Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 3 John 1:9
I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.
9. I wrote unto the Church ] The best authorities give I wrote somewhat to the Church; i.e. ‘I wrote a short letter, a something on which I do not lay much stress’. There is yet another reading; I would have written to the Church: but this is an obvious corruption to avoid the unwelcome conclusion that an official letter from S. John has been lost. The reference cannot be to either the First or the Second Epistle, neither of which contains any mention of this subject. There is nothing surprising in such a letter having perished: and Diotrephes would be likely to suppress it. That the brethren whom Gaius received were the bearers of it, and that his hospitality was specially acceptable on account of the violence of Diotrephes, does not seem to fit in well with the context. ‘To the Church’ probably means ‘to the Church’ of which Diotrephes was a prominent member: that he was presbyter of it cannot be either affirmed or denied from what is stated here.
who loveth to have the preeminence ] The expression ( ) occurs nowhere else in N.T.; but it comes very close to “whosoever willeth to be first among you” (Mat 20:28). Perhaps the meaning is that Diotrephes meant to make his Church independent: hitherto it had been governed by S. John from Ephesus, but Diotrephes wished to make it autonomous to his own glorification. Just as the antichristian teachers claimed to be first in the intellectual sphere (2Jn 1:9), so the unchristian Diotrephes claimed to be first in influence and authority.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
9, 10. Diotrephes condemned for his Arrogance and Hostility
This is the most surprising part of the letter; and of the internal evidence this is the item which seems to weigh most heavily against the Apostolic authorship. That any Christian should be found to act in this manner towards the last surviving Apostle is nothing less than astounding. Those who opposed S. Paul, like Alexander the coppersmith (2Ti 4:14), afford only remote parallels (1Ti 1:20; 2Ti 1:15). They do not seem to have gone the lengths of Diotrephes: the authority of Apostles was less understood in S. Paul’s time: and his claim to be an Apostle was at least open to question; for he was not one of the Twelve, and he had himself been a persecutor. But from the very first the N.T. is full of the saddest surprises. And those who accept as historical the unbelief of Christ’s brethren, the treachery of Judas, the flight of all the Disciples, the denial of S. Peter, the quarrels of Apostles both before and after their Lord’s departure, and the flagrant abuses in the Church of Corinth, with much more of the same kind, will not be disposed to think it incredible that Diotrephes acted in the manner here described even towards the Apostle S. John.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
I wrote unto the church – That is on the former occasion when they went forth. At that time, John naturally commended them to the kind attentions of the church, not doubting but that aid would be rendered them in prosecuting their benevolent work among the Gentiles. The Epistle which was written on that occasion is now lost, and its contents cannot now be ascertained. It was, probably, however, a letter of mere commendation, perhaps stating the object which these brethren had in view, and soliciting the aid of the church. The Latin Vulgate renders this: scripsissem forsan ecclesiae, I would have written, perhaps, to the church, but Diotrephes, etc. Macknight also renders this, I would have written, supposing the sense to be, that John would have commended them to the whole church rather than to a private member, if he had not been aware of the influence and opposition of Diotrephes. The Syriac version also adopts the same rendering. Several manuscripts also, of later date, introduced a particle, ( an,) by which the same rendering would be demanded in the Greek, though that reading is not sustained by good authority. Against this mode of rendering the passage, the reasons seem to me to be clear.
(1)As already remarked, the reading in the Greek which would require it is not sustained by good authority.
(2)The fair and obvious interpretation of the Greek word used by the apostle, ( egrapsa,) without that particle, is, I wrote – implying that it had been already done.
(3)It is more probable that John had written to the church on some former occasion, and that his recommendation had been rejected by the influence of Diotrephes, than that he would be deterred by the apprehension that his recommendation would be rejected.
It seems to me, therefore, that the fair interpretation of this passage is, that these brethren had gone forth on some former occasion, commended by John to the church, and had been rejected by the influence of Diotrephes, and that now he commends them to Gains, by whom they had been formerly entertained, and asks him to renew his hospitality to them.
But Diotrephes, who loveth to have the pre-eminence among them, receiveth us not – Does not admit our authority, or would not comply with any such recommendation. The idea is, that he rejected his interference in the matter, and was not disposed to acknowledge him in any way. Of Diotrephes, nothing more is known than is here specified. Compare the analysis of the Epistle. If he was an officer in the church – a pastor, a ruling elder, a deacon, a vestry-man, a warden, or a private individual – we have no means of ascertaining. The presumption, from the phrase who loveth to have the pre-eminence, would rather seem to be that he was an aspiring man, arrogating rights which he did not have, and assuming authority to which he was not entitled by virtue of any office. Still he might have held an office, and might have arrogated authority, as many have done, beyond what properly belonged to it.
The single word rendered who loveth to have the pre-eminence, philoproteuon, occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It means simply, who loves to be first – meaning that he loved to be at the head of all things, to rule, to lord it over others. It is clearly supposed here, that the church would have complied with the request of the writer if it had not been for this man. What were the alleged grounds for the course which he constrained the church to take, we are not informed; the real ground, the apostle says, was his desire to rule. There may have been at the bottom of it some secret dislike of John, or some private grudge; but the alleged ground may have been, that the church was independent, and that it should reject all foreign interference; or that the church was unable to support those men; or that the work in which they were engaged was one of doubtful propriety.
Whatever was the cause, the case furnishes an illustration of the bad influence of one ambitious and arrogant man in a church. It is often in the power of one such man to bring a whole church under his control, and effectually to embarrass all its movements, and to prevent all the good which it would otherwise accomplish. When it is said, but Diotrephes receiveth us not, the reference is doubtless to John, and the meaning is, either that he did not acknowledge him as an apostle, or that he did not recognize his right to interfere in the affairs of the church, or that he did not regard his recommendation of these brethren. The first of these suppositions is hardly probable; but, though he may have admitted that he was an apostle, there were perhaps some reasons operating in this particular case why he prevailed on the church to reject those who had been thus commended to their hospitality.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
3Jn 1:9-11
Diotrephes, who loveth to have the pre-eminence.
Diotrephes
Besides the light which this brief Epistle casts on the state of the Christian Church toward the close of the first century, it presents us with the portraits in little of three remarkable men–Demetrius, Diotrephes, and Gaius. We are to study a man of a very inferior stamp–the vain, irritable, and loquacious Diotrephes, whose religion seems to have been quite compatible with a slippery morality. What exactly it was at which Diotrephes took offence, whether in the letter of St. John or in the conduct of Demetrius, we are not told; but it is not difficult to offend a man who has an undue sense of his own importance, and whose self-love may be set on fire by any match, however innocently it may be struck. St. John clearly implies that it was some wound to his love of pre-eminence, his determination to stand first and to exact a homage he did not deserve. But whatever the prick which his vanity had received, the character of the man comes out in his wholly disproportionate and extravagant resentment of the offence. In his resentment he sets himself against men far wiser and better than himself; he imperils the peace of the Church; he diminishes its numbers and strength. Nothing less than the excommunication of all who had dared to differ from him, all who had ventured to receive the Evangelists whom he would not receive, and whom he had forbidden them to receive, would satisfy him. But the democratic constitution of the primitive Church would not permit one man, however eminent, to excommunicate those who had offended him, simply because they had offended him. Before that extreme sentence was passed upon them, he must have won over a majority of his and their fellow-members to his side. He must have taken a bypath to his end. And, indeed, a man of inferior gifts and of a spirit less informed by the grace of Christ, who will stand first, will put himself forward and attempt to rule a free Christian congregation, must take this course. He must play on the ignorance, and even on the piety, of those who follow him, must affect a superior wisdom, or a superior orthodoxy. He will not let facts speak for themselves, but sets himself with his glib tongue to lick them out of their natural shape. He cannot suffer learning, wisdom, godliness, experience, to exert their natural and beneficent influence, but must at all risks counterwork that influence and suggest plausible reasons for not yielding to it. How else can he win and maintain a pre-eminence he does not deserve? There is nothing in the Epistle to suggest that Diotrephes held unsound doctrinal views, or that he fell into what are called gross and open sins. Had he been unorthodox, indeed, or flagrantly immoral, he would never have gained that eminence in the Church which he insisted on converting into pre-eminence. All that he is blamed for is the conceit and self-assurance which rendered him impatient of rivalry or resistance, and set him on seeking power rather than usefulness. Any man who will have his own way is only too likely to come to a bad end. Any man who insists on the Church taking his way is only too certain to prove a blind guide, who will lead those who follow him into a ditch, and perhaps leave them in the ditch when he himself scrambles out of it. But you may be asking, How did Diotrephes induce his fellow-members to follow his lead, since they must, most of them at least, have been good men who were not likely to excommunicate their fellows either for an excess of charity or for wounding his self-conceit? And the answer to that question is suggested by St. Johns words: He receiveth not us; prating against us with wicked (or malicious) words. Yet Diotrephes could hardly have openly denied the authority of an apostle so revered and beloved as St. John. No; but he may have questioned it indirectly. He may have dilated on the independence of the Church, of every separate community of believers, on its competence and right to manage its own affairs, to appoint its own agents, to decide on its own course of action, and have asked whether they would suffer, whether it would be