Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary 3 John 1:10

"Therefore, if I come, I will bring to remembrance his works which he doeth, prating against us with wicked words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and them that would he forbiddeth and casteth [them] out of the church." — 3 John 1:10 (ASV)

The elder has commended Gaius for his faithfulness to the truth and for living his according to the truth. Does this indicate that John suspected Diotrephes of wavering in opposition to the false teachers in the area? Does the statement that he “will have nothing to do with us” and that he is “gossiping maliciously about us” and “refuses to welcome the brothers” indicate that he is not really committed to the commandment of love? If so, Diotrephes had as yet shown no theological deviation regarding the person of Christ. If he had, we can, in view of John’s other actions, be quite certain that he would have exposed Diotrephes and pronounced judgment on him. But quite apart from doctrinal deviation, the opposition of Diotrephes would have the effect of weakening the elder’s position in the community and making the work of the false teachers that much easier.

Another cause for the problem may have been that John expanded the activity of the missionary emissaries in order to stem the tide of false teaching flooding the area. The presence of these missionaries would have been an effective deterrent to schism and would have strengthened his hand in dealing with this threat to the Gospel. But those actions may have been resented by Diotrephes as eroding the local autonomy of the churches. The “malicious gossip” referred to may have been that the elder was using the presence of false teachers as a pretext for establishing his own authority more completely over the churches.

Exactly how Gaius fits into all this is unclear. Perhaps he was the leader of another local church in the area, close enough so that he can be considered a member of the same church but far enough away so that he did not know all that was going on. It is difficult to place Gaius in the same location as Diotrephes, for why would John be telling Gaius about what Diotrephes is doing when presumably Gaius would already know about it firsthand?

It is important to note that the elder does not object that Diotrephes has authority, but he does object to its misuse to the detriment of the truth. The real conflict is not, as some contend, between two types of church organization. It is between two levels of commitment to the work of God: Diotrephes is more interested in furthering his own position than in furthering the work of God.

Exactly how John intended to deal with Diotrephes is unclear. His statement that he “will call attention to what he [Diotrephes] is doing” suggests that John planned to confront Diotrephes, perhaps personally, and expose his conduct before the whole church, unless he completely repented. There seems to be an implication that Diotrephes’s misdeeds were not yet fully known to the congregation; and perhaps it was the elder’s hope that once they were revealed, the church would either censure or expel Diotrephes from his position.

How are we to explain the sharp words and drastic response on the part of the “apostle of love”? Do they not represent a contradiction to his teaching? More probably they represent the response of one who sensed that the very nature of the Gospel was threatened by such hypocritical conduct on the part of one of its ministers. Diotrephes’s actions against John were reprehensible by any standard; but they were even more so on the part of one who probably had been of the fellowship of the elders, who knew the message of love that had been received, and who had pledged to live a life according to the commandment given by the Son of God. For such a leader of the church to give way to personal pique and selfish ambition was unthinkable.

Furthermore, Diotrephes’s wickedness spread beyond the vicious innuendos and lies directed against John. It extended to those wholly innocent of wrongdoing. The missionary “brothers,” who ought to have benefited from Diotrephes as they served in the Gospel’s cause, were denied the welcome due them as members of the household of faith. Because they came from the elder, they suffered the consequences of guilt by association. Furthermore, Diotrephes actually cast out of his congregation those whose conscience required them to extend hospitality to the brethren.

Such contradiction to the Gospel by word and deed could not be condoned, and indeed it was not. It was no longer Diotrephes who was on trial for his action but John and all those who believed as he did. Silence on their part in the face of such total rejection of the truth and the life of the Gospel would have been as hypocritical as Diotrephes’s earlier action.

It was no pleasant experience that awaited the elder, but “truth” without “love” is no truth at all. Diotrephes was condemned not because he violated sound teaching regarding the person and nature of Jesus Christ but because his “life” was a contradiction to the truth of the Gospel.