Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 3 John 1:10
Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doth, 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.
10. Wherefore ] Or, For this cause: see on 1Jn 3:1.
I will remember ] I will direct public attention to the matter, ‘will bear witness of it before the Church’ ( 3Jn 1:6). It is the word used in Joh 14:26, ‘He shall bring all things to your remembrance.’
his deeds which he doeth ] Or, his works which he doeth: see on 2Jn 1:11.
with malicious words ] Or, with evil words: it is the same adjective ( ) as is used throughout the First Epistle of ‘the evil one.’ The word for ‘prate’ ( ) occurs nowhere else in N.T. It is frequent in Aristophanes and Demosthenes, and means literally ‘to talk non-sense.’ Its construction here with an accusative after it is quite exceptional. ‘Prates against us,’ garriens in nos, cannot well be improved: it conveys the idea that the words were not only wicked, but senseless. Comp. ‘And not only idle, but tattlers ( ) also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not’ (1Ti 5:13). Other renderings are ‘chiding against us’ (Wiclif), ‘jesting on us’ (Tyndale and Cranmer), ‘pratteling against us’ (Genevan), ‘chatting against us’ (Rhemish), plaudert wider uns (Luther).
neither doth he himself receive the brethren ] The same word ( ) is used here and at the end of 3Jn 1:9. It occurs nowhere else in N.T. but is common in classical Greek. In 3Jn 1:9 the meaning probably is ‘admits not our authority,’ or ‘ignores our letter.’ Here of course it is ‘refuses hospitality to.’ But perhaps ‘closes his doors against’ may be the meaning in both places; ‘us’ being S. John’s friends. By saying ‘us’ rather than ‘me’, the Apostle avoids the appearance of a personal quarrel.
casteth them out of the Church ] He excommunicates those who are willing to receive the missionary brethren. The exact meaning of this is uncertain, as we have not sufficient knowledge of the circumstances. The natural meaning is that Diotrephes had sufficient authority or influence in some Christian congregation to exclude from it those who received brethren of whom he did not approve. For the expression comp. Joh 9:34-35.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Wherefore, if I come – He was evidently expecting soon to make a visit to Gaius, and to the church, 3Jo 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, 1Co 5:3-5, or than there is in any instance of administering discipline now.
Prating against us – The word prate, ( phluareo,) occurring nowhere else in the New Testament, means to overflow with talk, (Greek phluo, 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 Luk 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.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 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.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
ifI come (3Jo1:14).
Iwill remember literally, I will bring to mind before all by stigmatizingand punishing.
prating with mere silly tattle.
neitherdoth he … receive the brethren with hospitality. The brethren are the missionaries ontheir journey.
forbiddeththem that would receive them.
casteththem those that would receive the brethren, by excommunication from theChurch, which his influence, as a leading man (3Jo1:9)in it, enabled him to do. Neander thinks that the missionaries wereJEWS by birth, whence it is said in their praise they tooknothing fromTHE GENTILES: in contrast to other Jewish missionaries who abusedministers right of maintenance elsewhere, as Paul tells us, 2Co11:22;Phi3:2,Phi3:5,Phi3:19.Now in the Gentile churches there existed an ultra-Pauline party ofanti-Jewish tendency, the forerunners of Marcion: Diotrephes possiblystood at the head of this party, which fact, as well as thisdomineering spirit, may account for his hostility to themissionaries, and to the apostle John, who had, by the power of love,tried to harmonize the various elements in the Asiatic churches. At alater period, Marcion, we know, attached himself to Paul alone, andpaid no deference to the authority of John.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Wherefore, if I come,…. Where both Gaius and Diotrephes lived, as he trusted he should shortly, 3Jo 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 Joh 9:34.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
If I come ( ). Condition of third class with and second aorist active subjunctive of . He hopes to come (verse 14), as he had said in 2Jo 1:12 (one argument for identifying II John with the letter in 3Jo 1:9).
I will bring to remembrance (). Future active indicative of , old compound (John 14:26; 2Pet 1:12). The aged apostle is not afraid of Diotrephes and here defies him.
Which he doeth ( ). Present active indicative, “which he keeps on doing.”
