[Music]
You’ll turn with me in your Bibles please to the third letter of John. John writes, ‘The Elder to the Beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth. Beloved, I pray that all may go well with you and that you may be in good health as it goes well with your soul. For I rejoiced greatly when the brothers came and testified to your truth, as indeed you are walking in the truth. I have no Greater Joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth.
Beloved, it is a faithful thing that you do in all your efforts for these brothers, strangers as they are, who testify to your love before the church. You will do well to send them on their journey in a manner worthy of God, for they have gone out for the sake of the name, accepting nothing from the Gentiles. Therefore, we ought to support people like these, that we may be fellow workers for the truth.
I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church.
Beloved, do not imitate evil, but imitate good. Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God. Demetrius has received a good testimony from everyone and from the truth itself; we also add our testimony, and you know that our testimony is true.
I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink. I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face. Peace be to you. The friends greet you; greet the friends each by name. This is the word of the Lord. Thanks be to God.
Let us pray. Jesus, you have given us your word, words of comfort and encouragement as well as words of warning. Help us to hear them and receive them as you will. Open our hearts and our minds to understand them and to believe them. In your name and for your sake and your glory, we pray this. Amen.
So next we get to look at the not-so-positive side of Third John. After his encouragement and exhortation to Gaius concerning his personal support for certain Christian missionaries, John’s letter turns in an unexpected direction—at least in a direction which we might think is unexpected for John.
‘I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority.’ So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church.
If we presume that Gaius of Third John belongs to the elect lady, the congregation written to in Second John, and that that church was generally doing well, that they were being faithful and obedient to Christ Jesus and were thus deserving of John’s written praise; for him to suddenly switch subjects and talk about someone within that congregation being antagonistic, contrary, and divisive, and who was working to subvert John’s authority—then that sounds more like the relationship Paul had with some of his churches than how we tend to imagine John’s.
But really, we should not be all that surprised by it when we consider some of our own experiences with churches or denominations. Back in Second John, when he wrote, ‘I rejoice greatly to find some of your children walking in the truth,’ we need to recognize and remember that he was talking about some people in the church but not all. Many, maybe even most, but sadly not all of the church members were walking in truth and light and faithfulness to Christ.
Then he concluded that letter writing, ‘Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to come to you and talk face to face so that our joy may be complete.’ John had more that he wanted and needed to say, yet it was not something that he wanted to commit to paper and have read in isolation where it could be misunderstood or misinterpreted.
John wanted to have a face-to-face conversation in person where hopefully a reasonable dialogue could occur and where misunderstandings could be avoided. He wanted to do this because he was hopeful for their reconciliation, for the preservation of Christian unity in love so that their relationship would be fully restored and so that they would have the completeness of joy once again.
Some of us, we tend to engage in written or digital conversations, or at least we’ve seen examples of them on the Internet. So much context and meaning is lost from our communication when we don’t have the visual and verbal cues that come from talking together in person. Sarcasm never comes out properly in the printed word; most forms of sophisticated humor are utterly lost if you cannot hear a person’s tone of voice or see their posture.
Although John was not trying to be funny, he still did not want to have his words twisted or taken out of context by his expected opposition. So really, even though John had high praise for this congregation in Second John, and even though he had heard a good report about them, it was not a perfect church. It was a good church, maybe even a very good church, but it was not perfect.
But is any church perfect? No, of course not, unless that church is filled with perfectly perfect people. Instead, we know that every church is filled with imperfect wicked sinners who are being sanctified and perfected by the Holy Spirit, being conformed to the image of Christ and being transformed into saints. That was true about Christ’s ekklēsia during the first century, that was true about Christ’s ekklēsia during the 16th century and the Reformation, and it’s still true about his ekklēsia now in the 21st century.
And that is—or should be—a very encouraging reminder to myself and to other pastors. Too often, people called into ministry try to become people pleasers; however, no one can please everyone all of the time, and so they run themselves ragged trying to do so. Now, that does not mean that we do not or should not seek approval and affirmation from others. That does not mean that we do not or should not care about what other people think, nor does that mean that we ought to try and upset everyone all the time either.
Instead, as we first seek to please God and remain faithful and obedient to him, we should be glad, happy, and satisfied to please most people most of the time—and of course, the more people, the more often, the better.
So, reading that the Apostle John, the beloved disciple, had people who opposed him within the church and had people who were denying his authority and working against him is a comforting reminder to pastors like me because his example provides us with a much more realistic expectation of life in ministry. I mean, if even the Apostle John did not please everyone, what hope do I have?
