being a "work of faith." Since it is supposed that Gaius was a member of the same church as Diotrephes, or at least a resident of the same area, some have wondered why it was necessary for John to elaborate the works of Diotrephes, thinking that perhaps Gaius would have known about them already. Orr explained as follows:

The objection would be valid only if this were purely a private letter; but there are no purely private letters in the New Testament. This letter is a formal indictment of Diotrephes, as well as a testimonial for Gaius and Demetrius.R. W. Orr, op. cit., p. 624.

Them that would he forbiddeth and casteth out … These words clearly indicate an action called in later times "excommunication"; but the manner of Diotrephes' doing this is not suggested. It is not known if he was "an elder" who had induced the group to take such action, or if he here merely "arrogated to himself an authority which later became legal for local bishops."Amos N. Wilder, op. cit., p. 312.

Roberts also noted in this context that:

The Greek makes it plain that it was the members of the church who wanted to practice this virtue (of receiving the missionaries into their homes and supporting them) who were put out of the church (by Diotrephes)J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 178.

This clearly indicates Diotrephes' action as being a vicious secondary boycott of every Christian who would not receive and honor his dictum that the missionaries should be turned away. He not only disfellowshiped and rejected the missionaries, he went far beyond this and disfellowshiped (even to the extent of denying them membership in the body of Christ) everyone who would not follow his lead in this matter. As noted above, it is not clear just how Diotrephes was able to do this. Dummelow explained it thus:

He could have been "the head of the church" to which Gaius belonged; but it may be that he had sufficient social influence to exclude the brethren from the Christian society of the place.J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 1263.

However, Diotrephes might have accomplished his evil design, he had utterly no right to any such authority; and the granting of it at a later period of church history to "bishops" was likewise sinful, anti-Christian, and diabolical. Not even an entire eldership could have been justified in the brutal enforcement of a secondary boycott of their fellow-Christians because their judgment had not been honored in such a case. It is a hopeless blindness indeed that fails to discern the heinous nature of the sin of Diotrephes.

Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible

Wherefore, if I come - He was evidently expecting soon to make a visit to Gaius, and to the church, 3 John 1:14.

I will remember his deeds which he doeth - That is, he would punish his arrogance and presumption; would take measures that he should be dealt with in a proper manner. There is no evidence whatever that this is said in a vindictive or revengeful spirit, or that the writer spoke of it merely as a personal matter. From anything that can be shown to the contrary, if it had been a private and personal affair merely, the matter might have been dropped, and never referred to again. But what had been done was public. It pertained to the authority of the apostle, the duty of the church, and the character of the brethren who had been commended to them. If the letter was written, as is supposed by the aged John, and his authority had been utterly rejected by the influence of this one man, then it was proper that that authority should be asserted. If it was the duty of the church to have received these men, who had been thus recommended to them, and it had been prevented from doing what it would otherwise have done, by the influence of one man, then it was proper that the influence of that man should be restrained, and that the church should see that he was not to control it. If the feelings and the character of these brethren had been injured by being rudely thrust out of the church, and held up as unworthy of public confidence, then it was proper that their character should be vindicated, and that the author of the wrong should be dealt with in a suitable manner. No one can show that this was not all that the apostle proposed to do, or that any feelings of private vindictiveness entered into his purpose to remember what Diotrephes had done; and the existence of any such feelings should not be charged on the apostle without proof. There is no more reason to suppose this in his case than there was in the case of Paul, in administering discipline in the church of Corinth, 1 Corinthians 5:3-5, or than there is in any instance of administering discipline now.

Prating against us - The word “prate,” (φλυαρέω phluareō,) occurring nowhere else in the New Testament, means to “overflow with talk,” (Greek φλύω phluō, Latin: “fluo,” flow;) to talk much without weight, or to little purpose; to be loquacious; to trifle; or, to use an expression common among us, and which accords well with the Greek, to run on in talk, without connection or sense. The word does not properly imply that there was malignity or ill-feeling in what was said, but that the talk was of an idle, foolish, and unpprofitable character. As John here, however, specifies that there was a bad spirit in the manner in which Diotrephes expressed himself, the real thing which is implied in the use of the word here is, that there were much talk of that kind; that he was addicted to this habit of “running on” against the apostle; and that he was thus constantly undermining his influence, and injuring his character.

With malicious words - Greek, “evil words;” words that were fitted to do injury.

And not content therewith - Not satisfied with venting his private feelings in talk. Some persons seem to be satisfied with merely talking against others, and take no other measures to injure them; but Diotrephes was not. He himself rejected the brethren, and persuaded the church to do the same thing. Bad as evil talking is, and troublesome as a man may be who is always “prating” about matters that do not go according to his mind, yet it would be comparatively well if things always ended with that, and if the loquacious and the dissatisfied never took measures openly to wrong others.

Neither doth he himself receive the brethren - Does not himself treat them as Christian brethren, or with the hospitality which is due to them. He had not done it on the former visit, and John evidently supposed that the same thing would occur again.