Prating against us ( ). Present active participle of old verb (from , babbling 1Ti 5:13), to accuse idly and so falsely, here only in N.T. with accusative (us).
With wicked words ( ). Instrumental case. Not simply foolish chatter, but malevolent words.
Not content ( ). Present passive participle of with usual negative . For this verb in this sense see 1Tim 6:8; Heb 13:5, only there is absent. John knows that the conduct of Diotrephes will not stand the light. See Paul’s threats of exposure (1Cor 4:21; 2Cor 10:11; 2Cor 13:1-3). And John is the apostle of love all the same.
He himself (). That was bad enough.
Them that would ( ). “Those willing or wishing or receive the brethren” from John.
He forbiddeth (). “He hinders.” Present active indicative of and means either actual success in one case (punctiliar use of the present indicative) or repetition in several instances (linear action) or conative action attempted, but not successful as in Mt 3:14 (this same verb) and Joh 10:32.
Casteth them out of the church ( ). Here again can be understood in various ways, like . This verb occurs in Joh 2:15 for casting out of the temple the profaners of it and for casting the blind man out of the synagogue (Joh 9:34f.). If this ancient “church-boss” did not succeed in expelling John’s adherents from the church, he certainly tried to do it.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Prating [] . From fluw to bubble up or boil over. Hence of talk which is both fluent and empty. Compare the kindred adjective fluaroi tattlers, 1Ti 5:13.
Them that would. Those who were disposed to receive the strangers. Casteth them out. By excommunication, which, through his influence, he had power to bring about.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Wherefore, if I come” (Greek dia touto) Wherefore or “on account of this” – John wrote, if I, or should I come, indicating a conditional hope to come, 3Jn 1:14.
2) I will remember his deeds”. John, though an aged apostle, was not afraid of Diotrephes and resolved to encounter him regarding his deeds.
3) “Which he doeth” (Greek ha poiei, present active indicative means keeps on doing). Diotrephes seems to have become a self-appointed faultfinder against John and the Missionary brethren, a sniping, carping, self-righteous dictatorial pastoral Pharisees.
4) “Prating against us with malicious words,” Prateth- – (Greek phluaros) means” to babble, idly, accuse, and falsely passing a report as 1Ti 5:13. The term “malicious words” means not merely foolish words, but also malevolent words of evil and influence destroying intent.
5) “And not content therewith” – seldom are talebearers, faultfinders, gossips, and self-appointed church critics content or satisfied therewith, be they laymen or officials in the church. To deride, scoff, or attempt to degrade a brother or sister, usually leads to more vicious forms of evil.
6) “Neither doth he himself receive the brethren.” People who live in evil, practice evil, hold jealousy, hatred, and old grudges usually seek to avoid an Holy and bold person. They hate the Iight, reject its available help, lest it show them for what they are. Joh 3:19-21; Joh 8:12; 1Jn 1:6-7.
7) “And forbiddeth them that would” The term “forbid” means to hinder, or stand in the way, to obstruct, brethren in the church from receiving missionary companions of John who desired to visit the church brethren.
8) “And casteth them out of the church.” This Diotrephes, whether dictator pastor, or a preeminent desiring layman, or pastor and church bossing official, either personally assumed authority and power to (Greek ekballo) toss out, exclude from the church, or influence the church to exclude from her fellowship any member who expressed a desire that the church receive John and his co-laborers in mission work. This spirit is that held by the wicked Jews of the Synagogue against Jesus, as recorded Joh 9:34. This Diotrephes thus seems both to have hindered members of the church from extending Christian courtesies to visiting brethren and to have debarred and hindered any report from them before the church.
It ill becomes any church leader, even if a shepherd, to act like a goat, or whip cracking cowboy. God’s pastors are referred to as shepherds, who go before and call the flock, but never as cowboys who ride as whip crackers behind a herd. Let it also be remembered that God’s shepherds are also sheep, subject to the Laws of the Shepherd, Christ Jesus, Mat 20:25-28; 1Pe 5:3. If a shepherd, were only a shepherd, he would never bear a sheep. Only a sheep bears a sheep.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
10. Remember his deeds Compare the terrible apostolic threats of St. Paul, in 1Co 4:19-21.
Prating The Greek word implies a certain full flow, or fluency, of contemptuous languages.
