Matthew Henry

9-10

As may sometimes be the case, we are shown the example of a minister who is far outdone by the private Christians around him. His name, alone, implies an unchristian spirit. He is spoken of as a prideful and ambitious man. He shows contempt for authority, as embodied in the apostles. His acts oppose true teaching. His words are malicious and empty. "Malice and ill-will in the heart will be apt to vent themselves by the lips. ...both are to be watched." He rejects the recommendations of the apostle, and those that carry them, for apostolic authority means little to the ambitious man. Differences in custom abound from church to church, and the pastor must consider what differences are tolerable. However, he is pastor, not dictator, and must not abuse his power. "But woe to those who cast out the brethren whom the Lord Christ will take into his own communion and kingdom!" No council or court is called to deal with this one, but rather, John promises to come and confront him with the truth before the Church. Such abuses of Christian authority ought always and quickly to be openly criticized by godly men.

 

 

Adam Clarke

9

Diotrephes was apparently an officer of the church to which Gaius belonged, at least a deacon, likely a bishop. But he loved and magnified his office more than God. There may not have been a preceding letter. John may have known already of Diotrephes reputation, and therefor sent the letter and its bearers directly to Gaius, knowing him to be faithful.

10

John promises to bear his authority if he is to come there. Perhaps Diotrephes was a Jewish convert who couldn't accept Gentiles, or one who tried to establish Jewish Law alongside the Gospel. Such issues would put him at odds with apostolic teaching, and lead to vocal rejection of it, and its teachers. With his position, he was able not only to speak against those he deemed unacceptable, but to punish those that disagreed with him, and tried to welcome them.

 

 

Barnes

9

While several later manuscripts and translations word this passage so as to indicate no prior letter, several arguments exist to suggest that there was one. A large number of the older Greek manuscripts do not word it so. The more obvious translation of (egrapsa [1125]) is "wrote", indicating an accomplished act. Finally, it is more likely that John would act this way in response to a prior rebuff, than to the mere rumor that such a letter might be rejected. Whether or not Diotrephes was a church officer cannot be ascertained. He may have been attempting to wield the power of an office he did not hold, or he may have been exercising authority beyond what was proper to his office. [I'd tend to think that what he could do indicated an office held.] Whatever the alleged grounds Diotrephes rejected John and friends on, the true issue was his desire to rule, and lord it over others. "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 prevent all the good which it would otherwise accomplish." It is doubtful that Diotrephes denied John's apostleship itself, but rather opposed his right to interfere in the church's affairs either generally, or in this particular instance.

10

Apparently, John expected to visit the church personally, soon. It is good and proper that John should come to remind the church of his authority, to show them the nature of the one they were allowing to control them, and to show them that such a one need not and ought not be tolerated in that position. If the reputation of his friends had been maligned, it is good and proper that he should come and set the record straight, restoring their good name to them. There is no room to suppose vindictiveness here, only the discipline of the Church. (1Co 5:3-5 - much as Paul disciplined those of the Corinthian church.) The word fluareoo properly means to run on without connection of thought. Given the ill will noted in the passage, it is clear that the problem was Diotrephes running on and on in talking against John, and undermining his influence. The words used were fitted to do injury. Worse than the bad words, he took action: rejecting those who disagreed with him, and persuading the church to do likewise. He refuses to show Christian hospitality to such brethren, and is a problem for those in the church who would show it (indicating that such did exist.) It is likely that the casting out spoken of is the casting of these visitors out of the church, and not those that welcomed them. So it's not an excommunicative act, but a censuring of the travelers. (Lk 6:22 - Blessed are those rejected for Christ's sake.)

 

 

Wycliffe

9

John's previous letter was not of great import to him, and had failed of its purpose at Gaius' church. Diotrephes is not accused of departing from sound doctrine, only of excess ambition. Perhaps he intended to make his church independent from that in Ephesus. His refusal to offer the requested hospitality was a thumbing of his nose at apostolic authority, a problem Paul also suffered on occasion.

10

The "if" of "if I come" doesn't imply doubt about his doing so [?], it's more a "when I come". At that point, he will speak to the issues with Diotrephes, who has been talking malicious nonsense. (1Ti 5:13 - the idle widows were gossips who spoke nonsense.) It seems apparent that Diotrephes had some degree of authority, for he was able to excommunicate.

 

 

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown

9

The something that John wrote to the church was not for the Church, else God would have preserved it. At any rate, it was written to the church Gaius attended. The assumption is that Diotrephes was a Judaizer, and thus opposed those missionaries that preached to the Gentiles. In not receiving these men, he was effectively rejecting John. (Mt 10:40 - to receive the apostles was to receive Christ, and God.)

10

John's remembering will include punishment for the silly talk which has been spread, and the unwillingness to properly welcome the missionaries. The fore-runners of Marcion held to a strongly Pauline view of the Gospel. It may well be that Diotrephes was of this camp, and therefor rejected John, whose views were seen as being in opposition to Paul. The missionaries - having been praised for not taking provision amongst the Gentiles - were likely Jews. The praise comes of their not abusing their right as others had. (2Co 11:22 - Paul notes his equality with other Jewish missionaries. Php 3:2-5 - He also warns against the Judaizers, who tried to put the Law back on Christianity. Php 3:9 - For righteousness comes of faith.)

 

 

New Thoughts (4/28/00)

Once again, we see the danger of an idea pushed to extremes. This was the root problem with Marcion's movement. It had taken Paul's teaching and, rather than balancing it with the rest of Scripture, stood it up by itself. Thus standing, it became subject to abuse, and lost its validity. This is a danger we must always watch for in our own walk, that we've pulled one truth out and raised it above all others. This is the road to falsehood. I am also properly chastened by Mr. Henry's words. Lord, get this heart right with You, for my tongue exposes its condition to me and all around me. I cannot live with such a vile organ within. It needs Your touch, Your correction. God, I long for the day when I don't need to guard my tongue so carefully, because the heart behind it has been purified. Speed the day, Lord, speed the day.