right to suffer, any outsider, however honoured and beloved he might be, to govern and control them. He may even have persuaded himself, as well as others, that John had taken a new departure and was giving a new tone to Christian thought and life, and that the Church was in no small danger of being led away from its old standards, and thinking too much of the mercy and too little of the severity of God. If he could not say bluntly, I mean to stand first in this Church, let who will oppose me, or, I hate Gaius and his pretensions to advise and rule, or, I dislike Demetrius, and resent his lack of deference for me, he could at least appeal to the memory and teaching of their venerated founder, and avow his preference of St. Pauls gospel over that of St. John. For we must now remember that we are told two things about Diotrephes. We are told not only that he loved to have the pre-eminence, but also that he was cursed with a voluble tongue, that he would still be speaking; for how often does a fluent tongue lead a man whither, in his reasonable moods, he would not go, and betray him into positions which he would not willingly have assumed? Mr. Talkative, as Bunyan calls him, may do, and often does do, quite as much harm as Mr. Illwill. It is his own way he wants, not the best way, not the way which will be most beneficial to others; and if he cannot get it by fair means, he will often stoop to foul or dubious means, stirring up division and discontent, prating with malicious words against those who oppose him when fair words will no longer serve his turn. And if the itch of speaking is apt to lead on to the prating of idle, and even of malicious, words, the lust of power commonly leads to an abuse of power. John, or Demetrius, has slighted me. Gaius does not defer to me or my wishes. He has received strange brethren without consulting me, or when he knew that I had forbidden their reception. Nothing, then, shall induce me to receive them. I will move heaven and earth against them, and against all who abet them, be they who they will–when a man has once reached that point, and Diotrephes seems to have reached it, he is not far from any evil word or any evil work. No punishment is more unwelcome to such an one than that with which John threatens Diotrephes: I will put him in mind of his words and his works, bring him to book for them in his own presence and in that of the Church. They dislike nothing so much as being compelled to face their own whispers, and to see how they sound in honest and impartial ears, or even in their own ears now that their excitement and irritation have subsided. Diotrephes, then, was a man who was not necessarily, or wholly bad; a man who may have had many good qualities and have done some service to the Church; but his good qualities were blended with, and their good effects vitiated by, an exorbitant self-conceit and loquacity. Beloved, exclaims St. John, when he had completed his miniature of Diotrephes, imitate not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God; he that doeth evil hath not seen God. And by this exhortation I do not understand him to imply that Diotrephes was an utterly bad man who had never seen God, never taken the first step toward a participation of the Divine nature, any more than he means that Demetrius, whom he forthwith begins to describe, was a man wholly good in whom no fault could be found. But I do understand him to mean that a vain man, too fond of hearing himself talk, too bent on taking the foremost place, is closing his eyes against the heavenly vision, and may do as much harm as if his intents were bad. The apostle may imply that, as Demetrius was undoubtedly doing a good work, he was a good man; and that Diotrephes, in so far as he opposed and crippled that work, was doing an evil work and took his place among evil men. (S. Cox, D. D.)
Diotrephes
I. I will show you who is not diotrephes.
1. He whose godly walk and conversation secures for him the entire confidence of the brethren, and thus gives him a great influence.
2. He whose talents and education necessarily make him a man of influence.
3. Nor he, whose well-known and oft-proved wisdom and prudence make him much sought unto in counsel.
4. These men generally do not seek influence. It is unavoidable. It follows them as their shadow.
II. I proceed to show who diotrephes is.
1. Sometimes he is a man who never had his will broken. As a Church member, he expects the household of Christ to give way to him. He is wilful and headstrong, often as unreasonable as a mere animal.
2. Sometimes he is a man of wealth. His riches give him authority in the world; and he takes it for granted they ought to do so in the Church.
3. Sometimes he is a man of some learning and much volubility, who fancies that his capacity ought to give his opinion authority.
III. I proceed to set forth diotrephes in action. If the minister does not take him for counsellor he is his enemy. With every movement does he find fault unless he originated it.
IV. In the next place, I remark upon diotrephes character.
1. He is very unlike Christ, who was meek and lowly.
2. He is very disobedient to the word, Let each esteem other better than himself.
3. He is against that equality which Christ has established in His Church.
Practical observations:
1. Diotrephes is most of the time in trouble. Always looking for deference, he is always liable to think it wanting.
2. The Church can take no surer road to trouble than to give way to Diotrephes.
3. Diotrephes will scarce be the friend of the minister. The natural influence of the religious teacher disturbs him.
4. It is best to look for Diotrephes in his own pew. Perhaps we may find him in our own seat.
5. Diotrephes is sometimes married, and his partner may be a true yoke-fellow. (Christian Treasury.)
Love of pre-eminence
It is not Diotrephes alone whose character my text describes–it is human nature generally; it is every man whose heart is unrenewed by grace.
1. A haughty heart, a lofty look, a proud temper, ambition, spirit, vanity–these are, more or less, the characteristic marks of the natural man. No such man is content with the station in which it has pleased Providence to place him. All are for being greater than they are. Each must have his own will executed–his own humour gratified. Things must be done exactly to his taste, and every other persons will and pleasure must give way to his.
2. Whence arises this love of the pre-eminence? to what is it to be ascribed? To an awful ignorance of ourselves. We all entertain naturally a very high opinion of our own characters–a vast notion of our own merits. We cannot really think that we are miserable sinners whilst we are striving which shall be the greatest.
3. Is this love of the pre-eminence consistent with a state of grace? Search the Scriptures for the answer. The Bible indeed is not a levelling book. It does not sweep away distinctions. But as for men of such a spirit as Diotrephes–of a vain, proud, self-exalting spirit–the Bible passes upon them its sentence of condemnation, and gives us everywhere to understand that heaven is shut against them (Mat 18:3; 1Ti 3:5).
4. But why is a love of the pre-eminence so utterly condemned in the Word of God? Wherein does the great guilt of it consist?
(1) First, it is utterly unsuitable to our condition as fallen guilty creatures.
(2) There is another reason why it is so utterly inconsistent with the character of a Christian to love the pre-eminence. That post of honour is preoccupied. It belongs, not to the Christian, but to the Christians Lord–not to the saved sinner, but to that sinners Saviour. (A. Roberts, M. A.)
The true method of eminence
Men are not so much mistaken in desiring to advance, as in judging what will be an advance, and what the right method of it. A man proves himself fit to go higher who shows that he is faithful where he is. When workmen are building the foundation of vast structures they must needs labour far below the surface, and in disagreeable conditions. But every course of stone which they lay raises them higher, and, at length, when they reach the surface, they have laid such solid work under them that they need not fear now to carry up their walls, through towering storeys, till they overlook the whole neighbourhood. A man that will not do well in his present place because he longs to be higher is already too high, and should be put lower.
Ambition
Unless they can be top-sawyers they will not touch a saw. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us.
Diotrephes rebuked
Here St. John sets up a flag of defiance against Diotrephes. We must all pluck up the like courage against the adversaries of the truth. To give wild horses the rein too much is to spoil them and their riders too; to loose the cords of the ship is to drown the ship; to be too remiss in the Church is to over throw the Church. Lenitives will serve for little sores, but great sores must have drawing plasters, otherwise we do not cure but kill. We must bear our own enemies, but our backs must not be so broad as to bear Gods enemies. Then he makes an enumeration of his deeds; they be in number four, like four stairs in a ladder, one higher than another; the lowest stair of all is his prating, the next to that is his not receiving of the brethren; the third is his forbidding of others to do it; the last and greatest of all is his casting of them out of the Church. (W. Jones, D. D.)
Censorious men
commonly take up magnifying glasses to look at other persons imperfections, and diminishing glasses to look at their own enormities.
Not content therewith.–
Covetousness in sinning
There is a kind of covetousness in sinning: a covetous man is not content with that which he hath, though he have the riches of Croesus, yet still he would have more. So he that hath begun to drink of the water of sin, must needs drink more and more. A man that sinneth is like one that is tumbled down from a steep hill, he cannot stay till he come to the bottom unless there be an extraordinary stop by the way; there is no stay in sinning unless God stay us by the hand of His Spirit. Not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, which notwithstanding he ought to do, for in receiving of them he receives Christ (Mat 25:35). Yet not content with that, he forbids them that would, like the dog in the manger that would neither eat provender himself nor suffer the horse to eat it; like the Pharisees that shut up the kingdom of heaven before men, neither go in themselves nor suffer others to enter in; these be vile wretches, neither give to good uses themselves nor suffer others, dissuade others; these are guilty of their own damnation, and of the damnation of others. (W. Jones, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 9. I wrote unto the Church.] The Church where Caius was; but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the pre-eminence, , who loves the presidency, or chief place in the Church. He was doubtless an officer in the Church, at least a deacon, probably a bishop; and, being one, he magnified himself in his office; he loved such eminence, and behaved himself haughtily in it.
Receiveth us not.] Does not acknowledge the apostolical authority. As some MSS. supply after , and several judicious critics believe it is implied, the translation will run thus: I would have written to the Church to receive these men kindly, but Diotrephes, who affects the presidency; and into whose hands, if I wrote to the Church, my letter must come, receiveth us not-would not acknowledge my authority to interfere with any of the matters of his Church; and therefore I have written unto thee, whose love to the brethren and general hospitality are well known, that thou wouldst receive those strangers and persecuted followers of our common Lord.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
I wrote unto the church; this was probably some church of which Gaius was.