Malicious Not only hostile, but intrinsically evil words.
Casteth out of the church He had such a mastery over his own congregation that he was able to excommunicate the apostolic believers, in spite of such men as Demetrius and Gaius in the same or other congregations of the church.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
3Jn 1:10. If I come, When I come. See 1Jn 3:2. 2Co 13:2. Diotrephes’s turning out of the church such as displeased him, renders it highly probable that he was bishop or pastor of that church. See the former note.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
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.
Ver. 10. Prating against us ] One would wonder what he could prate against St John, and yet he did, and that maliciously. True it is, he did but trifle and play the fool (as the Greek word signifies) in that he prated; but he showed his malice nevertheless. So do the Jesuits, as in many other their practices, so in this, that in their writings against us they confirm that with glorious words and arguments which we stick not at; to make the world believe that we deny all that which they so busily and so bravely prove, and so to make us odious; whereas they leave the main matter in controversy utterly unproven, thinking to carry it away with outfacing and great words. The word signifieth pompose sed nugaciter loqui, to talk big bubbles of words, saith Aretius; who also telleth us that it is a metaphor taken from over-seething pots, that send forth a foam; or (as others will have it) from overcharged stomachs, that must needs belch.
Forbiddeth them that would ] Such as Gaius was; that himself only might have the prick and the praise. This is the property of envy, as we see in Saul, in the Pharisees, in Tiberius Caesar, who, tiger-like, laid hold with his teeth on all the excellent spirits of his times. Nero etiam omnium erat aemulus, &c. He forbad Lucan the poet to make verses, only because he could do it very excellently.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
3Jn 1:10 . : the aged Apostle with his failing strength can only “hope” ( cf. 3Jn 1:14 ) to undertake the journey. , not “remind him of his works” (contrast the “work” of Gaius in 3Jn 1:5 ), but “bring his works to remembrance,” by reciting them at a meeting of the Church. St. John does not threaten excommunication or any sort of discipline, but simply that he will state the facts and let them speak for themselves. A terrible reckoning, like that of the Day of Judgment ( cf. Rev 20:12 ) to hear a recital of all one’s passionate speeches and inconsiderate actions. Contrast St. Paul’s threats (1Co 4:21 ; 2Co 10:11 ; 2Co 13:1-3 ). St. John deserved to be called “the Apostle of Love”. ( nugari, verschwatsen ), of foolish chattering. Suid.: . The chatter of Diotrephes was not only foolish but malevolent ( ). ., see note on 1Jn 2:4 . , cf. Joh 4:11 . , , pres. implying not that he actually did it but that he tried to do it. , here not of literal ejection ( cf. Joh 2:15 = Mat 21:12 = Mar 11:15 ) but of excommunication from the fellowship of the congregation.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Wherefore = On account of (App-104. 3Jn 1:2) this.
if. App-118.
remember. See Joh 14:26.
prating. Greek. phluareo. Only here. Compare 1Ti 5:13.
malicious. App-128.
words. App-121.
not. App-105.
therewith = upon (App-104.) these (things).
neither. Greek. oute.
forbiddeth = hindereth, as Luk 11:52.
them that would. Literally the willing (ones). App-102.
casteth. Greek. ekballo. Compare Joh 9:34.
out of. App-104.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
3Jn 1:10. , if I shall come) 3Jn 1:14.-, I will remind him) A Metonymia of the antecedent for the consequent: that is, I will notice (punish), I will set a mark of censure upon, so that he may feel.- , with malicious words) by which he endeavours to excuse himself.- , those that wish) that is, to receive us and them.-, he casts out) a great amount of insolence.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
3Jn 1:10
DOMINATION OF DIOTREPHES
(3Jn 1:10)
10 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 be forbiddeth and casteth them out of the church.–The apostle entertained the hope that he would soon be able to visit Gaius and the congregation where he worshipped, and where Diotrephes was exercising such domi-nence, and he assured the faithful Gaius that when he came he would not ignore what this church-troubler was doing. The great apostle was not intimidated by Diotrephes, and he promised that he would deal with him adequately when the opportunity presented itself. The verb “doeth,” in the phrase, “works which he doeth,” (poses), is present active indicative, “which he keeps on doing,” thus revealing a persistent course on the part of Diotrephes.