But what was the problem or issue that they had against John? Here, Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. We see that the problem was not really a problem with John but with Diotrephes instead. John was not the problem; the real problem was the guy having a problem with John. Diotrephes wanted to be the guy in charge. He wanted to be the one with authority. He wanted to hold all of the power and be the primary influence within this ekklēsia.
That’s why he was talking wicked nonsense against John, speaking against him and his emissaries, and perhaps even John’s distant ekklēsia also. It seems clear that he had a spirit of jealousy and envy concerning John.
And while it is very easy for us to speculate about why he felt this way, we will never know the specifics in this life. But we could still have a good idea why. John was the last living Apostle, and he represented the first generation of Christian believers. By the time he was writing this, likely in the 80s or 90s, he would have been a very old man indeed.
During the first century, the average range of male life expectancy had a high in the 50s or 60s, and men who reached such an advanced age were statistical outliers. Yet John himself would have been at least over 70 years old by the time of this writing; therefore, accordingly, he was ancient by the standards of the day.
So since old man John had such great authority within the church, perhaps Diotrephes wanted the older generation to get out of the way and let the younger folks take charge—perhaps to get some new blood, new ideas, and new energy into the church. Perhaps Diotrephes did not agree with the more conservative traditional views and practices instituted and enforced by the apostles and the older generation.
Maybe he was railing against doing things the way we’ve always done them, and he wanted to institute modern changes or innovations, like changing the liturgy, changing the music, maybe adding hot tea as an option for coffee hour, or perhaps limiting who was allowed to become a member of the church.
Maybe he wanted to stop baptizing babies or reaffirm and return them to the old Covenant judaistic practices. Or perhaps, most likely, Diotrephes simply wanted to be the greatest in the kingdom—or perhaps just the greatest in his local church.
The point is, Diotrephes’ problem with John simply was not a problem with John but was a problem with Diotrephes. And while all the details that we lack invite our imaginations to fill in the gaps, we must be careful not to read things into the text which do not belong there. Instead, we must content ourselves by remembering that while scripture gives us everything that we need to know concerning God, salvation, and the rule of faith in Christ Jesus, it does not give us everything that we often want to know.
Now, during this period of church history, as the first two generations of Christian believers died off, continuing church governance became an issue of concern. We learn from the book of Acts and the following epistles that whenever churches were established, elders, presbyters, and spiritually mature believers were appointed to lead and guide each individual congregation. Then, through organic practice rather than intentional polity, individual churches began to look to other older or more well-established churches and to more experienced elders for guidance, counsel, and overall leadership.
This then led to the rise of the episcopacy, a system of church government led by an appointed episcopos—the Greek word which, when mediated through Latin, becomes ‘bishop,’ who is a specialized type of elder equivalent to a presbyter but was set apart within the church in the function of an overseer as an elder of elders.
Soon, the church had multiple regional bishops, like the bishop in Antioch who exerted church authority within the regions of Syria and Palestine or the bishop in Alexandria who exerted authority over Egyptian and some other churches in Africa, or the bishop of Smyrna who exerted influence over certain churches in the region of Asia.
These bishops were elders and pastors that were appointed out of particular churches and called into a new expanded ministry of pastoral oversight. Their original function and role have been understood to be the continuation of a worthy succession to the apostles’ ministry and their initial oversight of the wide church.
While these bishops were given authority over multiple congregations, they still considered themselves as being equal one to another and to other presbyters, with no one bishop claiming preeminence over any other person. Just as the apostles were all equally followers of Jesus, so too were episcopal and presbyter.
Thus, we may confidently presume that it was either because of the application of John’s authority and oversight or his own jealousy and covetous desire to claim such a position for himself as the reason for Diotrephes’ antagonism. Either reason can satisfactorily explain why Diotrephes showed such hostility towards these missionary friends of John in opposition or rejection of John’s authority and influence over him and the church, or as a means to reduce John’s influence and increase his own among the congregation.
That’s our reasonable presumption. But what else can we actually know about Diotrephes from scripture? He was a leader within the congregation. He may or may not have been the presbyter leader, but he is certainly a leader according to the weight of his influence. He was puffed up; he had a high opinion of himself and obviously considered himself to have a degree of priority since he likes to put himself first.
He opposed the elder John, the Apostle, as a vicious antagonist. He spoke wicked nonsense against the elder. This kind of nonsense was empty or unsubstantiated charges and demeaning gossip; the comparable charge today would be slander.
And worst of all, because from his demeanor and tone, John seems to be more apt to forgive Diotrephes for offenses against himself, his refusal to welcome the brothers was what upset John the most. He was refusing to welcome and provide for the apostles’ missional emissaries and their brothers. Not only was he himself refusing to help these Christian brothers in need, he was also stopping those who wanted to help them and putting them out of the church.