Diotrephes, one who had received or usurped some office or authority in it, to so ill a purpose, as when he had no inclination to be hospitable himself to fellow Christians, prevented others from being so; and upon pretence of the little differences of these Jewish from the Gentile Christians, excluded them their communion.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
Iwrote The oldest manuscripts add something: a communication,probably, on the subject of receivingthe brethrenwith brotherly love (3Jo1:8,3Jo1:10).That Epistle was not designed by the Spirit for the universal Church,or else it would have been preserved.
untothe church of which Gaius is a member.
loveth… pre-eminence through ambition. Evidently occupying a high place in the Churchwhere Gaius was (3Jo1:10).
amongthem overthe members of the Church.
receivethus not virtually, namely, by not receivingwith love the brethren whom we recommended to be received (3Jo1:8,3Jo1:10;compare Mat10:40).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
I wrote unto the church,…. Where Gaius was a member: those who take Gaius to be the same with Paul’s host, and whom he baptized at Corinth, think the church at Corinth is here meant; but it seems rather to be meant of some church in Asia nearer Ephesus; nor is it likely that John’s first epistle should be here intended, which makes no mention of relieving the brethren, the ministers of the Gospel, that came from Judea: and that this epistle should not be preserved, need not seem strange; for it cannot be thought that everything that was written by him to particular persons, or churches, should be continued. The Alexandrian copy and one of Stephens’s read, “I wrote something to the church”; upon this head, concerning receiving and supporting ministers of the Gospel, and so prevents an objection that Gaius might make, why did he not write to the church about it? The Vulgate Latin version reads, “I should”, or “would have wrote”: and the Syriac version, “I desired”, or “wished to have wrote”; suggesting, that though he had not wrote, yet it was much upon his mind, he had a great desire to it:
but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them,
receiveth us not; which hindered him from writing, or was the reason why he wrote now to Gaius since Diotrephes gave no heed to what he had wrote, suppressed his letter, and would not suffer it to be read to the brethren. This Diotrephes, by his name, which signifies one “nourished”, or “brought up by Jupiter”, was a Gentile; there was one of this name, who was one of the kings of Athens a; and what may confirm this is, his slighting and rejecting the brethren that came from Judea: it is very likely he was more than a private member in the church, and that he was an officer, and it may be the pastor; and though there is a preeminence, which of right belongs to such an officer, as to preside over the church, to govern, guide, and direct, according to the laws of Christ, he being set over the church, as a ruler, governor, and guide; yet this may be carried too far, as it was by this man, who coveted more than was his due, and lorded it over God’s heritage, ruled the flock with force and cruelty, and usurped a tyrannical power over them; whereas every thing in a church ought to be done, by pastor and people, in love, meekness, and with mutual consent. And it may be also, that he sought to have the preeminence over the rest of the elders of the church, for in those large churches there were oftentimes more elders and pastors than one; see Ac 20:17. This ambitious spirit prevailed and obtained among the false teachers, who set up themselves at the head of parties, and above the apostles of Christ, and paved the way for antichrist, who assumed the title of universal bishop, which has introduced all the errors and impieties of the Romish church. Now this man such an ambitious, lordly, and governing spirit, received not the Apostle John, and those that were with him; meaning not their persons, for as yet he and they were not in person where he was; but his letter, his orders, and instructions; these he paid no regard to, concealed them from the church, and would not admit them to be read: or else the apostle’s sense is, that he received not the brethren that came from him, and were recommended by him, and whom he affectionately loved, and who were near and dear to him as himself; and therefore not receiving them is interpreted by him as not receiving himself.
a Vid. Fabricii Bibliograph. Antiqu. p. 211.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| The Character of Diotrephes. | A. D. 90. |
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 (v. 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, v. 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 (v. 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, v. 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.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
I wrote somewhat unto the church ( ). A few MSS. add to indicate that he had not written (conclusion of second-class condition), clearly spurious. Not epistolary aorist nor a reference to II John as Findlay holds, but an allusion to a brief letter of commendation (Acts 18:27; 2Cor 3:1; Col 4:10) sent along with the brethren in verses 5-7 or to some other itinerant brethren. Westcott wrongly thinks that is never used of anything important in the N.T. (Acts 8:9; Gal 6:3), and hence that this lost letter was unimportant. It may have been brief and a mere introduction. ( and , nourished by Zeus). This ambitious leader and sympathiser with the Gnostics would probably prevent the letter referred to being read to the church, whether it was II John condemning the Gnostics or another letter commending Demetrius and John’s missionaries. Hence he sends Gaius this personal letter warning against Diotrephes.
Who loveth to have the preeminence among them ( ). Present active articular participle of a late verb, so far found only here and in ecclesiastical writers (the example cited by Blass being an error, Deissmann, Light etc., p. 76), from , fond of being first (Plutarch), and made like (papyri), to be fond of toil. This ambition of Diotrephes does not prove that he was a bishop over elders, as was true in the second century (as Ignatius shows). He may have been an elder (bishop) or deacon, but clearly desired to rule the whole church. Some forty years ago I wrote an article on Diotrephes for a denominational paper. The editor told me that twenty-five deacons stopped the paper to show their resentment against being personally attacked in the paper.
Receiveth us not ( ). Present active indicative of this old compound, in N.T. only here and verse 10. Diotrephes refused to accept John’s authority or those who sided with him, John’s missionaries or delegates (cf. Mt 10:40).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
I wrote unto the Church. The best texts insert ti somewhat, which indicates that the apostle did not regard the communication as specially important.
Diotrephes [] . The name is from Diov of Zeus (Jove), and trefw to nourish, and means Jove – nursed.
Who loveth to have the pre – eminence [ ] . From the adjective filoprwtov fond of being first. The word occurs here only.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
DICTATOR (COWBOY) DIOTREPHES
1) “I wrote unto the church”. John respected this church and apparently paid it the courtesy of correspondence contact regarding a visit from him and, missionary helpers. He respected the autonomy, self-governing right, of the church over her worship and business. He wrote (Greek “ti”) something -what it was is later suggested.
2) “But Diotrephes the proper name means “nourished by Zeus”. Many a godly message has been hindered by a, “but Diotrephes.” Many a mission effort has been blocked by a “but Diotrephes”. Many a good report of mission fields and workers has been kept from the church by a, “but Diotrephes”. Many a good youth progress, Ladies Auxiliary, and Christian Education report and messenger, has been kept from going before, and being a blessing to the church because of a, “but Diotrephes.” A person nourished by the heathen, covetous, selfish, predominating trait and power of the Greek God Zeus can still wreak havoc in God’s churches.
3) “Who loveth to have the preeminence among them” This Diotrephes of the Asian Church had a passion for perpetual “first rank or order” of recognition, the spotlight, in all church services to the point that he evidently felt inferior if he didn’t affirm his supposed right to spotlight and preeminence. Mat 23:8. He was a Rabbi (father) type of hypocrite.
4) “Receiveth us not.” Facetious, ludicrous, hypocritical, and drunk on self-esteem, was this Diotrephes who posed as “more righteous” than the beloved John, who as an apostle of the “inner circle disciples”, leaned on Jesus’ breast. Neither as Dictator Diotrephes, nor browbeater of the church did he, receive either John or brethren in close mission and evangelistic labors with him.
5) This appears to be the first dominant example of Clerical or pastoral dictatorship, over lordship, against which our Lord warned Mat 20:24-28; Act 20:30; 1Pe 5:1-5. Final decisions on receiving brethren, visiting ministers as missionaries, should be made by the Church “ye” – not the Diotrephes “he.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
2.
Diotrephes who loves pre-eminence . . . 3Jn. 1:9-11
(3Jn. 1:9) I wrote something to the congregation, but Diotrephes the one loving pre-eminence among them is not receiving us. (3Jn. 1:10) On account of this if I should come I will bring about his remembering the work which he is doing, unjustly accusing us with wicked words, and not satisfied with this neither is he receiving the brethren but is hindering those who want to, and casts them out of the congregation. (3Jn. 1:11) Beloved, do not mimic that which is evil but that which is good. The one doing good is from God; the one doing evil has not seen God.
Divine wrath is the reaction of divine love in the presence of sin. Here is a superb demonstration of this truth as the Apostle of Love severely castigates a self-assuming status seeker by the name of Diotrephes. Most scholarship is agreed that Diotrephes is, like Gaius, an elder in the same congregation. The situation which exists is not an unfamiliar one.
Diotrephes, the self-seeking, assertive overlord, dominates the congregation. He refuses to receive what the apostle has written, probably concerning the gnostic controversy, or to receive the travelling missionaries with the hospitality his eldership demands of him. Instead, for his own reasons, he has opposed those who would extend such hospitality and has even cast them out of the congregation.
Gaius, as is so often true of loving, sincere, Christian men, has given no apparent resistance to Diotrephes self-assertion. John implores him not to mimic that which is evil by passively tolerating Diotrephes unchristian behavior. It is time for someone to stand up against the dictatorial demagoguery of Diotrephes and to see to it that proper treatment is afforded the ministers of the Word!
All that is needed to make this letter one of the most relevant of the New Testament is to change the names of these two elders! Where is the congregation that has not been plagued by its own Diotrephes? There is an abundance of egoists holding office in local congregations. They will espouse whatever doctrine, false or otherwise, that will gain for them the most personal status. They will mistreat any member of the congregation who, though not outwardly opposing their grab for power, attempts to receive the truth in love and treats the ministers of the Word with Christian gentility.