The extent of Diotrephes’ lordship over the congregation is seen in the fact that (1) he prated (phluaron, to babble, to accuse idly and falsely) against John and his associates with wicked words, (not merely idle, but actually evil words); (2) he refused to re-ceive the brethren which came from John; (3) he forbade others in the congregation to do so; (4) those who refused to bow to his will he expelled from membership in the congregation. This does not mean that Diotrephes was able actually to sever faithful members from the body of Christ; the Lord added them to the church (Act 2:47), and it was obviously beyond the power of this ungodly man to turn them out of the body of Christ; but, exer-cising domination over the congregation, and having imposed his will and way over the saints here, he could and did expel them from membership in it. He was an ambitious, unscrupulous, church boss, opposed alike to apostolic authority and missionary work, a servant of Satan and an agent of the devil. Diotrephes’ conduct was insobordination of the most advanced type and the apostle promised to deal in summary fashion with him when he arrived. Just what course John would follow, he does not indi-cate; we may be sure that he would expose the rebellious disposi-tion characteristic of the man, exhibit the ungodliness he was mani-festing, and warn the saints against him. He would, of course, be divested of any further authority in the congregation; and if he did not repent, would be speedily excluded from the fellowship of the church.
Commentary on 3Jn 1:10 by E.M. Zerr
3Jn 1:10. John expects to come and when he does he will consider the deeds of Diotrephes, namely, his opposition to the apostle. Prating means to use false accusations against John in an effort to defend himself. Malicious words are the kind uttered with the intent of doing harm. Not content therewith is said because he not only opposed John, but opposed the brethren whom he sent to the church as messengers. He also forbade others who would have accepted the messengers, and if they showed friendship for the apostolic messengers, they were excluded from the church.
Commentary on 3Jn 1:10 by N.T. Caton
3Jn 1:10-Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds.
Here, in my judgment, the apostle asserts authority. The founder of the Christian faith had selected John as one upon whom authority was conferred to establish the kingdom and publish all the laws necessary for its government; and while he remained on earth he was the superior of Diotrephes, or of any other, as to the proclamation of ways to be pursued in Christian conduct.
3Jn 1:10-Remember his deeds.
I will arraign him, call him to an account; no suggestion of deposition or excommunication, but that of correction.
3Jn 1:10-Prating against us with malicious words.
Diotrephes justified his course by uttering words against John, possibly denying that John was an apostle; possibly asserting that John assumed to be an apostle when he was not. He thus calumniated and maligned his character, and thus impeached his Christian integrity. While it was John’s duty to forgive, it was equally his duty to correct in love, and hence he said he would remember his deeds, if he came, herein intimating that it might not prove necessary for him to come.
3Jn 1:10 –Not content therewith.
Diotrephes was not satisfied in disregarding the contents of John’s letter, and rebelling against his authority, and prating against him, but he went so far as to refuse to receive and extend hospitality to those engaged in the work of the church, and proceeded further, and did forbid other members of the church in receiving such into their homes. He even carried his foolish idea of control to such an extent, having for the time being official authority, as to cast out of the church such members as did extend hospitality to the traveling proclaimers of the word, after he had forbidden such to be done. That is to say, that he, to the extent of his ability, denied to some Christian fellowship on this account.
Commentary on 3Jn 1:10 by Burton Coffman
3Jn 1:10 –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 3Jn 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”;[30] 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.[31]
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.”[32]
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)[33]
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.[34]
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.
[30] Amos N. Wilder, op. cit., p. 311.
[31] R. W. Orr, op. cit., p. 624.
[32] Amos N. Wilder, op. cit., p. 312.
[33] J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 178.
[34] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 1263.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
I will: 1Co 5:1-5, 2Co 10:1-11, 2Co 13:2
prating: Pro 10:8, Pro 10:10
and casteth: Isa 66:5, Luk 6:22, Joh 9:22, Joh 9:34, Joh 9:35
Reciprocal: Ezr 4:3 – Ye have nothing Pro 6:19 – that soweth Pro 13:10 – Only Mat 18:17 – tell Mat 20:26 – it Mat 24:49 – to smite Luk 9:49 – we saw Luk 12:45 – to beat Luk 22:26 – General 2Co 10:6 – in Phi 2:29 – Receive 2Th 3:6 – that ye Jam 3:6 – a world 1Pe 5:3 – as 3Jo 1:8 – to receive
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
THE LORDS DAY
I was in the Spirit on the Lords Day.
