Who was Diotrephes in the Bible?

One in the church, otherwise unknown, who loved to have the pre-eminence: he refused to receive certain brethren, and excommunicated others. 3 John 9. Thus early was 'clericalism' manifested in the church.

(Vv. 9, 10). If in Gaius we have a beautiful example of a saint governed by the truth, in Diotrephes we have a solemn warning of the way in which the whole Christian life may be marred by the unjudged vanity of the flesh. There is no suggestion that Diotrephes was not a Christian. He evidently was a prominent brother in one assembly, and we may therefore conclude a gifted man, but all was spoilt by his love of pre-eminence. He was moved by the “vainglory” against which another apostle warns us, when he writes, “Let us not become vainglorious, provoking one another, envying one another” (Galatians 5:26, N.Tn.); and, again, he exhorts, “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory” (Philippians 2:3).

Moved by vanity, Diotrephes loved to have the first place in the assembly. This self-importance, as ever, made him jealous of others, and jealousy expressed itself in “malicious words”, and not content therewith, he proceeded to violent acts that led him, not only to refuse to receive the Lord's servants, but to cast out of the assembly those who would do so.

At the present time there is much in connection with “the mystery of lawlessness” which seriously disputes Christ’s pre-eminence. It is greatly significant that John, in connection with the one allusion to “the assembly” in his Gospel and Epistles, should single out a proud, place-loving ecclesiastic as usurping pre-eminence; and so, unwittingly perhaps, disputing Christ’s pre-eminence; and also as casting out of the assembly brethren whom Christ had received. Neither would he receive an apostolic communication nor apostolic witnesses; but spoke against these latter with wicked words. The Holy Spirit describes this Diotrephes with one word—Philoproteuon, meaning, Lover of the pre-eminence, or Lover of the first place. This word also, like the one which tells of the pre-eminence of Christ, is used but this once by the Spirit of Truth. This man, like those of whom he is a type, set his heart upon the place which belongs to our Lord Jesus Christ alone. He stands out as a solemn warning to any, who, whatever may be the ostensible motive, seek a personal control in the assembly. This Diotrephesian work is seen in casting out and not receiving the brethren. In the third letter of John, which speaks of it, the beloved Gaius is told, in contrast, to be characterized by following what is good, and by receiving the brethren. And especially those who go forth for Christ’s Name, and “those who would receive” the brethren, are mentioned commendably. In the apostle’s day these outcasts were in good company; and like the one who suffered from men of the same stamp (described in John 9), they cannot be deprived of the joy of worshipping in the blessed presence of the Son of God.

But the bright picture has its shade. "I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the pre-eminence among them, receiveth us not. 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."

We have another evil designated very clearly here. Diotrephes is the scriptural example of the clerical tribe, as contra-distinguished from the ministry of Christ. There is no service, because there is no love. He is the representative of the spirit which opposes the free action of the Holy Ghost, setting itself even against apostolic authority in order to gain or maintain his own individual pre-eminence. Self-importance, jealousy of those over us, impatience of others equally called to serve, scorn of the assembly, yet sometimes humouring the least worthy for its own ends — such are the characteristics of clericalism. I do not mean in clergymen only; for there are men of God incomparably better than their position tends to make them; as on the other hand this evil thing is nowhere so offensive as where the truth that is owned wholly condemns it.

If Diotrephes had been called to serve the Lord, of which there is little appearance, were there not hundreds and thousands not less truly called to the same work as servants of Christ by a title from Christ not less real than what he held himself? Was he not bound to respect the title of others? You cannot plead the title of Christ for yourself without maintaining the authority of Christ for another. He who does so honestly and truly could not possibly claim an exclusive title. This was precisely what Diotrephes did, and it is the distinctive point of the clerical system. It is not a question of ministry, nor even of what people call "stated ministry." Who doubts stated ministry? At the same time who can deny that God uses servants of His who are not stated? I believe that He maintains His own title in the church of God to raise a man up to say a word, and it may be an important word, who might not be called on to speak again, — only used for a particular purpose. God of old reserved such a right, and certainly He has not given it up now: no doubt there is a variety of ways in which He employs those who may not have any well defined place in the church of God. To abolish all these to a dead level for himself to lead and govern was the unchecked desire of Diotrephes. It is nothing more, if not less, than we often see now. Supposing persons have large gifts, the more can they afford to give the fullest scope to the lesser gifts; nor is there any surer sign of weakness in one's work than any unwillingness to accredit the work of others. He that values his own call on the Lord's part to serve Him is bound by all means to hold in His name the door open for every one that is called to labour. But so Diotrephes did not. Did he profess to desire only what edified most, and so set himself against lesser gifts? He dared to rise up against the apostle himself. The truth is, he cared for himself, and loved to have the pre-eminence. We have no reason to gather that he loved anything or anybody else. Such was the man who had ventured to oppose John; and, as we see, the apostle says he would remember him. The Lord did not forget it.