And forbiddeth them that would - From this it is clear that there were those in the church who were disposed to receive them in a proper manner; and from anything that appears, the church, as such, would have been inclined to do it, if it had not been for the influence of this one man.

And casteth them out of the church - Compare Luke 6:22. It has been made a question whether the reference here is to the members of the church who were disposed to receive these brethren, or to the brethren themselves. Lucke, Macknight, and some others, suppose that it refers to those in the church who were willing to receive them, and whom Diotrephes had excommunicated on that account. Heumann, Carpzoviius, Rosenmuller, Bloomfield, and others, suppose that it refers to these strangers, and that the meaning is, that Diotrephes would not receive them into the society of Christians, and thus compelled them to go to another place. That this latter is the correct interpretation seems to me to be evident, for it was of the treatment which they had received that the apostle was speaking.

Smith's Bible Commentary

-3 John

So the third epistle of John is now again, John addresses himself as

The elder [the presbyturos] unto the wellbeloved Gaius ( 3 John 1:1 ),

Probably not the Gaius mentioned in Paul's epistle to the Corinthians where he was in Corinth, and it would appear that these letters were written to those in the area of Ephesus.

whom I love in the truth. Beloved ( 3 John 1:1-2 ),

And he's talking to Gaius.

I wish above all things that you may prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth ( 3 John 1:2 ).

Now there are many people who quote this scripture as a sort of promise for healing. And they twist the scriptures slightly making it really sort of God's declaration, God saying I wish above all things that you may prosper and be in good health, even as your soul prospers. But this is a personal letter from John to Gaius. And he is greeting Gaius who is well-loved with this beautiful wish that you may prosper and be in good health. As we so often in our letters writing to someone we haven't seen for a long time, I hope that this letter finds you in good health. So to use this as a promise for healing is really not scriptural, as God's promise for healing. It is the wish of John for Gaius. Beautiful wish indeed. "I wish that you might prosper and be in good health, even as your soul prospers."

But it is interesting that there is a relationship made between the prosperity of the soul and the physical well being. And we are discovering more and more as we study the human body that there is a very definite direct relationship between a person's physical health and their mental well-being. We are learning how that attitude can change the body chemistry and that bad attitudes can create harmful chemicals that will attack your body physically. And there's a definite relationship between mental attitude and organic illnesses in many cases. The psychologist say ninety percent, I think, that they're overstressing their side. But there is a definite relationship between many illnesses and the mental attitude of the person. So there's a correlation made between the physical well-being with the mental, the prosperity of the soul, the mind.

There is a proverb that says, "A merry heart doeth good like a medicine" ( Proverbs 17:22 ). You know that they have discovered that that is scientifically correct. That laughter aids tremendously in the digestion of food. You ought to have a joke book at your dinner table. Bitterness can eat at your physical being, can create ulcers, chemicals that are harmful, destructive. So it is interesting that John would make the correlation between the physical and the emotional or mental. "I wish above all things that you may prosper and be in good health, even as your soul prospers."

For I rejoiced greatly, when the brethren came and testified of the truth that is in thee, even as you walk in truth. And I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth ( 3 John 1:3-4 ).

I can concur with what John is saying here. The greatest joy, I think, of a teacher is to hear that their children are walking in truth. You know, to come across someone that you ministered to fifteen, twenty years ago and find them walking in the truth is just a thrill, no greater joy.

In the same way, there's probably no greater sorrow than to hear that your children have turned from the truth, got caught up in some weird doctrine, some heresy. That's painful, that hurts. But "no greater joy than to hear that they are walking in the truth."

Beloved, you do faithfully whatever you do to the brethren, to the strangers; Which have borne witness of your love before the church: whom if you bring forward on their journey after a godly sort, you will do well ( 3 John 1:5-6 ):

Now he's talking about Gaius's treatment of these itinerary evangelists and prophets. You've been hospitable to them. You've helped them along their way. And in this you did well. It was, and they've come, and they've told of your love. They've told of your hospitality.

Because that for his name's sake they went forth, taking nothing from the heathens ( 3 John 1:7 ).

So these itinerant prophets have gone forth in the name of the Lord and for his name's sake, but they wouldn't take anything from the Gentiles, which is in the New Testament Greek the heathen or the pagans, because in Christ, you know, they were all brothers. "There is no Jew nor Greek, Barbarian, Scythian" ( Colossians 3:11 ). So the Gentiles referred to those outside of Christ.

I question some of the fund raising techniques of the churches today that go to the major corporations or they go to the businesses or they go to the world to find financing for the ministry and for the work of the church. The early prophets that went forth did not practice that. In fact, as I told you, if they asked for money they were considered to be a false prophet. That's the apostle wrote their Dedike and they said if they ask for money they're false prophets. So he is encouraging Gaius in his hospitality, the love that he had shown was good.

It had been reported and he said,

We ought to receive such, that we might be fellowhelpers of the truth. Now I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, did not receive us ( 3 John 1:8-9 ).