To the honest, beloved, service-seeking elders who serve with the modern kin of Diotrephes, Johns plea is needful today. Such men gain power only when others, through failure to oppose, follow after their evil behavior. The dictators of history have all climbed to power on the backs of good people who simply did nothing to oppose them. To go along with such a man is, in effect, to mimic his conduct.
Self-aggrandizement has no place in the kingdom. Jesus taught that he who would be great among us must be servant or all. Anytime a cousin of Diotrephes rises in any congregation, it is the duty of the kin of Gaius, the beloved, to actively oppose and put down such enemies of the faith.
The example here is John himself, the Apostle of Love, who warns of stern action should it become necessary to visit the congregation in person to set the situation right. His warning is reminiscent of Pauls to the Corinthian congregation. (Cf. 1Co. 4:21, 2Co. 10:11; 2Co. 13:1-3)
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
9. I wrote Perhaps in a letter sent by these missionaries on their first tour.
The church Of the city where Gaius resided. The letter doubtless commended the missionaries to the entire Church, but met with rejection from Diotrephes. We suppose that in a full sense the word church included the entire body of Christians in the city. Yet it consisted of separate congregations, each perhaps under its own elder or pastor, and each would be called a church. The period of great church buildings had not commenced. One congregation would worship in a private house, (Rom 16:5,) another in a hired hall, (Act 19:9,) a third in a synagogue, (Jas 2:2.) But Diotrephes, an elder over one of these congregations, rejected the apostle’s letter and authority.
Loveth to have the pre-eminence Literally, making himself first. He would be master and supreme in his own congregation. He would obey none of these mandates from Ephesus, even though from an apostle. He was an independent, a high congregationalist. Bede says, that he was “a heresiarch of that time, proud and insolent, preferring, by maintaining novelties, to usurp the primacy of knowledge to himself than to listen humbly to the ancient doctrines of John.” Alford denies the possibility of his heresy, and maintains that he was simply “an ambitious man, who wished that not the apostle, but himself, should rule the Church.” But certainly he would not reject the apostle but upon some doctrinal ground. And that he was tinctured with the antinomianism arising from finding all sin in matter, will appear from 3Jn 1:11.
Receiveth us not By us is meant primarily the apostle himself, through his letters and messengers; yet inclusively, the whole party of apostolic Christians and Christianity.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘I wrote somewhat to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, receives us not. Therefore, if I come, I will bring to remembrance his works which he does, prating against us with wicked words. And not content with that, nor does he himself receive the brethren, and he forbids those who would and casts them out of the church.’
Things were not as well as they could be in Gaius’ church grouping. It is clear that Diotrephes, who was a prominent church leader, loved to be seen as important, and to be honoured and feted, and this probably contributed to his not wanting outsiders coming and taking over the ministry, and stealing some of his glory. He wanted no interference in his church, even from the Apostle John, and found fault with all who came from outside. It is probable that ‘receives us not’ refers to the lack of welcome John’s letter received. And most of the church in which he ministered seem to have sided with him. Such is the danger when one man becomes pre-eminent. To receive honour is always a dangerous thing for a man who would please God, for he soon begins to see himself as important, and then his usefulness is diminished.
There is here no suggestion of false teaching. Diotrephes appears to have taught the truth. It may even partly have been because he was afraid of false teachers that he behaved as he did. But this meant that he had cut his church off from the remainder of the worldwide church. He was clearly a strong character and was able to carry men along with him. That he was not fully successful is evidenced by Gaius. There were some still willing to stand up to him.
The church would be split up into smaller groups as was necessary in those days, for not all could meet centrally, so Diotrephes’ influence may only have affected the section he ministered to and not the whole church, but he was clearly influential.
But John’s charge against him is also that he not only himself refused hospitality to travelling preachers of the truth, including strangers, but forbade his church to offer it either. Any travelling preachers were to be rejected. Indeed had it not been for Gaius true men of God would have had nowhere to go.
It is probable that the exclusion from the church refers to the travelling preachers and not the church members. But it is possible that Diotrephes had made discipline so strict that he actually expelled church members for disobedience.
It should be noted, however, that John is confident that when he visits the church he and his authority will be welcomed. (He probably only mentions this to encourage Gaius and give him hope of the resolution of a miserable situation). The church was not wholly lost to Christ. He felt that the problem was one that could be dealt with by firm discipline.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Warning against Sin In 3Jn 1:9-11 John gives warnings about Diotrephes because of his sinful conduct. Benny Hinn gives us ten signs of a religious spirit in such people who behave in this manner in the Church. Jesus warned His disciples of the leaven, or doctrines, of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Mat 16:1-12). These were zealous groups that had religious spirits. Shortly thereafter, Peter rebukes Jesus for committing Himself to the Cross, and Jesus binds Satan from working in Peter’s life (Mat 16:21-23). These people have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof (2Ti 3:5).
Signs of a Religious Spirit – Many have conjectured that Diotrephes may have been a pastor, a deacon or even a founder of a new sect. He was most likely a member of the same church as Gaius and Demetrius. Though little is known about him, it is clear from this short epistle that he was a man of influence. He was one who desired power and control over others. He had enough influence to cause the church to reject those whom John had commended to their care. Diotrephes gives us a biblical example of someone with a religious spirit working within the church. Here are ten characteristics Benny Hinn gives of someone with such a spirit: [46]
[46] Benny Hinn, This is Your Day (Irving, Texas), on Trinity Broadcasting Network (Santa Ana, California), television program.
1. They find fault with others, but never with themselves.
2. They tear down what they believe is wrong with others, but they never built up.
3. They are unable to receive correction.
4. They have a philosophy that they will not listen to men. They will not receive counsel.
5. They believe God has appointed them to reveal everything wrong with you.
6. They are intolerant of the weaknesses and failures in others.
7. They are always seeking recognition and notice.
8. They are always suspicious of any new move of God.
9. They glory in the past, and never in the present.
10. They will not join anything outside themselves. Thus, like a cult, they exclude others and only fellowship among themselves.
We see some of these signs in the person of Diotrephes.
1. He loved the preeminence among others (item 7 above).
2. He “receiveth us not”. He would not take the correction of John (item 3 above).
3. He was “prating against us”. They publicly attack others (item 5 above).
4. “Neither does he receive the brethren” They will not fellowship with others, excluding themselves like a cult (item 10).
5. “forbideth them that would” They are controlling when they gain preeminence (item 7 above).
6. “casteth them out of the church” They are intolerant of others who do not see things their way and thus isolate themselves (item 6 above).
3Jn 1:9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.
3Jn 1:9
3Jn 1:9 “but Diotrephes” – Word Study on “Diotrephes” Liddell-Scott says the Greek name “Diotrephes” ( ) (G1361) means, “trained, or cherished, by Jupiter [Zeus].” The Greek word “ ” means “godlike” ( Liddell-Scott), referring to “Zeus,” a mythological god. The Greek word “ ” means, “to feed, nourish, support, provide with food, rear, bring up, train.” ( BDAG)
3Jn 1:10 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.
3Jn 1:11 The insolence of Diotrephes:
v. 9. I wrote unto the church; but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.
v. 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.
v. 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.
Diotrephes seems to have held some office in the church; he may have been an elder in the congregation to which Gaius belonged. His behavior shows to what lengths a person will go that seeks personal aggrandizement in church-work: I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who is seeking to obtain the leadership among them, does not receive us. John had given the itinerant missionaries short letters of introduction, addressed to all the congregations, just as letters of that kind are now often given. But this Diotrephes absolutely ignored the authority of the apostle, refused to receive his delegates. And all this was because Diotrephes had the intention of making himself a leader, probably in that entire province. It was a case of misguided ambition which did not shrink from any degree of insolence.
But John was equal to the occasion: For that reason, if I come, I shall remind him of his works which he does, prating against us with evil words; and, not content therewith, neither does he himself receive the brethren, and those that are willing to do so he hinders and casts them out of the church. This was the form of reckoning which John had in mind for this upstart. He would visit the congregation in person, and would recite the various evidence of insolence and false ambition at a meeting of the church: the evil speaking against the person and office of John, the refusal to receive the missionaries as Christian brethren, the attempt to hinder the true Christians in the performance of their duties, and the false excommunication which Diotrephes practiced in the ease of those that refused to comply with his unwarranted interference. This picture is not overdrawn in a single line, but has often been duplicated in the Christian Church since those days.
The apostle’s earnest admonition to Gaius in view of such conditions is: Beloved, do not imitate the evil, but the good; he that does good is of God; he that does evil has not seen God. Gaius is to keep before him as a pattern and example only such things as have the approval of the Lord, as are good in His sight, and he is to shun everything that is evil. Every one that actually does live a life of sanctification in doing that which is good thereby gives evidence that he is of God, that he is born out of God, that he is a child of God. Of those that do evil it is ever true that they are so far from being the children of God that they have not even seen Him, that there is not the faintest idea of their knowing the Lord. But note the gentleness of the apostle, even in this case, since he does not say that the doers of evil are children of the devil.