First, of Gaius we read that he enjoyed more prosperity of soul than of body; but, spite of physical infirmities, he walked in truth and charity, and thus caused great joy to the heart of the Apostle, who had, indeed, no greater joy than to hear that his “children (in the faith, no doubt) walked in truth.” But Gaius was a lover of hospitality; his charity was witnessed publicly. He maintained, in equipoise, the balance of truth and love—not love at the expense of truth, nor vice versa. He exemplified, in practice, the “better way” of 1 Corinthians 13. He was a fine specimen of an all-round Christian. No wonder that he gladdened the heart of the Apostle!

Second, Diotrephes comes before us, but in a deplorable contrast to Gaius. His sole object was self-exaltation; he loved to have pre-eminence (mark the word) in the church, refusing the Apostle himself and the brethren—the “strangers” referred to above, who “went forth for the sake of the name,” forbidding those to receive them who would do so, and casting them out of the church. This is that Diotrephes! In him, cold, stern, hard officialism; rank, rigid ecclesiasticism, and a kind of papal tyranny combined with the zeal of a Jehu, outweighed the grace, patience, meekness, and lowliness that should characterize a servant of Christ. For such an one the Apostle had no regard. He would remember his deeds. He turns quickly away from thinking of Diotrephes; and, in his gentle style, he writes: “Beloved, imitate not that which is evil (let not the high-handed, merciless, inconsiderate ways of such an one be copied), but that which is good” (kind, profitable, beneficent); for, notice, “He that does good is of God (let these words sink into our consciences), but he that does evil has not seen God.” So much for Diotrephes!

Third, Demetrius. What of him? He carried “a good report of all, and of the truth itself.” Happy Demetrius! Like the elders of Hebrew 11 his record was good. The truth had his name on its pages; the Apostle found pleasure in the very thought of him; he adorned the doctrines of Christ.

In verses 9 and 10 we find an exposure of the sad state of things in a certain church, which made it needful for the Apostle to write in this way. Nothing is said as to the locality of "the church" in question. It was elsewhere probably than where Gaius lived. Diotrephes was a prominent man in it, and very possibly Demetrius, mentioned in verse 12, was in it too. Diotrephes would by no means receive these brethren. He took a very strong line against them, forbidding others to receive them and even casting out of the church. Also he would receive no directions from the Apostle, seeking to overthrow the apostolic authority by malicious talk.

We now come to a name which still festers with disgrace. Down through the centuries this dark blot stands recorded against a man who loved to usurp Christ's place (See Col. 1:18). John had written some letter, not in the canon of the New Testament, which had provoked Diotrephes' pride. The apostles of old were, and their writings still are, the highest authority on earth in the assembly. When apostles wrote they expected obedience (2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Cor. 14:37). There was to be no apostolic succession. Diotrephes was evidently the thin end of the wedge. Monarchial bishops were functioning by AD 120 (See the article “The Rise of Clergy in Early Christianity” at page 117 of volume 1 of this magazine).

When these words were penned the first century was nearing its end. The apostle Paul had foretold how that men, speaking perverted things with the object of making themselves a centre of attraction, should arise from amongst the very elders of the church (see Acts 20:30). This had now come to pass and Diotrephes was evidently a man of this kind. The apostles, save John himself, had now disappeared and, in view of the defection visible amongst elders and leaders, the Spirit of God was raising up, energizing and thrusting forth into service others, who were possibly men of much smaller calibre, yet not to be despised on that account.