He was using his influence for evil instead of good; he was working against the mission of the church. He was actively opposing the kingdom of God, preferring to build up his own little fiefdom at Christ’s expense. This last offense, Diotrephes’ offenses against the missionaries, their work, and their potential supporters, was what had gotten John riled. This made him angry.
This is the issue which was prompting John to come for a visit, to set Diotrephes and the ekklēsia straight, and then put them all back upon the proper path through his loving discipline and firm correction.
Also, note that John here makes specific mention to Gaius of the fact that he’s already written something to the church. Whatever it was that he had written sounds as if it may have been intercepted or suppressed through the efforts of Diotrephes. That letter may have been Second John, or it may have been a completely unrelated letter. Regardless, whatever John had written and previously sent, he assumes that Gaius is unaware of what is going on in Diotrephes’ ekklēsia.
That’s why it’s now necessary for John to prepare and prompt Gaius for a possibly difficult encounter, which he could expect to happen sometime soon. John’s words imply that Gaius knows who Diotrephes is, but that he’s unaware of what is being said about John, what he’s doing to the missionaries, and what he’s doing to those people within the church that want to support the missionary.
So you see, this letter was likely sent as a warning to Gaius—a warning against Diotrephes because of what he may seek to do against Gaius for his faithful support of John and company, and not merely a word of commendation and encouragement; those positives were actually secondary.
Again, there’s a lot of room for speculation, and we cannot be certain about many of the details or the motivations of the people involved in this situation. But what is clear is that Diotrephes is a problem for John and the church, and that it was important for Gaius to know the truth about what was presently going on.
Next, John tells him, ‘Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God.’ See, this is John’s consequential instruction to Gaius. This is his real exhortation; these are his true words of encouragement because Gaius already knew what is evil and what is good, just as we know it from John’s teaching and from the Holy Spirit within him and from all that the whole scripture teaches us.
John wrote so that we may know who is from God and who belongs instead to the cosmos and to Satan. John is now expressly calling out Diotrephes within the context of this letter and basically naming him as an antichrist because of his behavior and activities—the evident and obvious negative fruits of his sinful, unrepentant spirit.
Remember, John wrote a lot about love. Agape Christian love was something he was very concerned about. But although John was always loving, that does not mean that John was always nice. He called it as he saw it, just like the Apostle Paul—a ball was a ball, and a strike was a strike, and three strikes you were out.
So John was calling Diotrephes out. That’s why we’re so confident that Gaius was another church leader, either part of the same church or of a different one. John’s clearly telling him, as he tells us, to not imitate evil but imitate good, saying, ‘Do not be like Diotrephes, but instead be more like me, be more like Jesus and those who obey him and his commandments. Be more like those who walk in the Light of Christ.’
So who do we—and who do you—imitate in life and in faith? John has already spent a lot of time explaining to us how we can tell the difference between people who are from God and those who have not seen God. We can tell the difference by recognizing their fruits—the things that they say and, even more importantly, the things that they do.
Anyone can say anything they like, but what they do is what proves what they actually believe. The Apostle Paul wrote, ‘If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.’
So anybody can say that they love Jesus, that they believe in him, and that they trust in him alone. But sometimes, words are just words—mere vapor. Yes, saying that you believe is step number one, but to get to step number two, you have to actually be doing it. If you believe it, Jesus said, ‘If you love me, you will keep my commandments.’
So the people who love the Lord Jesus will obey him. They will follow his commandments and imitate him because he alone is good. Now, although no one is perfect like Jesus and everyone disobeys his commandments, we also know that everyone who confesses their sins and repents will be forgiven.
Therefore, we have to be intentionally repentant and actively trying to not sin. We must choose to not sin ourselves, and we must intentionally keep ourselves separate from those who choose to revel in their sinfulness. We must not encourage or support sin either.
Whether or not the world calls it legal, murder is still murder even when it’s called something else or legalized. Changing the name of something—changing any claimed identity—can never change the substance or reality of the thing. William Shakespeare was right; absolutely correct—a rose by any other name would still be a rose.
But even though we Christians still do sin, the difference is we repent of it. We try to stop sinning, relying upon the Holy Spirit for help in putting our sin to death within us. We do not willfully and belligerently choose to engage in sinful activity, nor do we support, endorse, or vote for those who do. Because in so doing, they take part in his wicked works.
Just as when we support people engaged in the furtherance of the kingdom of God, we become fellow workers for the truth. See, we are all judged not by our own actions alone but also by the actions of those we support and aid—those whom we’ve given permission and charge to represent us and our desires. As it is said, elections have consequences. Are you prepared for them?
