BLOG

Letters from John, part 4 (final)

This final section of 3 John gives us one of the clearest windows into early church leadership conflict. It contrasts two men — Diotrephes and Demetrius — and closes with pastoral warmth.

Diotrephes

3 John 9, 10 says,

⁹ I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. ¹⁰ For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church.

It appears that Diotrephes was the pastor of the church in question. John does not accuse him of doctrinal heresy. His problem is pride, and the issue is ecclesiastical authority. He rejected and undermined John’s apostolic authority by spreading unjust accusations, he refused to receive the brethren (presumably John’s envoys), and he expelled those who did receive them.

It appears that John had sent representatives to try to resolve the dispute according to Jesus’ instructions in Matthew 18:15, 16. These efforts had been unsuccessful. Worse yet, Diotrephes had expelled those members of the church who had wanted to be hospitable to John’s envoys. Prominent among these was Gaius, who was commended for his faithful hospitality (verse 1).

It appears that this dispute had resulted in a complete split in the church. Diotrephes and Gaius each led a different congregation in their homes. So John wrote this short letter to Gaius, rather than to Diotrephes.

The Korah Rebellion

The situation sounds very similar to the Korah rebellion in the days of Moses. Numbers 16:1-3 tells us,

¹ Now Korah the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, with Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, too action, ² and they rose up before Moses, together with some of the sons of Israel, two hundred and fifty leaders of the congregation, chosen in the assembly, men of renown. ³ They assembled together against Moses and Aaron, and said to them, “You have gone far enough, for all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is in their midst; so why do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?”

There are two main problems of authority. The first manifested itself in Exodus 20, when the people insisted that Moses should go up the Mount to hear the law and then to return and tell them what God said (Exodus 20:18-21). In doing so, they put too much responsibility upon Moses, because they were too afraid to hear God for themselves. Because faith comes by hearing (Romans 10:17), the people lacked faith in God. Their “faith,” such as it was, was placed in Moses, not in God. That caused a problem.

The second problem manifested in Numbers 16 with the Korah rebellion. Their argument was that Moses had taken too much responsibility upon himself, seeing that “all the congregation are holy, every one of them.” This was certainly true, but they applied that truth incorrectly by not recognizing the apostolic authority that God had given Moses and Aaron. They revolted against legitimate authority, refusing to believe the word of the Lord through them.

Hence, the Israelites had a dual problem. First, they conferred upon Moses the authority to hear God’s voice for themselves; and then they became jealous of him for hearing God’s voice and transmitting the law to them in written form (in Numbers 15). This is how the church in the wilderness split into two factions, providing the pattern that manifested again in John’s time.

First, they gave up their right to hear God, and then they went too far the other way by claiming a calling that was not theirs. So Moses said to Korah and his fellow Levites in Numbers 16:9, 10,

⁹ “Is it not enough for you that the God of Israel separated you from the rest of the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to Himself, to do the service of the tabernacle of the Lord, and to stand before the congregation to minister to them; ¹⁰ and that He has brought you near, Korah, and all your brothers, sons of Levi, with you? And are you seeking for the priesthood also?”

God then brought judgment upon these rebels for trying to usurp a calling that was not theirs. In my own experience, I have observed that this will surely put someone on Cursed Time. Why? Because it puts a man into a position of authority that makes him responsible to fulfill a calling that is not possible to fulfill. Yet he is made liable for such failure.

If this is what happened, then I suspect that divine judgment upon Korah and his supporters occurred 414 days after God called Aaron and his sons were consecrated to God (in Leviticus 9). I suspect that Korah coveted Aaron’s position as high priest, and that this heart condition was fully manifested in his open rebellion in Numbers 16.

Is this what John had in mind when he wrote his previous letter “to the chosen lady” in regard to the antichrist? Recall that he wrote in 2 John 9, “Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christi does not have God.” Compare this with Korah’s word to Moses: “You have gone far enough” (Numbers 16:3). Again, note Moses’ response: “Is it not enough for you… and are you seeking for the priesthood also?” (Numbers 16:9, 10).

I suggest that John derived his terminology from the story of the Korah rebellion and that this is the lesson to be drawn from it. I also wonder if perhaps John wrote these two short letters to the same church. Perhaps he wrote 2 John to “the chosen lady” (i.e., the church) to warn them against the spirit of antichrist which was attempting to go too far by usurping the authority of Christ and His apostle John. Perhaps he later wrote 3 John to Gaius who had been expelled from Diotrephes’ church. If so, it would explain John’s complaint that Diotrephes “loves to be first among them.” This was also Moses’ complaint against Korah.

3 John 11 counsels them,

¹¹ Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God.

It seems likely that John saw that Diotrephes had imitated Korah. John therefore counseled Gaius and his group to imitate “what is good,” that is, the positive examples of the men of faith, many of whom are listed in Hebrews 11. Yet John also set forth a positive example in their midst.

Demetrius

3 John 12 says,

¹² Demetrius has received a good testimony from everyone and from the truth itself; and we add our testimony, and you know that our testimony is true.

John did not need to remind Gaius of Demetrius’ example. They all knew what he did. Unfortunately, we today no longer know what he did, because John did not tell us. The only thing that is clear is that he remained loyal to God and to John himself. No doubt he was involved in whatever discussion may have occurred as per Matthew 18 and that he testified on behalf of John.

Closing Remarks

3 John 13, 14 says,

¹³ I had many things to write to you, but I am not willing to write them to you with pen and ink; ¹⁴ but I hope to see you shortly, and we will speak face to face.

This ending is similar to what we saw in the earlier letter (2 John 12). John expected to make the trip to counsel the loyal church and to encourage them “face to face,” (literally, “mouth to mouth”). 3 John 15 concludes,

¹⁵ Peace be to you. The friends greet you. Greet the friends by name.

There was peace (shalom) between John’s local church in Ephesus and Gaius’ church not too distant from Ephesus. As for Diotrephes’ church, John wrote in verse 10, “if I come, I will call attention to his deeds, which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words.” John intended to confront Diotrephes face to face, rather than deal with him through letters.

In summary, truth must govern leadership; authority brings accountability; hospitality reflects allegiance; and character reveals one’s vision of God.