Rev 1:10
Our subject is the question of Sunday observance as distinct from Sabbath observance, the Christian institution of the Lords Day, and its place in our religious life.
I. That it was not regarded as the true successor of the old Sabbath there are clear signs in Apostolic times. In the concessions made to the Judaic Christians by the advanced party in the Apostolic Church would, we doubt not, be included the joint observance of the two daysthe last and the first. The double observance was long continued in the Eastern Church. It should, moreover, not be forgotten that the application of the name Sabbath to the Christian rest-day is of modern origin. It is true that St. Augustine uses the phrase Our Sabbath; but this is only a parallel with such a phrase as Christ our Passover. The word first appears in a treatise issued in 1595. We owe the name to Puritanism, and in recognising our indebtedness to this source, we may seasonably reflect that the Reformers had left untouched the pre-Reformation abuses of the Lords day.
II. The immediate followers of our Lord had no inclination to secularise their new rest-day of evangelic freedom.A duty that none show a disposition to neglect it is needless to enforce. If we hear so little in the Apostolic records and writings of the Christian obligation of hallowing the Lords day, we believe the main reason of this to be, that those early believers in the ardour and devotion of a fresh young faith, were prone rather to turn every weekday into a Sunday of holy fellowship and service than feel the slightest wish to make secular the weekly day of rest. Passing to the early testimonies subsequent to New Testament times, we have no hesitation in affirming that there is no historical fact enjoying better proof than thisthat the observance of the day by intermission of toil and by special religious exercises was the constant practice of the Christian Church from the days of the Apostles.
III. On the vexed practical question of allowable or unallowable pleasure-taking on Sunday we cannot embark.Keeping to the Apostolic principle, Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind, we shall not stray far from the right and the true. But one prefatory reflection is offered here which may help us in settling details. Before we are capable of appreciating the true worth of the Christians Sunday, can it ever be a really pleasurable day? Ought we to try to make it the happiest day of the week to those whose whole lives are one long grieving of the Holy Spirit of God, between whose souls and the Divine source of all truest happiness there stretches a great gulf fixed, unbridged, or, being bridged, uncrossed by their reluctant feet? And may we not be deterred from the attempt to render this good gift of our Father acceptable to the Christless by reflecting that the same principle that would make it pleasurable to them, while thus, would turn heaven itself into a paradise for worldlings, and degrade its pure joys into the hollow pleasures of selfish fashion? The Churchs work is surely other than this: it is not to bring down the things of God to the level of the world, but, through her ceaseless ministries of loving suasion, to lift men up towards the altitude of the things of God.
Bishop A. Pearson.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
3Jn 1:10. John expects to come and when he does he will consider the deeds of Diotrephes, namely, his opposition to the apostle. Prating means to use false accusations against John in an effort to defend himself. Malicious words are the kind uttered with the intent of doing harm. Not content therewith is said because he not only opposed John, but opposed the brethren whom he sent to the church as messengers. He also forbade others who would have accepted the messengers, and if they showed friendship for the apostolic messengers, they were excluded from the church.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
3Jn 1:10. We mark here the same tone of faithful sternness which pervades the two other Epistles: in these, however, as against those who assailed the truth, in this against one who invades the order of the church. It is more than probable that Diotrephes was of the Judaizing faction which strove to thwart the publication of the Gospel to the Gentiles; and this would account for the apostles severity. I will bring to remembrance before the church, his works which he doeth: not merely his prating against us with malicious words, as reported by the evangelists, but his actions, of more importance to the apostle than any words spoken against himself merely. He casteth them out who would receive the brethren: by using his influence to have them cut off from the Christian society, whether by formal excommunication or otherwise.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 10
Casteth them out of the church, excludes them from the friendly aid and hospitality of the church.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
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. Mat 18:17; Luk 6:22; Joh 9:34-35; 1Co 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.