So once again, who do you imitate for your life and your faith? Do you imitate godly individuals working to advance Christ’s kingdom by sharing the gospel and thankfully performing good works of agape as a way to share God’s holy love? Or do you imitate worldly individuals—antichrists—those people who love and belong to the cosmos and who do things which are pleasing to their satanic father?
Beloved, truly I hope and pray that you know the difference and that you daily choose the godly good over the evil. Then John offers Gaius yet another example, a positive alternative to Diotrephes named Demetrius. ‘Demetrius has received a good testimony from everyone and from the truth itself; we also add our testimony, and you know that our testimony is true.’
Like Diotrephes, we know really very little about Demetrius—who he is or where he is. But by the way he’s being introduced here, he’s being offered as a counterexample to Diotrephes. He’s likely a traveling missionary, like those men whom Gaius has already been supporting, and he’s very probably someone that has already been rejected and turned away by Diotrephes.
He’s likely actually the bearer of this letter because it now shows itself as having the characteristics of a letter of introduction—a letter of reference from the Apostle John to Gaius concerning Demetrius. John offers the commendation of everyone—likely those who belong to John’s church and other known ministry partners.
John offers the commendation of the truth itself, meaning the evidence of Demetrius’s spiritual fruit, meaning that his words and his actions will testify to his belonging to Christ. And lastly, John offers his own personal commendation; he offers his own qualified, trustworthy, and respected opinion, anticipating that, even if according to nothing else, Gaius will surely receive Demetrius based upon John’s encouragement.
Then John concludes this letter as he did Second John: ‘I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink. I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face.’ See, he does anticipate traveling and coming to visit Gaius once again. And once again he is limiting his words to avoid any confusion, whether intentional or mistakenly, and to promote the clarity which is best found in personal interaction.
Finally, the words of this letter’s closing are rather unique in scripture: ‘Peace be to you; the friends greet you. Greet the friends each by name.’ Now, the benedictory wishing of peace to his reader is ordinary and expected, while this language of ‘friend’ seems rather unusual. Yet it is not, and this is the final point John is making concerning the imitation of good.
The word we translate here as ‘friend’ is the Greek word ‘philos,’ which is related to one of the Greek words for love. ‘Philos’—remember that agape is a self-sacrificial, unrequited love for another person? Well, ‘philos’ is the love that we have for a brother or a sister or a friend. And ‘philos’ love is best expressed through agape.
To be loved by God and to love God in return is to be friends with God. John’s naming of these as friends is a more dear and great expression of love as calling them ‘beloved.’ The words are partly synonymous, but they’re also intensifying as well, because everyone who claims the name of Jesus Christ—we are brothers and sisters united together in him.
While we all love our many brothers and sisters in life and in faith, we do not always like them. We do not choose our family, but we are obligated to love them. So since we do get to choose whom we call friend, our love for them is a greater kind of love because we choose to love them. Loving a friend is similar to the love found in adoption—a love of choice. It is a willful and a wantful love instead of the love of obligation.
This then is the beauty of gospel love. God chose us to become his children through adoption—not by generation or creation. We’re all God’s creations, and he loves everyone as such; this is true. But only some have been called out to be the sons and daughters of God who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Therefore, since God has chosen to love us, even though we are all unlovable, he has demonstrated his love for us by giving us the great gift of his Son, Jesus. Because while we were still sinners, Christ died for us—the greatest act of love ever shown. God’s great gift of agape for his philos.
Naming someone brother or sister is one of the greatest expressions of respect and depth of relationship that a person can do, but it is greater still to name them as friend. This is why it’s such a blessing to have a sibling, a cousin, or a spouse whom you love by ‘storge’ and agape, but whom you also love as a friend too.
John told Gaius—and us—to imitate good by loving one another in this way, through our selfless and self-sacrificing acts of love for strangers and neighbors alike, through our support of missionaries and other gospel workers in their ministry, and through our greater love for all of our fellow Christian brothers and sisters as friends.
We therefore imitate the greatest of goods: Jesus Christ. ‘You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing. But I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.’
At the end of his earthly ministry, Jesus named the disciples as his friends, and so we are too if we do as he commands and love as he loves.
So imitate good and do not imitate evil. Do not be like the Diotrephes of this world, but instead be more like the Gaiuses, the Demetriuses, and the Johns. Be more like Jesus. Imitate Jesus, and his Holy Spirit will continue to work in you and conform you to his likeness. Imitate Jesus until you are truly like him. Imitate Jesus now so that you’ll be ready when his kingdom comes.
Beloved, my brothers and sisters in Christ, my friends, imitate the good, because everyone who does good is from God. You are the church, the ekklēsia, called out by the Lord for this purpose: to love, to agape, because you are loved. Therefore, imitate Christ and go share his love, his agape, with everyone. Amen.