Diotrephes, an interesting character. We look how his sin has been exposed throughout the years. A man who loved the preeminence in the church. He didn't want to give, you know, any place to anybody else. He wanted the preeminence. So when these prophets would come in, he wouldn't receive them. In fact, he even refused John the beloved, apostle of the Lord. There are Diotrephes still in the church today, those who are looking for a position for themselves, those that are looking for a place of power and authority, who want preeminence.

So John said,

Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and he forbids them that would, and casts them out of the church ( 3 John 1:10 ).

I mean, this guy was a real tyrant. He wouldn't receive these itinerant ministers and if someone in the church would receive them, he'd throw them out of the church.

John's exhortation is

Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. And he that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God ( 3 John 1:11 ).

Again here, John puts the emphasis upon what a person is doing. "Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourself" ( James 1:22 ). "Not he who has the law is justified by the law, but he who does the law is justified by the law" ( Galatians 3:11-12 ).

Having the knowledge of Jesus Christ doesn't save you. It's following Him as your Lord that brings salvation. It isn't mouthing the Apostle's Creed that will save you. It's what are you doing. You're doing good, then you're of God, but if you're doing evil, you really don't know God.

Demetrius has a good report of all men ( 3 John 1:12 ),

And probably this letter was given to Demetrius who was headed that way as a letter of reference from John and he told him to give it to Gaius, and so he is encouraging now, when Demetrius gets there to receive him. "Demetrius has good report of all men,"

and of the truth itself: yes, and we also bear record; and you know that our record is true. Now I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee: But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face ( 3 John 1:12-14 ).

So as he closed the second epistle, so he closes the third with the anticipation of seeing him, not having to write to him the things that are on his heart.

Peace be to thee. Our friends greet you. Greet the friends [my friends] by name ( 3 John 1:14 ). "

Contending for the Faith

Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.

Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth: "If" does not speak of uncertainty on John’s part, but rather expresses the fact of his coming. Other translations have, "when I come." This is a promise from John to Gaius that he is coming to face Diotrephes with his wrongful actions. "I will remember" means more than to remind, as Haas says, it means "to expose, or bring to light" (155). John intends to prove before the church the kind of tyrannical boss they are submitting to and expose him for all he is. "His deeds which he doeth" speaks of his habitual evil behavior. John is determined that this egotistical leader will answer for his actions.

prating against us with malicious words: "Prating" means to talk "nonsense about, to gossip, to speak idly and irresponsibly" (Haas 155). The language Diotrephes uses against John and those with him is nonsensical, ridiculous, and irresponsible; in addition, it is "malicious" or pernicious. "Malicious" is poneros, which is used of the devil who is bent on the destruction of everyone and everything. The malicious prating of Diotrephes against John is designed to destroy his reputation and discredit his name.

and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would: Refusing to acknowledge John and the others and maliciously gossiping about them is bad enough, but Diotrephes goes even further. Not content with just destroying the influence of good men, he wants everyone else to do the same. He does not accept the traveling preachers and forbids any of the other members to do so. "Forbiddeth" is koluei and means that he "hinders, or prevents" (Wuest, III John 223). "Would" is boulomenous, which speaks of "mature consideration" (Wuest, III John 223). There are those in this congregation with good judgment who want to accept the authority of John and extend hospitality and support to the itinerants, but Diotrephes stops them from doing so. This action truly indicates the power this man wielded over this congregation. It is an excessive power that would destroy any effective work in any congregation.

and casteth them out of the church: "Casteth them out" simply means that Diotrephes drove these members away from the congregation in which he exercised this inordinate authority. He did not have the right from God to do so but was rather acting on his own in expelling these members. "Them" refers to those who, after careful thought, decide to receive these emissaries from John. Their decision countered with that of the "church boss," and he expels them. God forbid that any man should hold such control in a congregation of the Lord’s people! "Casteth out" is present tense, indicating that this was the regular practice of this overbearing despot.

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

II. UPHOLDING THE TRUTH WITH LOVE VV. 2-12

The word "Beloved" introduces each of the three sections of the body of this brief epistle.

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

B. Encouragement to Support Those Who Proclaim the Truth VV. 5-10

John commended Gaius for his love of the brethren (cf. 1 John 2:3-9; 1 John 3:14-18; 1 John 3:23; 1 John 4:7; 1 John 4:11; 1 John 4:20-21; 2 John 1:5) to encourage him to continue practicing this virtue.

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

The apostle promised and warned that whenever he might visit that congregation he would point out Diotrephes’ sinful behavior, assuming it continued. Specifically, Diotrephes was charging John falsely to elevate himself. Worse than that he was not giving hospitality to visiting brethren, as Gaius was, perhaps because he saw them as a threat to himself. Third, he intimidated others in the church and forced them to stop welcoming these men.

"Diotrephes was condemned not because he violated sound teaching regarding the person and nature of Jesus Christ but because his ’life’ was a contradiction to the truth of the gospel." [Note: Glenn W. Barker, "3 John," in Hebrews-Revelation, vol. 12 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p. 375.]

