I wrote something to the assembly; but Diotrephes, who loves to have the first place among them, receives us not.
John has been praising Gaius. Now he turns to trouble in the church itself. A man named Diotrephes had put himself between the apostle and the assembly. Two questions follow: what became of John's letter, and why would a man refuse an apostle?
John mentions a letter to the church, yet no such letter is in the Bible. Why not?
There is no difficulty then in understanding why we have not the letter that John wrote. It seems that Diotrephes showed his bad spirit by keeping this letter from the church, and that this was how he did not receive the apostle.
One Greek word describes Diotrephes. It has a striking counterpart elsewhere in Scripture:
The Holy Spirit describes this Diotrephes with one word — Philoproteuon. It means Lover of the pre-eminence, or Lover of the first place. Like the word that tells of the pre-eminence of Christ, the Spirit of Truth uses it only this once. This man, and everyone of his type, set his heart on the place that belongs to our Lord Jesus Christ alone. He is a solemn warning to anyone who seeks personal control in the assembly, whatever the stated motive.
Scripture never tells us the reasons Diotrephes gave for his stand. It tells us something more useful:
We are not told why he took so strong a stand. He set himself against these brothers who came as strangers, against others who received them, and even against John himself. It may have been the rise of clericalism, or too much zeal for imagined points of teaching or procedure, or something of that sort. But we do know what lay underneath his high-handed ways. What was really the matter with the man? He loved to have the pre-eminence among the saints. That great and important "I" was to the fore. He was out to establish a dominating position for himself.
What did his refusal look like in practice? Older translations put "does not acknowledge our authority" as "receives us not":
The apostle had written not to Diotrephes, but to the assembly, to announce an intended visit; but John says of this usurper of authority, he "receives us not." The next verse tells us more. He talked against the apostle with malicious words. He pushed his tyranny further still: he would not receive the brothers himself, he forbade those who would, and he even put them out of the assembly. He held his place by lording it over the saints, as if they were his own possession. He asserted himself where all authority belongs to Christ, and where anyone who holds authority must use it only in His name.
One writer reads Diotrephes not as a lone troublemaker but as the pattern for a type:
Diotrephes is the example Scripture gives of the clerical class, in contrast to the ministry of Christ. There is no service, because there is no love. He represents the spirit that opposes the free action of the Holy Spirit. It sets itself even against apostolic authority, to gain or keep his own personal pre-eminence. Self-importance. Jealousy of those over us. Impatience with others just as truly called to serve. Scorn of the assembly, yet sometimes humouring the least worthy for its own ends. These are the marks of clericalism.
The same writer draws out the principle:
If you claim a title from Christ for yourself, you must uphold Christ's authority in another. Anyone who does this honestly and truly could never claim an exclusive title. This was precisely what Diotrephes did, and it is the distinctive point of the clerical system.
John had honoured the church. Now he could not trust it:
It is only here that the word "Church" appears in John's writings. And we find that he had honoured the Church in the place that belonged to her, by commending Demetrius and his companions in the ministry of the gospel to the hospitality and fellowship of the Church. But now he finds he can trust the Church no longer. He finds his relief instead in the personal, individual grace of this "beloved Gaius."
So what should the faithful man in that church do?
3 John is one of the most important letters on what an individual should do when things in the assembly are not in order, because some brother is taking a place that is not his. John did not say, "Gaius, you leave that assembly." Instead he commended him for doing what was right, and told him to keep doing it. And John, the last of the apostles, was going to come himself and face this man.
- The cause. The reasons he gave may have been teaching or procedure. What Scripture names is his love of the first place.
- The theft. The first place belongs to Christ alone; a man who takes it is disputing what is His.
- The blockade. Love of first place made him refuse the letter, refuse the brothers, and put out those who welcomed them.
- The principle. No one can claim a title from Christ for himself while denying Christ's authority in another.
- The remedy. John did not tell Gaius to leave. He told him to keep doing right, and he was coming himself to face the man.
For this reason, if I come, I will bring to remembrance his works which he does, babbling against us with wicked words; and not content with these, neither does he himself receive the brethren; and those who would he prevents, and casts [them] out of the assembly.
Third John names a man in one assembly who refused John's letter, turned away travelling preachers, and threw out anyone who welcomed them. John's answer is not a threat; he promises only to bring up those deeds when he comes.
The apostle does not spell out any punishment. One writer contrasts this restraint with Paul's handling of sin at Corinth:
It is worth noticing how John deals with the evil. About Diotrephes, he is content to say that if he comes, he will bring up what the man is doing. John had apostolic authority. Yet unlike Paul, he does not announce that he will use it and press church discipline (1 Cor. 5). In truth John's mission was of another kind. Still, when he was there, he would remember Diotrephes' evil deeds. He does not say how. But what he does say is enough to be a solemn warning for Diotrephes.
One writer looks closely at the word John uses:
I do not believe that 3 John 10 means "When I come I will show him what he has done." The word upomneso means instead: I will remember what he has done, or I will make him remember what he has done. It does not state exactly what the apostle planned to do once he had come.