3Jn 1:9. But Diotrephes, Diotrephes has been taken for a Gentile Christian, who would not receive the Jewish Christians; and it must be acknowledged that it was a common name among the Gentiles: but it is also well known, that Alexander, Philip, Stephen, AEneas, and many other Gentile names, were common among the Jews, and therefore the name of Diotrephes will prove nothing. Besides, the Gentile Christians rarely or ever refused communion with the Jewish Christians; but the Judaizing Christians very frequently refused to join with the Gentile converts; and several of the Judaizers resisted men endued with apostolic authority. Diotrephes therefore seems to have been a zealous, bigoted, Judaizing Christian, the minister of some Christian church near Ephesus; who was out of all patience with such as preached the gospel to the Gentiles, and would neither use them kindly himself, when they passed that way, nor suffer any of his church, if he could help it, to treat them with kindness, and encourage them in that attempt.
3Jn 1:9-10 . Notice of Diotrephes.
] The , which according to the authorities is probably genuine, does not serve, as Lcke rightly remarks, to intensify = “something important,” but rather to weaken = “something, a little.”
The reading: (Vulg.: scripsissem forsitan), has originated in the idea that the apostle would not write an epistle, of the unsuccessfulness of which he was previously convinced. The Church to which the apostle wrote is not that from which the brethren (3Jn 1:7 ) went forth (Bengel, Besser), but that to which Caius belonged. The opinion that this writing is the so-called First Epistle of John (Wolf, Storr, etc.) is just as untenable as the view that it is the Second Epistle of John (Ewald, Besser, etc.), for the contents of these two have nothing in common with the circumstances which are here alluded to. This writing must, according to the context in which it is mentioned, have treated of the reception or support of the missionary brethren. If it was only such a short occasional writing, it is easily intelligible how it may have been lost; besides, however, it is natural to suppose that it was withheld from the Church by Diotrephes.
] In these words the apostle expresses the experience which he had had of Diotrephes. It may be assumed that the apostle wrote to the Church of Diotrephes in regard to the reception of the missionary brethren, and that the bearers of the Epistle reported to him the conduct of Diotrephes, which he now tells to Caius. As to the more particular circumstances of Diotrephes nothing further is known. From what John says about him, it cannot be inferred either that he was presbyter, or that he was deacon of the Church; yet the contrary conclusion cannot either be drawn. When Grotius represents him as an opponent of the Jewish-Christians, and others, on the contrary, regard him as a false teacher of Jewish or Gnostic views, these are unfounded conjectures; if either the one or the other were the case, John would certainly have indicated it. John only accuses him of one thing, namely, the , from which his unchristian conduct resulted. is a . .; yet in the later Greek writers and appear. The scholion in Matthiae rightly explains by: ; he ambitiously arrogated to himself the highest authority in the Church, which made himself an opponent of the apostle. By what means he was able to obtain validity for this assumptian we do not know; perhaps by assembling the Church in his house.
refers to , as a collective idea.
] , in the N. T. only here and in 3Jn 1:10 , means “ to receive; ” it is incorrect to change into “our epistles or exhortations” (Grotius, Lcke, de Wette, etc.). In the fact that Diotrephes rejected the communication of the apostle, and refused to receive the brethren recommended in it, he justly obtained rejection for himself (so also Braune). It is unnecessary, therefore, to ascribe to here the modified meaning: “to accept, to let pass,” in which it appears in the classics. 3Jn 1:10 . , , . . .] Though, in the absence of John, Diotrephes resisted his authority, yet John hoped by his presence to obtain for it its due weight, and therefore he had resolved to come himself to that Church and personally to oppose the intrigues of Diotrephes.
With , which is here used with the secondary signification of blame, it is not necessary to supply ; although Diotrephes is meant, yet John did not write , because he had in view at the same time all those who adhered to him (so Braune correctly); comp. 2Ti 2:14 . In what the of Diotrephes, to which the apostle intends the to refer, consisted, the following participial clauses state. [22]
] (in the N. T. a . .; the adj. , 1Ti 5:13 ) = nugari; Oecumenius paraphrases it by , : this, however, does not express the idea of the chatter that sags nothing which is contained in . The verb, in itself intransitive, is here construed with the accusative (as , Col 2:15 ; , Mat 28:19 ), thus: “ he prates against us slanderously with wicked words. ”
] Diotrephes did not content himself with against the apostle alone ( is only here used in construction with ; elsewhere the dative is found: Luk 3:14 ; Heb 13:5 , and other passages); he injured the brethren also.
. . . ] With the following corresponds; is contrasted with .
There is no reason to take here in a different sense from that of 3Jn 1:9 , although it takes a different bearing towards different persons, one way in regard to the apostle, another way in regard to the , who are here mentioned, and who are to be regarded as ; they are the same as were spoken of previously (3Jn 1:7 , etc.).
With we are to understand (C reads just instead of .); there were therefore some persons in the Church who were ready to receive the strangers, in opposition to Diotrephes; but Diotrephes did not permit it, nay, he opposed them with all force.
] It is not , but that is the object.
signifies expulsion from the Church, as the object is not , but ; the expression is arbitrarily weakened if we understand by it merely that “Diotrephes no longer admitted those who opposed him to the meetings of the Church which he held in his house” (Braune). The common opinion is, that Diotrephes had actually already expelled some persons from the Church, whether irregularly by means of faction, or with arrogant violence, or whether by intrigues he had brought about resolutions of the Church to that effect; but it is also possible that the apostle describes as an act of Diotrephes what he in his pride had threatened to do, so that the expression then is one of keen irony.
If arbitrary hypotheses are not admitted, we must regard as the cause of the behaviour of Diotrephes only his vanity which showed itself in his . By the way in which a part of the Church (especially Caius) had interested itself in the strangers, and had been mentioned in John’s communications on the subject, Diotrephes, in his vanity, had probably felt offended, and this had excited his anger, which led him to the conduct which John rebukes in such simple but severe words.
[22] Ewald strangely overlooks the following words when, after translating the preceding words, he says: “But the author cannot dwell on this painful incident; he breaks off abruptly, to turn back to the good, exclaiming: Beloved!” etc.
But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face. Peace be to thee. Our friends salute thee. Greet the friends by name.
Everything contained within the bosom of these verses is fully explained as it stands before us. I only beg the reader to remark with me, the striking contrast between Diotrephes and Demetrius. They are known to us only by name. But how different their characters! How opposed while they lived! How differently regarded when they died. How opposite in the esteem of the Church, through all ages! And how everlastingly opposite, if dying as they are here said to have lived, through all the eternal world? Reader! How blessed to have a good report of all men; yea, and of the truth itself, which is Christ. (Joh 14:6 ) Oh! For the whisper of Jesus, in a dying hour, to confirm his grace in the soul, as manifested in a living hour; that both in life and in death the soul be found in him. (Isa 43:1-4 )
REFLECTIONS
What a beautiful view is here afforded, of the beloved Apostle in his pastoral office, addressing the faithful Gaius, beloved in the Lord. To behold the venerable saint of God, amidst all the infirmities of declining years, thus blessing God, and blessing the servant of God, in his wishes both for spiritual and temporal prosperity.
But while we look at John, who justly commands our veneration and our love, let us look infinitely above John, and behold John’s Lord still blessing all his church; and every Gaius of his redeemed family below, with blessings in himself. Precious, precious Jesus! We desire to praise thee for all that is lovely, in the disciple whom Jesus loved; for all that is lovely in John, was, and is derived from thee! Lord! Hasten on thy blessed purposes, and bring on thy glorious day when thou wilt come to be glorified in thy saints, and to be admired in all that believe! To thee, Lord, it belongs, to keep thy Church from falling, and to present it faultless before the presence of thy glory with exceeding joy. In the blessed hope of thy appearing, may all thy Church in thee, and through thee, daily ascribe to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Israel’s God in covenant, endless praises. Amen.
9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.
Ver. 9. I wrote unto the church ] sc. Of Corinth, where Paul baptized Gaius, and where Diotrephes seems to have been a great sect-master, and chief of those deceitful workers that there so much disparaged Paul.
Diotrephes, who loveth, &c. ] Ambition is like the crocodile, which groweth as long as it liveth. What stirs made proud Paulus Samosatenus in the primitive Church! What continual quarrelings were there between the bishops of Constantinople and of Rome for the primacy, and between the archbishops of Canterbury and of York for precedence! What a deal suffered learned Zanchy at Argentina from his ambitious colleagues; and various of our English divines and others, from the lordly prelates! Pareus was wont to say that the chief cause of all the Church’s troubles was the Churchmen’s affectation of dominion. This trouble town if we could cast out of the Church, said he, great hopes there were that we should all , concur and consent in one and the same truth. (Isidor. Pelus. iv. eph 54.)