"The verb ekballei, in the present tense again (literally, ’he throws out’), need not imply formal excommunication from the Church, as this became known later. Cf. Matthew 18:17; Luke 6:22; John 9:34-35; 1 Corinthians 5:2. On the other hand, it seems as if Diotrephes had already arrogated to himself the task of ’expulsion,’ and was actually driving people out of the congregation (as he had refused to welcome the brothers) rather than merely desiring to do so . . ." [Note: Smalley, p. 358.]

Obviously Gaius did not bow to his wishes, showing that he had strength of character and probably influence in the church. With this epistle John threw his support behind Gaius and against Diotrephes.

Barclay's Daily Study Bible

Chapter 1

THE TEACHER'S JOY ( 3 John 1:1-4 )

1:1-4 The Elder to Gaius, the beloved, whom I love in truth.

No New Testament letter better shows that the Christian letters were exactly on the model which all letter-writers used in the time of the early church. There is a papyrus letter from Irenaeus, a ship's captain, to his brother Apolinarius:

Irenaeus to Apolinarius his brother, my greetings. Continually I

pray that you may be in health, even as I myself am in health. I

wish you to know that I arrived at land on the 6th of the month

Epeiph, and I finished unloading my ship on the 18th of the same

month, and went up to Rome on the 25th of the same month, and the

place welcomed us, as God willed. Daily we are waiting for our

discharge, so that up till today no one of us in the corn service

has been allowed to go. I greet your wife much, and Serenus, and

all who love you, by name. Good bye.

The form of Irenaeus' letter is exactly that of John's. There is first the greeting, next the prayer for good health, after that the main body of the letter with its news, and then the final greetings. The early Christian letters were not something remote and ecclesiastical; they were the kind of letters which people wrote to each other every day.

John writes to a friend called Gaius. In the world of the New Testament Gaius was the commonest of all names. In the New Testament there are three men with that name. There is Gaius, the Macedonian who, along with Aristarchus, was with Paul at the riot in Ephesus ( Acts 19:29). There is Gaius of Derbe, who was the delegate of his church to convey the collection for the poor to Jerusalem ( Acts 20:4). There is the Gaius of Corinth who had been Paul's host, and who was such a hospitable soul that he could be called the host of the whole church ( Romans 16:23), and who was one of the very few people whom Paul had personally baptized ( 1 Corinthians 1:14), and who, according to tradition, became the first Bishop of Thessalonica. Gaius was the commonest of all names; and there is no reason to identify our Gaius with any of these three. According to tradition he was made the Bishop of Pergamum by John himself. Here he stands before us as a man with an open house and an open heart.

Twice in the first two verses of this little letter John uses the word beloved. (The well-beloved and beloved of the King James Version's first two verses translate the same Greek word, agapetos, G27.) In this group of letters John uses agapetos ( G27) no fewer than ten times. This is a very notable fact. These letters are letters of warning and rebuke; and yet their accent is the accent of love. It was the advice of a great scholar and preacher: "Never scold your congregation." Even if he has to rebuke, John never speaks with irritation. The whole atmosphere of his writing is that of love.

3 John 1:2 shows us the comprehensive care of the good and devoted pastor. John is interested both in the physical and the spiritual health of Gaius. John was like Jesus; he never forgot that men have bodies as well as souls and that they matter, too.

In 3 John 1:4 John tells us of the teacher's greatest joy. It is to see his pupils walking in the truth. The truth is not simply something to be intellectually assimilated; it is the knowledge which fills a man's mind and the charity which clothes his life. The truth is what makes a man think and act like God.

CHRISTIAN HOSPITALITY ( 3 John 1:5-8 )

1:5-8 Beloved, whatever service you render to the brothers, strangers as they are, is an act of true faith and they testify to your love before the church. It will be a further kindness, if you send them on their way worthily of God. For they have gone out for the sake of the Name and they take no assistance from pagans. It is a duty to support such men, that we may show ourselves fellow-workers with the truth.

Here we come to John's main object in writing. A group of travelling missionaries is on its way to the church of which Gaius is a member, and John urges him to receive them, to give them every support and to send them on their way in a truly Christian manner.

In the ancient world hospitality was a sacred duty. Strangers were under the protection of Zeus Xenios, Zeus the god of strangers (Xenos, G3581, is the Greek for a stranger). In the ancient world inns were notoriously unsatisfactory. The Greek had an instinctive dislike of taking money for the giving of hospitality; and, therefore, the profession of innkeeper ranked very low. Inns were notoriously dirty and flea-infested. Innkeepers were notoriously rapacious so that Plato compared them to pirates who hold their guests to ransom before they allow them to escape. The ancient world had a system of guest-friendships whereby families in different parts of the country undertook to give each other's members hospitality when the occasion arose. This connection between families lasted throughout the generations and when it was claimed, the claimant brought with him a sumbolon, or token, which identified him to his hosts. Some cities kept an official called the Proxenos in the larger cities to whom their citizens, when travelling, might appeal for shelter and for help.