The first charge is about words. Older translations render the phrase "prating against us with malicious words." The term points to empty chatter, not to reasoned objection:
If John should come, he would be present in apostolic power and would certainly bring the matter up. The word "prating" carries the idea of nonsensical talk. Diotrephes opposed John's position and tried to undermine it with baseless and spiteful slander. He clearly laid claim to church authority. He was more concerned about his own name than the Name to which the humble preachers had devoted themselves.
The tactic outlives the man, and it is at its ugliest among people who claim to care about truth:
We solemnly believe that this "prating against" the servants of the Lord "with malicious words" is a very sore evil today. To blacken a man's character because you cannot answer his arguments is a well-known trick in controversy. It is doubly despicable among people who have to contend for the truth.
Talk was only the start. He refused the travelling brothers, stopped others, and expelled them. One writer points out who he was shutting out:
In John's third letter, Diotrephes "cast out" the brothers. The people he treated this way were the best saints. He could only cast them out of the assembly where he had taken for himself the first place that belongs to Christ… Strikingly, the only mention of the assembly in John's writings comes with this evil Diotrephes-like conduct.
Verse 9 supplies the motive that verse 10 acts out: Diotrephes "likes to put himself first," which older translations render "loves to have the pre-eminence." Commentators see in this a whole system, not just one bad temper:
Diotrephes is the Scripture example of the clerical type, as distinct from the ministry of Christ. There is no service, because there is no love. He represents the spirit that opposes the free action of the Holy Spirit. It sets itself even against apostolic authority, to gain or keep its own personal pre-eminence. These are the marks of clericalism: self-importance, jealousy of those over us, impatience with others equally called to serve, scorn of the assembly, yet sometimes pleasing the least worthy for its own ends.
Few people defend such conduct in those terms. It usually arrives dressed as care for order:
Why did Diotrephes act in this way? His excuse was probably this: these travelling brothers were unauthorised men, and he was standing for what was orderly and official. But the words "who loves to have the pre-eminence" unmask the real motive behind his attitude and action. The work of these men was in some way a challenge to the place Diotrephes held, and loved to hold.
John records the case so that readers watch themselves, not only him:
We may well take warning from Diotrephes, for the flesh is in us, and by nature we are all self-important. If we do not judge it, it will lead us to ignore the Lord's glory completely, along with the good of His people and the advance of the truth. Blinded by vanity we have not judged, we can forget everything that suits a Christian. Then we act as people did long ago, in jealousy, giving way to malicious words and violent acts.
- Root. One appetite drives the whole verse — the love of the first place, named in verse 9. It sets itself against the free action of the Spirit to keep personal pre-eminence.
- Words. The appetite speaks first. The talk is empty and spiteful, aimed at a man it cannot answer with arguments.
- Deeds. Then it acts. It refuses the Lord's servants, stops others, and throws the best saints out of the assembly — the only assembly John's writings ever mention.
- Cover. It hides its motive. It claims to stand for order and proper authority.
- Answer. John names no penalty. He will simply bring up the deeds when he comes. That was warning enough for Diotrephes, and it is warning enough for us, since the same self-importance sits in every heart.
Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. He that does good is of God. He that does evil has not seen God.
John has just described Diotrephes — a man who loved the first place, refused the apostle, and threw out those who welcomed travelling workers. From that example he draws a short, tender rule for his friend Gaius, and two tests lie behind it: what a person does, and whether he has ever seen God.
John aims the warning at a real man's conduct, and at its pull on everyone watching.
"Beloved," as the solemn wording goes, "do not imitate what is evil but what is good." Diotrephes was clearly doing what was evil. Gaius must steer clear of copying it, for evil is infectious. Let him hold to the good.
Another writer weighs John's gentle tone, and why the warning was needed:
There is a beauty beyond words in this simple and tender appeal. And remember: when someone like Diotrephes has influence and position, the temptation to "imitate" what is evil in his conduct is great. So John warns believers not to be blind to the evil, whatever attractive company it keeps.
"Good" here means more than avoiding wrong. It takes its measure from what God Himself does.
We have seen the truth first, and then grace to the brethren and to others in general. If you do good, you are from God. It is not a question of mere evil; but "whoever does good is from God." It is the active service of love. God does not do evil — that is clear; but He does good.
John speaks in absolutes. What does "whoever does evil" mean for a believer who has failed?
John makes these very simple, absolute statements: "Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil [as a practice, as a way of life] has not seen God" (v. 11). This does not speak of the person who slips and falls at some time. Good is always of God, evil is never of God. We must obey the Lord regardless of what any human leader says.
Even so, John stops short of naming Diotrephes as the man described. Kelly keeps it open: "We cannot say that Diotrephes fully answered to this terrible description. But he gave serious ground for fearing it."
God is invisible. So how can anyone have seen Him? One writer points to the Son:
"Whoever does evil has not seen God." Notice those words — "SEEN GOD." How has anyone seen God? In the Son, who came down close to us in love beyond measure! In the eternal Son — in "the Son of the Father's love," named "The image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15). The invisible God is made visible in the Son. So He said, "I and the Father are one," and "Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father."