9, 10 .] Notice of the hostility of Diotrephes . I wrote somewhat to the church (the does not imply that the thing written was specially important, nor on the other hand does it depreciate; but merely designates indefinitely: cf. Act 23:17 , , and Luk 7:40 , , : and Mat 20:20 . The contents of the Epistle are not hinted at. The “scripsissem forsitan” of the vulgate ( , see var. readd.) has arisen from a foolish notion that the Apostle must not be represented as having written any thing which has been lost to us. The is apparently the church of which Caius was a member: not as Bengel, that out of which the missionaries of 3Jn 1:7 had gone forth): howbeit ( after an affirmative sentence is stronger than the mere adversative but : see Khner, Gr. ii. p. 436) Diotrephes who loveth pre-eminence ( as the ancient Schol. He appears to have been not, as Bed [1] , “hresiarcha temporis illius quidam superbus et insolens, malens nova dicendo primatum sibi usurpare scienti quam antiquis sanct Ecclesi, qu Johannes prdicabat, humiliter auscultare mandatis:” so much is not implied in the words, but only that be was an ambitious man who willed that not the Apostle but himself should rule the church) over them (the members of the church, implied in the word . The gen. after verbs of preeminence, as , Il . 460: , Herod. vi. 161. See Khner, ii. p. 197) receiveth us not (does not recognize our authority: here in an improper sense, but in the next verse probably literal: see there. Its more usual sense in Polybius, who uses it frequently, is to admit of , , iii. 79. 12. The wants no explanation such as “monita nostra,” “ nostras,” or the like: in rejecting the Apostle’s person, he rejected all his influence). On this account, if I should come (see for 1Jn 2:28 ), I will bring to mind (i. e. as Bed [2] , “in omnium notitiam manifestius arguendo producam:” see reff. No is understood: it is not to his mind, but to the minds of all) his works which he doeth (what they were, is explained by the participle following), prating against us (this is the best rendering of , which conveys not only the , of c., but also that the reproaches were mere tattle, worth nothing, irrelevant: so Eustathius on Il. . 361, in Raphel, h. l., . . Cf. 1Ti 5:13 ) with wicked speeches: and not satisfied with ( is ordinarily (see reff.) with a dative: the , as in , and similar expressions, introduces the ground on which the superimponitur) this (more probably plur., as in 3Jn 1:4 , where the whole matter in question is meant, than as agreeing with the , which had not been the only things mentioned of him), neither doth he himself receive the brethren (here seems best taken in its literal sense, as in Polyb. xxii. 1. 3, (if the reading can be depended upon), of entertaining hospitably, see 2Jn 1:10 . The are probably the same as in 3Jn 1:5 , the travelling missionaries), and (so after in reff., and Eur. Iph. Taur. 595 f., , . is more frequently found, see Khner, Gramm. ii. p. 441. The occurrence of the construction explains itself. It is found when the negative form of the first member of a series of connected clauses, is not possible or not convenient in the second or any following one. Here it might have been, but not so forcibly expressed, ) hinders (by forbidding: cf. 1Th 2:16 ) those that would (receive them), and casts them (those that would receive the brethren: not, as C. F. Fritzsche, Carpzov., al., the travelling brethren themselves) out of the church (manifestly, by excommunication, which owing to his influence among them he had the power to inflict. There is no difficulty, nor any occasion to take the word as pointing at that which Diotrephes was attempting to do or threatening to do, and so as spoken in irony (Huther): the present tense indicates his habit, as and above. He was evidently one in high power, and able to forbid, and to punish, the reception of the travelling brethren. See prolegg.).
[1] Bede, the Venerable , 731; Bedegr, a Greek MS. cited by Bede, nearly identical with Cod. “E,” mentioned in this edn only when it differs from E.
[2] Bede, the Venerable , 731; Bedegr, a Greek MS. cited by Bede, nearly identical with Cod. “E,” mentioned in this edn only when it differs from E.
3Jn 1:9-10 . Churlishness of Diotrephes. “I wrote something to the Church, but Diotrephes, who loveth pre-eminence over them, doth not receive us. Therefore, if I come, I shall call to remembrance his works which he doeth, prating about us with evil words; and, not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren and them that would he preventeth and casteth out of the Church.”
“Der Zweck des 3. Briefes liegt in der Empfehlung der Gastfreundschaft gegen wandernde Glaubensboten” (Holtzm.).
3Jn 1:9 . , a brief letter of commendation, (2Co 3:1 ), introducing and authorising a company of itinerant brethren, probably those referred to in 3Jn 1:5 . , “love to be first, to be chief” ( ). The noun is and the adj. (Polyb., Plut). (2Jn 1:9 ) and denote two tempers which disturbed the Christian life of Asia Minor intellectual arrogance and personal aggrandisement. refers to . , “doth not receive me in the person of my delegates” ( cf. Mat 10:40 ), i.e. , “disowneth my authority”.
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: 3Jn 1:9-10
9I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. 10For 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, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them our of the church.
3Jn 1:9 “I wrote something to the church” This may refer to I or 2 John or to a lost letter; in all probability it refers to 2 John. See Special Topic: Church (Ekklesia) at 3Jn 1:6.
“Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them” This is a present active participle. This is a compound term “love” (phile) and “to hold first rank” (prteu). It is used only here in the NT, but the second term is used in Col 1:18 of Christ’s premier rank. This man is the first recorded “power-broker” or “church boss.” We do not know if he was the pastor or simply a significant layman. However, this does show his motives. This kind of egotistical individual has been present in the church in every age! Whether he was also a Gnostic is uncertain and unstated, but possible.
James Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, p. 392, sees Diotrephes as an example of “early catholicism.”
“In particular, John’s individualism is very plausibly to be understood precisely as a protest against the kind of institutionalizing trends so evident in Pastorals (above pp. 129f., cf. again Hebrews and Revelation – 31.2, 3). Likewise the Johannine writings seem if anything to be opposed to the kind of sacramentalism which is already clearly established in the early catholicism of Ignatius (‘the medicine of immortality’ – Eph., 20.2) (see above 41). Most intriguing of all is the attack of ‘the elder’ on Diotrephes in 3Jn 1:9 f. Diotrephes was clearly in control of this church at least: not only was he able to refuse a welcome to visiting Christians, but he also ‘expels from the church’ those who crossed him. Diotrephes, in other words, was acting with the authority of a monarchical bishop (cf. Ignatius, Eph., 6.1; Trall., 7.2; Smyrn., 8.1f), and it was against this lust for ecclesiastical prominence and power (philoprteun) that ‘the elder’ wrote. In other words, assuming that 3 John comes from the same circle as I and 2 John, it is best seen as the response of a kind of convention or conventicle Christianity, an anti-institutional and individualistic pietism, protesting against the increasing influence of early catholicism.”
“does not accept what we say” Not only did Diotrephes reject John’s Apostolic authority, but he was aggressively involved in rejecting Apostolic policy and even taking his vengeance out on those who would follow!
3Jn 1:10 “if” This is a third class conditional sentence which means potential action.
“I will call attention to his deeds” John wants to clearly delineate this man’s motives (cf. 3Jn 1:9) and actions (cf. 3Jn 1:10):
1. NASB – “unjustly accusing us with wicked words”
NKJV – “prating against us with malicious words”
NRSV – “spreading false charges against us”
TEV – “the terrible things he says about us and the lies he tells”
NJB – “the wicked accusations he has been circulating against us”
2. “he himself does not receive the brethren”
3. “he forbids those who desire to do so”
4. “he puts them out of the church”
This man wants the attention and will not share the spotlight with anyone. He also removes anyone from the church who disagrees, or might disagree, with him.
“puts them out of the church” This same strong verb (ekball) is used in Joh 9:34-35 for the blind man who Jesus healed being excommunicated from the Synagogue.
It is also used of Satan being cast out in Joh 12:31.
wrote = wrote something, as the texts.
Diotrephes. Nothing is known of him.
who loveth, &c. Greek. philoproteuo, love to be first.
among = of.
receiveth. Greek. epidechomai. Only here and 3Jn 1:10.
9, 10.] Notice of the hostility of Diotrephes. I wrote somewhat to the church (the does not imply that the thing written was specially important, nor on the other hand does it depreciate; but merely designates indefinitely: cf. Act 23:17, , and Luk 7:40, , : and Mat 20:20. The contents of the Epistle are not hinted at. The scripsissem forsitan of the vulgate ( , see var. readd.) has arisen from a foolish notion that the Apostle must not be represented as having written any thing which has been lost to us. The is apparently the church of which Caius was a member: not as Bengel, that out of which the missionaries of 3Jn 1:7 had gone forth): howbeit ( after an affirmative sentence is stronger than the mere adversative but: see Khner, Gr. ii. p. 436) Diotrephes who loveth pre-eminence ( as the ancient Schol. He appears to have been not, as Bed[1], hresiarcha temporis illius quidam superbus et insolens, malens nova dicendo primatum sibi usurpare scienti quam antiquis sanct Ecclesi, qu Johannes prdicabat, humiliter auscultare mandatis: so much is not implied in the words, but only that be was an ambitious man who willed that not the Apostle but himself should rule the church) over them (the members of the church, implied in the word . The gen. after verbs of preeminence, as , Il . 460: , Herod. vi. 161. See Khner, ii. p. 197) receiveth us not (does not recognize our authority: here in an improper sense, but in the next verse probably literal: see there. Its more usual sense in Polybius, who uses it frequently, is to admit of, , iii. 79. 12. The wants no explanation such as monita nostra, nostras, or the like: in rejecting the Apostles person, he rejected all his influence). On this account, if I should come (see for 1Jn 2:28), I will bring to mind (i. e. as Bed[2], in omnium notitiam manifestius arguendo producam: see reff. No is understood: it is not to his mind, but to the minds of all) his works which he doeth (what they were, is explained by the participle following), prating against us (this is the best rendering of , which conveys not only the , of c., but also that the reproaches were mere tattle, worth nothing, irrelevant: so Eustathius on Il. . 361, in Raphel, h. l., . . Cf. 1Ti 5:13) with wicked speeches: and not satisfied with ( is ordinarily (see reff.) with a dative: the , as in , and similar expressions, introduces the ground on which the superimponitur) this (more probably plur., as in 3Jn 1:4, where the whole matter in question is meant, than as agreeing with the , which had not been the only things mentioned of him), neither doth he himself receive the brethren (here seems best taken in its literal sense, as in Polyb. xxii. 1. 3, (if the reading can be depended upon), of entertaining hospitably, see 2Jn 1:10. The are probably the same as in 3Jn 1:5, the travelling missionaries), and (so after in reff., and Eur. Iph. Taur. 595 f., , . is more frequently found, see Khner, Gramm. ii. p. 441. The occurrence of the construction explains itself. It is found when the negative form of the first member of a series of connected clauses, is not possible or not convenient in the second or any following one. Here it might have been, but not so forcibly expressed, ) hinders (by forbidding: cf. 1Th 2:16) those that would (receive them), and casts them (those that would receive the brethren: not, as C. F. Fritzsche, Carpzov., al., the travelling brethren themselves) out of the church (manifestly, by excommunication, which owing to his influence among them he had the power to inflict. There is no difficulty, nor any occasion to take the word as pointing at that which Diotrephes was attempting to do or threatening to do, and so as spoken in irony (Huther): the present tense indicates his habit, as and above. He was evidently one in high power, and able to forbid, and to punish, the reception of the travelling brethren. See prolegg.).
