In 3John 1:9 the Elder mentions a man by the name of Diotrephes, and identifies him as a recognized authority figure in the local church where Gaius lived. Diotrephes seems to have been an elder of that church, and perhaps what we might call a pastor today. The Elder accused Diotrephes of loving to be the commander, or the first and in-charge person among the believers there. The Elder also wrote that he had written to the church where Gaius lived, but Diotrephes either wouldn’t read the letter to the congregation, or he did so and denounced its contents.
As an aside, some scholars believe the text should read: “I would have written to the church but…” Nevertheless, this seems to be merely an effort to avoid the idea that an Apostolic letter has been lost. No doubt, many such letters have been lost or were destroyed. We have what we have, and it is enough for anyone among us to make a choice for or against Christ. It is not a particular letter or book that’s important; rather, it is the message contained in the whole collection of books and letters that is essential to the faith.
So, what were Diotrephes’ motives (cp. 2John 1:7, 9-10)? First of all, the Lord mentioned that the desire to be first would be a common desire (Luke 9:46), which wouldn’t be necessarily wrong, for it is the motive behind the desire that makes the desire, itself, good or evil (Mark 9:33-35; cp. Luke 9:46-48). Jesus told his disciples that the gentiles used this common desire as a means to rule others by force, but this sort of authority wasn’t condoned by God for leadership in his Kingdom (Mark 10:42-45). Instead, leadership would be one recognized by example. A leader led, meaning he was first to get his hands into the work, and others followed by example, no threats or intimidation—leadership, pure and simple.
This wasn’t true of Diotrephes. He wanted to be first, a good, not an evil motive in itself, but he exercised that authority by intimidating those who came to him from the Elder. Not only did he turn them away, but anyone who helped them would have been cast out of the local church, over which autocratic leadership seems to be assumed.
In order to get an informed picture of what was taking place, one needs to understand why the Elder’s messengers went to Diotrephes in the first place, and why they may have needed letters of introduction. The meeting place for the church was modeled after the synagogue. The synagogue was usually a large place (larger than a home) and was used as a school during the week; it was a place for such things as banquets and even acted as a place for lodging for Jewish travelers, but in the context of John’s letter, the meeting place for the church in that community would have acted as place for lodging traveling Christians, often evangelists etc. Such a place was used by Jesus for his final meal with his disciples.[1]
An ancient inscription on a piece of limestone which was found in Jerusalem in 1913 has been dubbed: the Theodotus Inscription. The translation reads:
“Theodotus, son of Vettanos, a priest and an archisynagogos,[2] son of an archisynagogos grandson of an archisynagogos, built the synagogue for the reading of Torah and for teaching the commandments; furthermore, the hostel, and the rooms, and the water installation for lodging needy strangers. Its foundation stone was laid by his ancestors, the elders, and Simonides.”
So, Diotrephes’ not receiving those the Elder had sent with a letter of introduction meant turning them out into the streets with nowhere to stay for the night. If we consider the Elder’s second epistle, we might put Diotrephes among the antichrists, whom the Elect Lady needed to shun (cp 2John 1:7). However, in the case before us the church not only received such people, they were made elders in the church and the ruled the course the church would take. In the context of the Elder’s third epistle, it probably meant taking a dim view of evangelizing uncircumcised gentiles. We cannot overlook the fact that politics was often used against the work of Christ, even in the church, just as it does today. This policy was used against the work of Paul, which is why the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 convened, and why Paul had to write his epistle to the Galatians. There were many in the faith who either embraced the Law, as a means to be saved, or they were easily led to do so. Nevertheless, the doctrine of Christ, in which his disciples must abide, is what points to the real Savior of the world (cp. 2John 1:9). Diotrephes appears to have been one who embraced the Law and shunned the idea that Christ alone is Savior. Nevertheless, the Elder promised a showdown was coming, and he hoped it would be soon (3John 1:10).
As for Gaius, the Elder encouraged him to continue in his good works, for Diotrephes’ works should not be imitated. What is good comes from God, and he cannot be the source of what is not good for his children, whom he loves (3John 1:11; cp. 1John 3:14-18; 4:10). The Elder’s letter was probably taken to Gaius by Demetrius (3John 1:12), about whom we know nothing else. We can guess he was a traveling evangelist, sent out by the Elder, who would have been (or had been already on his first trip) rejected by Diotrephes. Gaius was encouraged to extend the hospitality of Christ to such a man and thereby partake in the work of the Lord (2John 1:10; cp. 1Samuel 25:13; 30:24).
__________________________________________________
[1] See my earlier study in the Gospel of Luke: The Upper Room.
Smoodock's Blog 