If the heathen world accepted the obligation of hospitality, it was only to be expected that the Christians would take it even more seriously. It is Peter's injunction: "Practice hospitality ungrudgingly to one another" ( 1 Peter 4:9). "Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers" says the writer to the Hebrews, and adds: "for thereby some have entertained angels unawares" ( Hebrews 13:2). In the Pastoral Epistles a widow is to be honoured if she has "shown hospitality" ( 1 Timothy 5:9). Paul bids the Romans to "practice hospitality" ( Romans 12:13).

Hospitality was to be specially the characteristic of the leaders of the church. A bishop must be a man given to hospitality ( 1 Timothy 3:2). Titus is told to be "hospitable" ( Titus 1:8). When we come down to the time of Justin Martyr, (A.D. 170) we find that on the Lord's Day the well-to-do contributed as they would and it was the duty of the president of the congregation "to succour the orphans and the widows, and those who through sickness or any other cause are in want, and those who are in bonds, and the strangers sojourning amongst us" (Justin Martyr: First Apology 1: 67).

In the early church the Christian home was the place of the open door and the loving welcome. There can be few nobler works than to give a stranger the right of entry to a Christian home. The Christian family circle should always be wide enough to have a place for the stranger, no matter where he comes from or what his colour.

THE CHRISTIAN ADVENTURERS ( 3 John 1:5-8 continued)

Further, this passage tells us about the wandering missionaries who gave up home and comfort to carry afield the word of God. In 3 John 1:7 Paul says that they have gone forth for the sake of the Name and take no assistance from pagans. (It is just possible that 3 John 1:7 might refer to those who had come out from the Gentiles taking nothing with them, those who for the sake of Christianity had left their work and their home and their friends and had no means of support.) In the ancient world the "begging friar," with his wallet, was well known. There is, for instance, a record of a man calling himself "the slave of the Syrian goddess," who went out begging and claimed that he never came back with fewer than seventy bags of money for his goddess. But these Christian wandering preachers would take nothing from the Gentiles, even if they would have given it.

John commends these adventurers of the faith to the hospitality and the generosity of Gaius. He says that it is a duty to help them so that we may show ourselves fellow-workers in the truth ( 3 John 1:8). Moffatt translates this very vividly: "We are bound to support such men to prove ourselves allies of the truth."

There is a great Christian thought here. A man's circumstances may be such that he cannot become a missionary or a preacher. Life may have put him in a position where he must get on with a secular job, staying in the one place and carrying out the routine duties of life and living. But where he cannot go, his money and his prayers and his practical support can go. Not everyone can be, so to speak, in the front line; but by supporting those who are there, he can make himself an ally of the truth. When we remember that, all giving to the wider work of Christ and his church must become not an obligation but a privilege, not a duty but a delight. The church needs those who will go out with the truth, but it also needs those who will be allies of the truth at home.

LOVE'S APPEAL ( 3 John 1:9-14 )

1:9-15 I have already written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who is ambitious for the leadership, does not accept our authority. So, then, when I come, I will bring up the matter of his actions, for he talks nonsensically about us with wicked words; he refuses to receive the brothers and attempts to stop those who wish to do so and tries to eject them from the church.

Here we come to the reason why this letter was written and are introduced to two of the main characters in the story.

There is Diotrephes. In the introduction we have already seen the situation in which John and Diotrephes and Demetrius are all involved. In the early church there was a double ministry. There were the apostles and the prophets whose sphere was not confined to any one congregation and whose authority extended all over the church. There were also the elders; they were the permanent settled ministry of the local congregations and their very backbone.

In the early days this presented no problem, for the local congregations were still very much infants who had not yet learned to walk by themselves and to handle their own affairs. But as time went on there came a tension between the two kinds of ministry. As the local churches became stronger and more conscious of their identity, they inevitably became less and less willing to submit to remote control or to the invasion of itinerant strangers.

The problem is still to some extent with us. There is the itinerant evangelist who may well have a theology and work with methods and in an atmosphere very different from that of the settled local congregation. In the younger churches there is the question of how long the missionaries should remain in control and of when the time has come for them to withdraw and allow the indigenous churches to rule their own affairs.

In this letter Diotrephes is the representative of the local congregation. He will not accept the authority of John, the apostolic man and he will not receive the itinerant missionaries. He is so determined to see that the local congregation manages its own affairs that he will even eject those who are still prepared to accept the authority of John and to receive the wandering preachers. What exactly Diotrephes is we cannot tell. He certainly is not a bishop in anything like the modern sense of the word. He may be a very strong-minded elder. Or he may even be an aggressive member of the congregation who by the force of his personality is sweeping all before him. Certainly he emerges as a strong and dominant character.

Demetrius is most likely the leader of the wandering preachers and probably the actual bearer of this letter. John goes out of his way to give him a testimonial as to character and ability, and it may well be that there are certain circumstances attaching to him which give Diotrephes a handle for his opposition.