[1] Bede, the Venerable, 731; Bedegr, a Greek MS. cited by Bede, nearly identical with Cod. E, mentioned in this edn only when it differs from E.
[2] Bede, the Venerable, 731; Bedegr, a Greek MS. cited by Bede, nearly identical with Cod. E, mentioned in this edn only when it differs from E.
3Jn 1:9. , I wrote) concerning these things. That epistle is not extant.- , to the church) of that place from which they went forth: 3Jn 1:7. Here is the anticipation of an objection: lest Caius should say, Why do they come to us?- , who wishes to be the first of them) If even then, during the life of the apostle, Diotrephes exalted himself, what was not the case afterwards?-, us) who commend them, and those who are commended by us.
3Jn 1:9
JOHN’S APOSTOLIC APPROVAL
(3Jn 1:9)
9 I wrote somewhat unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. –Apparently, John had written a brief letter to the church in which Gaius held membership; perhaps it had been sent along by the missionaries which had come their way; but it had been suppressed and destroyed by Diotrephes, a man of prominence and leadership in the congregation, perhaps an elder or preacher. Because he loved to have the “preeminence,” he refused to ac-knowledge John’s apostleship, or the missionaries in the fellowship of the apostle, and, hence, received them not. This personal letter to Gaius was a warning with reference to this designing man. The word “preeminence,” (philoproteuon, present active participle,) is derived from philoprotos, a fondness for being first; and is, alas, a disposition too often observable in our ranks today. The spirit manifested by this man Diotrephes is wholly foreign to the New Testament and opposed to the teaching of the Lord himself. All self-serving and personal aggrandizement must be eschewed and avoided if we would measure to the standard of primitive Christianity.
Commentary on 3Jn 1:9 by E.M. Zerr
3Jn 1:9. I wrote unto the church means the church of which Gaius was a member. This is indicated by some following statements in the book. John insists that he will come to the place to which he wrote the letter referred to, and at the same time trusts to see Gaius face to face. The fact that John wrote unto the church but that Diotrephes ignored the letter, indicates that the epistle was sent to this man as an elder of the congregation. That would be usual to send an official document to the officers, or at least in their care, as we read that Paul addressed his epistle to the church at Philippi to “the bishops and deacons” (Php 1:1). The epistle had something to do with John’s proposed visit to the church, since he declares or implies that he is going to make the journey notwithstanding the opposition of. Diotrephes. This may raise a question in the mind of the reader whether it is right to visit a congregation against the authority of an elder. It is proper for an apostle to do so, for they were in the church before the elders. (See 1Co 12:28 where “governments” stands for the eldership.) Loveth to have the preeminence. This thirst for power among the elders is what resulted in the great falling away and development of the Church of Rome. Paul said in 2Th 2:7 that the mystery of this iniquity was already at work when he was writing, and he evidently was referring to such characters as Diotrephes. (See General remarks at 2 Thessalonians 2).
Commentary on 3Jn 1:9 by N.T. Caton
3Jn 1:9-I wrote unto the church.
That is, John wrote a letter to the church of which Gaius was a member. This letter has not come down to us; it is presumably lost.
3Jn 1:9 –But Diotrephes.
Here is the first mention of this man; nowhere else is he mentioned on the sacred pages. The same character he seems to have exhibited is frequently met with in others, even in our own day.
3Jn 1:9 –Who loveth to have the pre-eminence.
Diotrephes assumed to be a leader. He was ambitious of prominence; he attempted to lord it over God’s heritage he, as far as in his power lay, controlled. He was enabled to assume the exercise of this authority by virtue of being a church official. Men assuming dictatorial powers are generally unscrupulous.
3Jn 1:9 –Receiveth us not.
This man Diotrephes refused to be governed by the suggestions contained in John’s letter, which, probably, among other things, suggested hospitality and aid to those journeying in the cause of the gospel. Against this, Diotrephes rebelled.
Commentary on 3Jn 1:9 by Burton Coffman
3Jn 1:9 –I wrote somewhat unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.
I wrote somewhat unto the church … Presumably, John had written to the church to which both Gaius and Diotrephes belonged; but as there were usually household churches in every city, they might have belonged to different groups with the church in the larger sense. The letter mentioned here has not come down to us, perhaps being destroyed by Diotrephes. At any rate, John wrote to Gaius, a person totally independent of the evil influence of Diotrephes, and also promised a visit with the evident purpose of counteracting the work of Diotrephes.
But Diotrephes … Nothing is known of this character except what is stated in these two verses. “The name Diotrephes is very rare, meaning Zeus-reared nurseling of Zeus, and was only to be found in noble and ancient families.”[24] This suggests that he might have been wealthy or of high social standing. With it, however, he was proud, arrogant and insensitive.
Receiveth not us … Some have thought these words mean that he rejected both the missionaries and John who associated himself with the travelling preachers in these words; but it is more likely that John here used “us” in the sense of the apostles; for it was apostolic authority that Diotrephes rejected.
Who loveth to have the preeminence among them … This prideful and arrogant attitude of Diotrephes was the sin which disturbed the church to which the apostle wrote; but commentators, in some instances, cannot allow that this was the trouble. No! They believe that, `Diotrephes’ radical intransigence was due … to theological partisanship.”[25] “Diotrephes could have been an elder who was determined to champion the autonomy of the local church.”[26] All such evaluations of the root of the trouble are based upon blindness to the sin of Diotrephes (the true cause of the trouble) which John specifically mentioned. Could it be that “loving to have the preeminence” is not considered sinful in some circles? “Pride was his sin … and a violent jealousy.”[27] “One masterful, power-loving man in a church may work incalculable mischief and injury.”[28] “He had slandered (one of the apostles) … and broken the fellowship of the church.”[29] May we take a closer look at:
THE SIN OF DIOTREPHES
It was through pride that Satan fell. It leads the procession of the things God hates (Pro 6:16 f). Fellowship within the sacred fold of the church itself cannot prevail where the poison ivy of pride is enthroned. The spirit of Diotrephes not only rejected the authority of an apostle, arrogantly turned away the Lord’s missionaries from his gates, and slandered the apostle who sat next to Jesus and leaned upon his breast; but it in time placed a Diotrephes in the saddle of authority in every urban community on earth (in the rise of metropolitan bishops), and at last repudiated the word of all the apostles, making a man to be the head on earth of the universal church! Yes indeed, as Paul put it, “the mystery of iniquity” was already at work; and this little gem of a letter gives a close-up of the very tap root of the spirit of Lucifer.
[24] John R. W. Stott, op. cit., p. 225.
[25] Amos N. Wilder, op. cit., p. 311.
[26] John R. W. Stott, op. cit., p. 227.
[27] Robert Law, International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (Chicago: Howard-Severance Company, 1915), p. 1719.
[28] W. Jones, The Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 22,3John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), p. 11.
[29] Leon Morris, The New Bible Commentary, Revised (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), p. 1273.
who loveth: “who loveth the presidency,” or chief place, doubtless in the church, of which Diotrephes was most probably an officer; and being one, magnified himself in his office: he loved such pre-eminence, and behaved haughtily in it. Mat 20:20-28, Mat 23:4-8, Mar 9:34, Mar 10:35-45, Luk 22:24-27, Rom 12:10, Phi 2:3-5, Tit 1:7-16
receiveth: 3Jo 1:8, Mat 10:40-42, Mar 9:37, Luk 9:48
Reciprocal: Num 16:10 – and seek Ezr 4:3 – Ye have nothing Pro 6:19 – that soweth Pro 13:10 – Only Mat 18:17 – tell Mat 20:26 – it Mat 23:6 – General Mat 24:49 – to smite Mar 12:38 – which Luk 9:46 – General Luk 9:49 – we saw Luk 11:43 – for Luk 12:45 – to beat Luk 14:7 – they Luk 20:46 – which Luk 22:26 – General Joh 9:34 – And they Act 8:19 – General Rom 12:3 – not to Rom 12:16 – Mind 1Pe 5:3 – as
3Jn 1:9. I wrote unto the church means the church of which Gaius was a member. This is indicated by some following statements in the book. John insists that he will come to the place to which he wrote the letter referred to, and at the same time trusts to see Gaius face to face. The fact that John wrote unto the church but that Diotrephes ignored the letter, indicates that the epistle was sent to this man as an elder of the congregation. That would be usual to send an official document to the officers, or at least in their care, as we read that Paul addressed his epistle to the church at Philippi to “the bishops and deacons” (Php 1:1). The epistle had something to do with John’s proposed visit to the church, since he declares or implies that he is going to make the journey notwithstanding the opposition of. Diotrephes. This may raise a question in the mind of the reader whether it is right to visit a congregation against the authority of an elder. It is proper for an apostle to do so, for they were in the church before the elders. (See 1Co 12:28 where “governments” stands for the eldership.) Loveth to have the preeminence. This thirst for power among the elders is what resulted in the great falling away and development of the Church of Rome. Paul said in 2Th 2:7 that the mystery of this iniquity was already at work when he was writing, and he evidently was referring to such characters as Diotrephes. (See “General remarks at 2 Thessalonians 2 )
3Jn 1:9. I wrote somewhat to the church: not meaning either important or unimportant, but touching the maintenance of the evangelists; this communication, probably intercepted by Diotrephes, is lost or superseded by the present Epistle.