The other half of the verse steadies the reader. Kelly puts it this way: "How comforting is the other side! The one who does good is from God. To see God leaves its mark on your soul for ever. One cannot have seen God and be a doer of evil."
The evil John warns against wore the clothes of church order.
In him three things outweighed the grace, patience, meekness, and lowliness that should mark a servant of Christ: a cold, stern, hard official manner; a rigid devotion to church rules; and a kind of tyranny combined with fierce zeal... In his gentle style he writes: "Beloved, do not imitate what is evil [do not copy the high-handed, merciless, thoughtless ways of such a man] but what is good" (kind, profitable, helpful).
The verse sets a double duty: refuse and receive.
We are called to reject the evil and receive the good. We must strictly exclude from our fellowship all who do not bring the doctrine of Christ. We must faithfully include the believers and strangers who go out in His name bearing His testimony, depending on God and independent of the world... We must show the warmest sympathy, in a way "worthy of God," with those who are working to carry the word forward and to build up the saints in it.
- Imitation. The danger is not Diotrephes' sin but Gaius catching it. "Evil is infectious," and the pull is strongest when the wrongdoer holds influence and position.
- Good. Doing good is more than avoiding harm. It is "the active service of love" — what God Himself does, worked out as kindness that helps people.
- Source. Good has one origin. The person who does good "is from God," because good always comes from God and evil never does.
- Sight. We see God in the Son, "the image of the invisible God." A settled life of evil proves a person has never seen Him.
- Practice. The test lands in church life. Refuse high-handed ways that shut people out. Welcome those who go out for His name.
Demetrius has witness borne to him by all, and by the truth itself; and *we* also bear witness, and thou knowest that our witness is true.
After the sad account of Diotrephes, John turns to a man he can praise. Three witnesses stand behind Demetrius: all the saints, the truth itself, and the apostle. How can "the truth" bear witness to a man?
Older translations say "good report," which softens the wording. One writer explains the force of the verb, who "all" covers, and how little else we know:
First, he has "good report," better, "is testified to," or, "has witness borne to him" by all, not by all men, but by all the saints... We would have liked to know more about such a blameless servant, a man of such good name. But this is all we are told. Still, it is a singular honour to have such a record in the pages of the word of God.
A good report from everyone also tells us what Demetrius was not, and why the apostles could vouch for him:
He had three marks that every labouring servant may well covet. First, he had a "good report of all." Clearly, then, he was not a vain, self-important man looking for a prominent place. He was not a spiteful gossip either, always talking against others. If he had been, he would never have had a good report of all men... Lastly, because he walked in line with the example and teaching of the apostles, they also witnessed to his integrity and devotion.
The striking clause is the second one. Notice which way the testimony runs:
It is not that he bore witness to the truth, but that the truth bore witness to him. Demetrius was not the standard for testing the truth. The truth was the standard for testing Demetrius, and under that test he stood approved.
How can something impersonal testify? One explanation looks at the fruit left behind him:
He goes so far about the truth as to say that the truth itself bore witness to Demetrius. I suppose Demetrius had spread it. The truth was established and confirmed everywhere — at least where he had worked — and that was a testimony about him.
Other writers point to his life rather than his labours:
Demetrius embodied the truth he professed. His life resembled it and agreed with the truth. Gaius could therefore have confidence in Demetrius, a man honoured of God.
John does not stop at what others say. He adds his own witness, and that has a purpose for Gaius in an evil day:
The truth itself, as well as all, bore witness to Demetrius; and we also bear witness, and Gaius knew for himself that it was true... It seems the Spirit of God notices Demetrius for this reason: even in our evil day, we may look for others who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. So here, if we hear of one Diotrephes, there were two to praise: Gaius and Demetrius. And there were the faithful brothers too, though strangers, of whom Diotrephes had nothing good to say. The apostle would not have us too weighed down by the sense of evil or by evil-speakers. He would have our hearts encouraged in the truth and in love.
A name like this takes years, and it stands against the story just told:
Diotrephes was far removed from the spirit of the One he claimed to own as Master. In happy and vivid contrast to his sad and tragic story, we have Demetrius. He had a good report of all, and of the truth itself. The Elder was glad to give him this praise. He could only have won such a happy report by years of quiet, steady testimony and a modest walk among his brothers.
The same standard that gave Demetrius a good report will one day test every believer:
The truth gives us a standard of what is good that never fails. Examine the life of Demetrius in the light of the truth, and the truth itself gave a good report in his favour. The truth will examine all of us in the end, when we stand before the judgment seat of Christ. What is our report going to be? Good or bad?
- Tested. The truth is the standard. It measured Demetrius, and he came out approved — he did not measure the truth by himself.
- Testified. The verse's "good testimony" means others bore witness to him — all the saints, not just a friendly few.
- Embodied. Commentators differ on how the truth spoke for him. Some point to the truth he spread and settled; others to a life that matched what he taught.
- Confirmed. John adds his own witness. Gaius could welcome Demetrius with full confidence, even in a day of Diotrephes.
- Earned. Only years of quiet, steady faithfulness built such a name. That same truth will give every believer a report at the judgment seat of Christ.