This is a bright picture presented in Gaius. Alas! there is another side in this Third Epistle. There was one by name of Diotrephes. His name means "Nourished of God." Of him John writes as follows: "I wrote unto the church, but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, received us not. 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 casteth them out of the church." We let another speak on this. "We have another evil designated very clearly here. Diotrephes is the scriptural example of the clerical tribe, as contra-distinguished from the ministry of Christ. There is no service, because there is no love. He is the representative of the spirit which opposes the free action of the Holy Spirit, setting itself even against apostolic authority in order to gain or maintain his own individual preeminence.

"Self-importance, jealousy of those over us, impatience of others equally called to serve, scorn of the assembly, yet sometimes humoring the least worthy for its own ends--such are the characteristics of clericalism. I do not mean in clergymen only; for there are men of God incomparably better than their position tends to make them; as on the other hand this evil thing is nowhere so offensive as where the truth that is owned, wholly condemns it" (William Kelly). Diotrephes wanted to be the leader of the assembly, a kind of a pope in embryo. He loved the preeminence and this self-love and seeking to maintain his position led him to act so outrageously that he excommunicated the brethren and dared to rise up against the apostle himself. What harm such jealousies, self-seeking, self-glorification and ecclesiastical bossism have worked and are working in the body of Christ! and nowhere so much as in circles where the full truth is known and confessed. But why did Diotrephes love to have the preeminence? Because, unlike the apostle and the beloved Gaius, he did not give the Lord Jesus Christ the preeminence in all things; he did not walk in the truth. When the Lord comes, before His judgment-seat, all these things will be brought to light and dealt with by Him.

John does not leave us with the sad picture of Diotrephes. "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." It is another one of the tests as we found them in the First Epistle. Doing good is the active service of love. God does not do evil, but He does good, hence if we do good as believers in truth, we are of God. Then he mentions Demetrius. Perhaps he was one of the servants who went about doing good, preaching the truth, and whom Diotrephes would not receive. How blessed that the Holy Spirit through John's letter endorses and recommends him. "Demetrius hath good report of all, and of the truth itself; yea, and we also bear record, and ye know that our record is true. " Such is the comfort of all true servants who walk in the truth, that the Lord knoweth. "I have many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee. But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face. Peace be to thee. Our friends salute thee. Greet the friends by name." Both Epistles end, with a coming face to face meeting. Let us remember there is to be some blessed day a "face to face" meeting, when the saints of God will meet together for eternal fellowship, but above all when we shall be face to face with Him. How soon it may be! But while we wait for that meeting may we walk in the light and in the fullest enjoyment of our fellowship with the Father and with His Son, our blessed Lord. To Him be glory and dominion for ever. Amen.

Yet here, alas, there was found opposition inside the Church itself, an opposition which was assuming a very decided and aggressive form. If it even were an apostle writing to the assembly, one so well known as John, there could be a Diotrephes loving to have the pre-eminence among the disciples, who would not receive it. It is not a question here, as before, of false doctrine on either side; but the flesh has abundance of excuses for having its own way. Diotrephes neither himself received the brethren, nor suffered those who wished to do so; nay, he cast them out of the assembly. How thoroughly the shadows of the future are here upon the present also! No doubt, the one in question had much to say with regard to this irregular work, as he would count it — not simply evangelizing, as it would seem, but which contemplated the help of the Lord's people also, which would, of course, tend to bring to an end the special assumptions of one who craved eminence in this way among them. Diotrephes very likely thought that his own ministry was all-sufficient, and that it was but itching ears that craved the teaching of others. There is nothing like the absolute freedom of ministry derived from God only, and which seeks not the sanction of men, for destroying all such rights of individuals over the assemblies of God. We may remember that Peter warns us of just such an evil as was exhibiting itself here, when he bids the elders not to be as those who exercised lordship over the flock, as if it were their own possession. The right of ministry is free to all, just as the power to minister carries with it the responsibility of ministering; but how easy it is to assume a sort of right with regard to those to whom, perhaps, we have long ministered, and who may be, more or less, even the fruit of this! Thus the Church of God has, in fact, got so much into separate companies; and with this of necessity arises the tendency to independent schools of thought, and partisanship for one rather than another, when God would minister by all to the need of all. It is of God, surely, that we should be permitted to see already, in even a somewhat extreme form, that which was to spread itself over the Christian Church so largely as it has done, depriving it of the nourishment which God has provided for it, and leading more and more to heresies which would be doctrinal also.