But Diotrephes, who loveth to have the pre-eminence among them, the members of the church, receiveth us not: we know nothing about this man but what is contained in this graphic sketch of him. The evangelists had reported to St. John that neither his authority nor his letter was honoured by Diotrephes; that he rejected both, and spoke against the apostle publicly in a church which was almost entirely under his influence, being opposed by Demetrius and his selecter company, and Gaius keeping aloof probably through sickness.
Observe here, 1. The pious care which St. John took for the relief and succour of such faithful Christians as now travelled amongst them, both to avoid persecutation, and to preach the gospel; he wrote to the church on their behalf, desiring their reception, and advising their relief; I wrote to the church, that is, I wrote for them, and sent my testimonial to the church on their behalf; every one has a pen to plead for himself, happy he that has both tongue and pen to intercede for others.
Observe, 2. The opposition which St. John met with in so good a work; Diotrephes, a proud man, regarded not his letters, acknowledged not his authority, yea, slighted the apostle, prating against him with malicious words: the holiest men may meet with opposition in the holiest and best of actions, wherein the glory of God and the public good are most concerned. I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes received us not.
Observe, 3. The holy apostle’s resentment of this indignity, and wise resolution thereupon: When I come, I will remember his deeds: that is, I will sharply rebuke him, and use that severity towards him which his crime deserves, according to the authority which God has given me.
Learn hence, That though private offences against Christ’s ministers must be forgiven and forgotten by them, yet when an offence is prejudicial to the church, it must be opposed, and openly censured.
Diotrephes
Diotrephes was a man that liked to be in first position. So, when a letter came from John, perhaps carried by the missionaries just discussed, he suppressed the letter and refused to allow the preachers to come in and be with the saints. He falsely accused John with evil words. He refused the traveling preachers and forbad others to receive them. Anyone who helped them, he cast out of the church. John said he would deal with the matter when he came. John urged Gaius to imitate good works because evil workers like Diotrephes did not really know God. ( 3Jn 1:9-11 ).
3Jn 1:9-11. I wrote Or have written; to the church Probably that to which they came; but Diotrephes &c. As if he had said, But I fear lest my letter should not produce the desired effect; for Diotrephes, perhaps the pastor of it, who loveth to have the pre-eminence among them To govern all things according to his own will; receiveth us not Neither them nor me; or, does not acknowledge my authority as an apostle of Christ. So did the mystery of iniquity already begin to work! As six or seven MSS. read here, , a reading which is followed by the Vulgate, the Syriac, and the Coptic versions, Macknight, supposing it to be the genuine reading, renders the clause, I would have written; remarking, that the letters which the apostles wrote to the churches, were all sent to the bishops and elders in those churches, to be by them read to the people in their public assemblies. So that if Diotrephes was a bishop or elder of the church to which St. John would have written, the apostle might suspect that that imperious, arrogant man, would have suppressed his letter; consequently, to have written to a church of which he had usurped the sole government, would have answered no good purpose. Wherefore, if I come As I hope I quickly shall; I will remember Or, as more properly signifies, I will bring to remembrance; his deeds which he practiseth, prating against us Both them and me; with malicious words As if I were not an apostle, but had assumed that office. In thus speaking, the writer of this epistle showed himself to be Diotrephess superior. It is therefore highly probable that the writer of it was not the person called by the ancients John the presbyter, but John the apostle. Heuman and Lardner are of opinion the apostle only meant that he would put Diotrephes in mind of his evil deeds, and endeavour to persuade him to repent of them by mild admonitions. But there is no occasion to give a mild sense to the apostles words: for, allowing that John threatened to punish Diotrephes for his insolence, in prating against him with malicious words, and for his uncharitableness in refusing to entertain and assist the brethren and the strangers, his threatenings did not proceed from resentment, but from zeal for the interests of religion, in which he is to be commended; because, as Whitby remarks on this verse, private offences against ourselves must be forgiven and forgotten; but when the offence is an impediment to the faith, and very prejudicial to the church, it is to be opposed and publicly reproved. Macknight. Neither doth he himself receive the brethren Though he knows they come from us; and forbiddeth them that would Receive them, to do it; and casteth them Who entertain them contrary to his orders; out of the church. But as for thee, beloved, follow Or imitate; not that which is evil In Diotrephes, or any one; but that which thou seest to be good in those with whom thou art acquainted; that is, behold such a conduct as that of Diotrephes with a just abhorrence, and act according to that model of humility and condescension which you have seen in others. He that doeth good From a proper principle, namely, from love to God, in obedience to his will, and with a view to his glory; is of God He knows God, and, as one of his people, imitates him; but he that doeth evil That harbours unkind tempers in his heart, and acts in an unfriendly manner toward the servants of Christ, in their wants and necessities, whatever high notions he may entertain of himself, hath not seen or known God But is evidently ignorant of his perfections and of his will, and even an enemy to him.
ARGUMENT 16
ECCLESIASTICAL TYRANNY
9. The Holy Ghost is the only legitimate Ruler of Gods Church. Of course He uses such human instrumentalities as He can manage in harmony with the will of God. When unspiritual men get control they soon turn it over to Satan. Diotrephes is an example of ecclesiastical tyranny, which in the fallen Church always becomes the normal procedure.
10. The Holy Ghost ruled the Church through John and other holy people. The carnal administration of Diotrephes has characterized the worldly church in all ages, casting out and often killing the good and promoting the unspiritual, filling the world with ecclesiastical leprosy, developing in atrocious expulsions and decapitations of Gods most efficient preachers and truest saints. Lift up your head, turn whithersoever you will, behold Diotrephes in all denominations, refusing to receive the brethren, prohibiting them that want to receive them, and casting the brethren out of the church.
11, 12. We are to do right regardless of all the persecutions Diotrephes and Satan can inflict on us. Demetrius is commended as a true saint in contrast with Diotrephes, the tyrant.
13-15. The apostle and patriarch sends friendly greeting to all his friends, with the hope of meeting them.
3Jn 1:9-11. Diotrephes and his Evil Doings.This leading official in the church of which Gaius was a member is denounced because of his ambition, and his inhospitable treatment of the elder and his friends.
3Jn 1:9 a. See Introduction. Diotrephes: his name (nourished of Zeus) suggests heathen birth. He appears to have been the leading official of his church; beyond this nothing is known of him.
3Jn 1:10. casteth . . . church: i.e. expelled them from membership. This suggests that Diotrephes was a presiding elder, and therefore one who, by virtue of his office, ought himself to have entertained Johns missionaries.
Verse 9
Unto the church; to the church where Gaius resided.–Receiveth us not; did not regard the instructions which John had given; perhaps intercepted and suppressed the letter.
1:9 {2} I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.
(2) Ambition and covetousness, two pestilent sins (especially in those who have any church responsibilities) are condemned in Diotrephes.
Gaius’ good example stands out more clearly beside Diotrephes’ bad example. Diotrephes is a rare name and means "nourished by Zeus." [Note: Hiebert, 144:574:203.] John brought Diotrephes into the picture to clarify the responsibility of Gaius and all other readers of this epistle and to give instructions concerning this erring brother.
The letter to the church of which both Gaius and Diotrephes were a part is not extant, as far as we know, unless it is 1 or 2 John. "Them" refers to the believers in that church. John exposed Diotrephes’ motivation as pride. Diotrephes had put John down to exalt himself. John did not say or imply that Diotrephes held false doctrine. He only blamed his improper ambition (cf. Mat 20:27). [Note: Westcott, p. 240.] John never raised the subject of heresy in 3 John directly.
". . . a person like Diotrephes is guilty of usurping a position in the church that belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ alone! [cf. Col 1:18]" [Note: Zane C. Hodges, The Epistles . . ., p. 285.]
"The temptation to use a role in the Christian assembly as a means of self-gratification remains a real one that all servants of God need to resist." [Note: Idem, "3 John," p. 913. Cf. Wiersbe, 2:544.]
"Some forty years ago I wrote an article on Diotrephes for a denominaltional paper. The editor told me that twenty-five deacons stopped the paper to show their resentment against being personally attacked in the paper." [Note: Robertson, 6:263.]
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)