Demetrius is by no means an uncommon name. Attempts have been made to identify him with two New Testament characters. He has been identified with Demetrius, the silversmith of Ephesus and the leader of the opposition to Paul ( Acts 19:21 ff.). It may be that he afterwards became a Christian and that his early opposition was still a black mark against him. He has been identified with Demas (a shortened form of Demetrius), who had once been one of Paul's fellow-labourers but who had forsaken him because he loved this present world ( Colossians 4:14; Philemon 1:24; 2 Timothy 4:10). It may be that Demas came back to the faith and that his desertion of Paul was always held against him.

Into this situation comes John, whose authority is being flouted; and Gaius, a kindly soul but probably not so strong a character as the aggressive Diotrephes, whom John is seeking to align with himself, for Gaius, left on his own, might well succumb to Diotrephes.

There is our situation. We may have a good deal of sympathy with Diotrephes; we may well think that he was taking a stand which sooner or later had to be taken. But for all his strength of character he had one fault--he was lacking in charity. As C. H. Dodd has put it: "There is no real religious experience which does not express itself in charity." That is why, for all his powers of leadership and for all his dominance of character, Diotrephes was not a real Christian, as John saw it. The true Christian leader must always remember that strength and gentleness must go together and that leading and loving must go hand in hand. Diotrephes was like so many leaders in the church. He may well have been right, but he took the wrong way to achieve his end, for no amount of strength of mind can take the place of love of heart.

What the issue of all this was we do not know. But John comes to the end in love. Soon he will come and talk, when his presence will do what no letter can ever do; and for the present he sends his greetings and his blessing. And we may well believe that the "Peace be to you" of the aged Elder indeed brought calm to the troubled church to which he wrote.

-Barclay's Daily Study Bible (NT)

FURTHER READING

John

J. N. S. Alexander, The Epistles of John (Tch; E)

A. E. Brooke, The Johannine Epistles (ICC; G)

C. H. Dodd, The Johannine Epistles (MC; E)

Abbreviations

ICC: International Critical Commentary

MC: Moffatt Commentary

Tch: Torch Commentary

E: English Text

G: Greek Text

-Barclay's Daily Study Bible (NT)

Gann's Commentary on the Bible

3 John 1:10

Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible

Wherefore, if I come,.... Where both Gaius and Diotrephes lived, as he trusted he should shortly, 3 John 1:14;

I will remember his deeds which he doth; meaning, not only that he would tell him of them to his face, but make mention of them, and expose them to the whole church, and reprove him for them: and which are as follow,

prating against us with malicious words; it is a common thing for ministers of the Gospel to be prated against, not only by the men of the world, but by professors of religion, and by such who call themselves preachers also; nor need it be wondered at, since John, an apostle of Christ, the beloved disciple, who was so harmless and inoffensive in his conversation, so kind and loving in his disposition and temper, so meek and humble in his deportment, and now in such an advanced age, was prated against by a Diotrephes: and what is said against Christ's ministers is no other than prating; silly, idle, trifling, and empty stuff, as the word used signifies; for want of greater things, they take up any little matter, and improve it against them; and this is often done with a malicious intent, to hurt their characters, spoil their usefulness, and render their ministry unprofitable.

And not content herewith; with prating against the Apostle John, and the ministers with him, in this wicked way:

neither doth he himself receive the brethren; the meaning is not, that he did not receive them into the church, for they were there, since afterwards mention is made of his casting them out from thence; but he did not receive them into his house, and entertain them as he ought to have done; for a minister of the Gospel, and a pastor of a church, ought to be hospitable, and given to hospitality, and entertain strangers, especially those who are brethren in Christ, and fellow ministers of the word: and the rather these were to be received, since they travelled about to spread the Gospel among the Gentiles, and took nothing of them. And this was not all, he not only did not receive them himself, and reject them, but was not willing that others should receive them:

and forbiddeth them that would; on such who had a heart, as well as ability, to receive and entertain these poor brethren, he laid his injunctions, and gave them strict orders, in his lordly and tyrannical way, not to show any respect unto them;

and casteth [them] out of the church; that is, he excommunicated them, either those that entertained them, or rather the brethren themselves; which was an abuse of the ordinance of excommunication, as that ordinance is abused, when any single person, a pastor, or any other, as here, assumes the power of doing it himself, and does it without the church; whereas it is a punishment or censure, to be inflicted by many, or to be done by the joint suffrage of the church; and when it is done in a wrong cause, for some small trifling matter, or none at all, and not in a case of heresy or immorality, obstinately persisted in; and when it is done from wrong principles, and with wrong ends, as to gratify the pride and passion of some; and not for the good of the person cast out, or to prevent others from falling into the same snare, or for the honour of religion, and the glory of God. The phrase seems to be taken from the Jews, who expressed their excommunication, or putting out of the synagogue, by a casting out; see John 9:34.

Mitchell's Commentary on Selected New Testament Books

THE WARNING

3 John 1:9. I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say.

3 John 1:10. For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, neither does he himself receive the brethren, and he forbids those who desire to do so, and puts them out of the church.

3 John 1:11. Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God.

In contrast to Gaius, this man Diotrephes, possibly a member of the same church, wanted the place of prominence.

Even when someone who really loved the Lord came to the assembly and the brethren wanted to receive him, this man would forbid them to receive him. He wanted to dominate everything so he would cast others out.

Unfortunately, there are such men in churches today. They want to run everything and rule over everything. Such do not have time to manifest love or compassion for the babes in Christ. They are primarily concerned with their own position.

The people of God in an assembly are knitted to­gether for a purpose. That purpose is worship, thanksgiving and praise to God, and then the feed­ing and encouragement of God’s people.

We are to manifest Christian grace and love and hospitality to each other. Especially are we to en­courage those babes in Christ so they will be fed the Word of God and not be tossed about by every wind of doctrine. We should thank the Lord when He has sent a leader to us.

The Lord has a place for every one of us. There are no two of us alike, and we each have our gift. We are all a part of the body of Christ and members in particular, having a particular job; and each of us is to manifest love (1 Corinthians 12:12 to 1 Corinthians 13:1).

When a stranger who really loves the Lord comes to our assembly, we need to recognize and mani­fest the fact that we have the same Saviour, the same hope, the same love in Christ Jesus. If there is a need, we should meet that need.

I fear we have chased many dear people of God away from our churches because some of God’s people want the place of prominence.

He warns us in verse 11 not to follow that which is evil, but to follow that which is good.

Light of Israel Bible Commentary

DEALING WITH DIOTREPHES

I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will not welcome us. 3 John 1:9

Where there are people, there are usually problems, and people problems are often some of the most serious ones we face. John had a problem with Diotrephes and Diotrephes certainly had a problem with John. That at first seems shocking since John was the last of the original disciples of Jesus. He was the one closest to Jesus and probably knew more about Jesus than any of the others. Yet, this proud leader would have nothing to do with the Beloved Disciple. That would sound strange if it were not for our selfish and proud human natures. We note that the Apostle Paul often had his authority challenged. We see this particularly in 2 Corinthians 11:1-6 and Galatians chapters 1 and 2.

We do not know exactly what kind of authority Diotrephes had. More than likely, he was the pastor or elder of a significant church. We do know that he liked to be first, as the Greek philoprōteuōn indicates. This is the only time the word is used in the New Testament.<footnote>Barnes, Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, Commentary on 3 John, v. 1:9.</footnote> Jesus had gone to great pains in teaching his disciples humility. Yet, even as Jesus was facing the cross his disciples were arguing about who would be the greatest (Matthew 18:1ff.).

Jesus taught us all to seek the lowest chair. If God wants us higher, then it is up to him to elevate us (Luke 14:8-11).

Diotrephes may have had a problem with his upbringing. According to Stott, his name when literally translated meant "Zeus-reared, nursling of Zeus." Stott notes that this name was only found in ancient and noble families. He conjectures that Diotrephes may have originally belonged to the Greek aristocracy.<footnote>Stott, The Letters of John, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Vol. 19, p. 233.</footnote> Maybe he was just somewhat "stuck up" because of his background.

Scholars have expressed that the disagreement between Diotrephes and John probably had nothing to do with theology or Christology. Barclay suggests that the tension was due to a clash over two kinds of ministry, that the apostolic and itinerant ministries were having to give way to the local pastoral ministry.<footnote>Barclay, William Barclay's Daily Study Bible, Commentary on 3 John, vs. 1:9-14. "In the early days this presented no problem, for the local congregations were still very much infants who had not yet learned to walk by themselves and to handle their own affairs. But as time went on there came a tension between the two kinds of ministry. As the local churches became stronger and more conscious of their identity, they inevitably became less and less willing to submit to remote control or to the invasion of itinerant strangers."</footnote> Plummer suggests that Diotrephes may have wanted to make his church independent and that it had hitherto been governed by the Apostle John.<footnote>Cited in Charles F. Pfeiffer & Everett F. Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1962), p. 1484.</footnote> Perhaps the best idea comes from Stott. He notes that by AD 115, the "Monarchial Episcopacy" was beginning to be seen in the writings of Bishop Ignatius of Antioch. This was the practice of a single bishop exercising authority over a group of presbyters.<footnote>Stott, The Letters of John, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Vol. 19, p. 234.</footnote> With the passing of the Apostolic Era, this practice began to be widespread. The dissension between Diotrephes and John could have marked a beginning of this transition.

However, nothing can really justify the actions of Diotrephes. He did not reflect the spirit of Christ or his apostles. He almost reflected the spirit of some ogre. It is too bad that similar spirits have prevailed up to modern and postmodern times. Wiersbe comments on this trend saying, "…It appears that the 'successful minister' today is more like a Madison Avenue tycoon than a submissive servant. In his hand he holds a wireless telephone, not a towel…He is most unlike John the Baptist who said, 'He [Jesus Christ] must increase, but I must decrease (John 3:30).'"<footnote>Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, NT, p. 1017.</footnote>

How tragic it is when ministers of the gospel and other workers begin to reflect the spirit of Satan who also wanted to be first and to actually become like God (Isaiah 14:14). Boice calls this the "original and greatest of all sins."<footnote>Quoted in Guzik, David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible, Commentary on 3 John, vs. 1:9-11.</footnote> The scholar A.T. Robertson tells of once writing an article critical of Diotrephes for a denominational paper. Later the editor relayed that twenty-five deacons from various churches had requested that their issues to the paper be stopped. They did this to show their resentment for being personally attacked.<footnote>Cited in Wuest, In These Last Days, II Peter, I, II, III John, and Jude in the Greek New Testament, p. 222.</footnote>

This situation no doubt put a lot of pressure on the noble Gaius. He was also likely a leader of a congregation in the city or area where Diotrephes was located. It would have been especially problematic if Gaius and his congregation were located in the same city with Diotrephes. We remember that the churches of this early time were all house churches, and that in larger cities there were many house churches all cooperating together.

"So when I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, spreading malicious nonsense about us. Not satisfied with that, he even refuses to welcome other believers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church" (1:10). We get the sense from this verse that Brother Diotephes will soon be in for a rather serious apostolic rebuke. Not only is he guilty of insubordination to an apostle but he is guilty of "spreading malicious nonsense." The Greek word used is phluareō. It means to talk nonsense about another person. Wuest traces the root meaning of the word to picture a person bubbling up or boiling over.<footnote>Wuest, In These Last Days, II Peter, I, II, III John, and Jude in the Greek New Testament, p. 223.</footnote>

Not only did Diotrephes withhold blessing from the traveling ministers but he forbade others to help them. This so aptly describes the leaven of evil and how it can infect a whole church or group of believers. Apparently, this evil man had authority to discipline other members and perhaps perform their excommunication, as the practice came to be known in later times.<footnote>Pfeiffer & Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p.1484.</footnote>

Henry's Complete Commentary on the Bible

      9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.   10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.   11 Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.

      I. Here is a very different example and character, an officer, a minister in the church, less generous, catholic, and communicative than the private Christians. Ministers may sometimes be out-shone, out-done. In reference to this minister, we see,

      1. His name--a Gentile name: Diotrephes, attended with an unchristian spirit.

      2. His temper and spirit--full of pride and ambition: He loves to have the pre-eminence. This ferment sprang and wrought betimes. It is an ill unbeseeming character of Christ's ministers to love pre-eminence, to affect presidency in the church of God.

      3. His contempt of the apostle's authority, and letter, and friends. (1.) Of his authority: The deeds which he doeth contrary to our appointment, prating against us with malicious words. Strange that the contempt should run so high! But ambition will breed malice against those who oppose it. Malice and ill-will in the heart will be apt to vent themselves by the lips. The heart and mouth are both to be watched. (2.) Of his letter: "I wrote to the church (3 John 1:9; 3 John 1:9), namely, in recommendation of such and such brethren. But Diotrephes receiveth us not, admits not our letter and testimony therein." This seems to be the church of which Gaius was a member. A gospel church seems to be such a society as to which a letter may be written and communicated. Gospel churches may well expect and be allowed credentials with the strangers who desire to be admitted among them. The apostle seems to write by and with these brethren. To an ambitious aspiring spirit apostolical authority or epistle signifies but little. (3.) Of his friends, the brethren he recommended: Neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth those that would, and casteth them out of the church,3 John 1:10; 3 John 1:10. There might be some differences or different customs between the Jewish and Gentile Christians. Pastors should seriously consider what differences are tolerable. The pastor is not at absolute liberty, nor lord over God's heritage. It is bad to do no good ourselves; but it is worse to hinder those who would. Church-power and church-censures are often abused. Many are cast out of the church who should be received there with satisfaction and welcome. But woe to those who cast out the brethren whom the Lord Christ will take into his own communion and kingdom!

      4. The apostle's menace of this proud domineerer: Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth (3 John 1:10; 3 John 1:10), will remember to censure them. This seems to intimate apostolical authority. But the apostle seems not to hold an episcopal court, to which Diotrephes must be summoned; but he will come to take cognizance of this affair in the church to which it belongs. Acts of ecclesiastical domination and tyranny ought to be animadverted upon. May it be better agreed to whom that power belongs!

      II. Here is counsel upon that different character, dissuasion from copying such a pattern, and indeed any evil at all: Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good,3 John 1:11; 3 John 1:11. Imitate not such unchristian pernicious evil; but pursue the contrary good, in wisdom, purity, peace, and love. Caution and counsel are not needless to those who are good already. Those cautions and counsels are most likely to be accepted that are seasoned with love. Beloved, follow not that which is evil. To this caution and counsel a reason is respectively subjoined. 1. To the counsel: Follow that which is good; for he that doeth good (naturally and genuinely doeth good, as delighting therein) is of God, is born of God. The practice of goodness is the evidence of our filial happy relation to God. 2. To the caution: Follow not that which is evil, for he that doeth evil (with bent of mind pursues it) hath not seen God, is not duly sensible of his holy nature and will. Evil-workers vainly pretend or boast an acquaintance with God.