Diotrephes Defended

“I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us. Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the church.” (3 John 9-10)

The apostle John wrote to Gaius concerning a leader of a local church, called Diotrephes. Apparently, Diotrephes, in exerting his control over his church, prohibited representatives from other churches from ministering to his congregation. Not only that, he also does not allow anyone else to provide hospitality to those representatives. He will ex-communicate anyone who did, by “putting them out of the church.”

It was a practice of the early church to send itinerant ministers as messengers of the apostles to the churches. For example, Titus was sent as Paul representative to the churches in Corinth and Crete. Considering the limitations of that era, the apostles cannot possibly be physically present to minister to all the churches at the same time. Hence, the need to send out representatives on behalf of them. Therefore, rejecting the representatives would mean directly rejecting the apostles themselves, who were God’s direct and special messengers.

It was also the practice of the early church to provide assistance and comfort to the itinerant ministers, because they cannot possibly survive on their own without the support of Christians elsewhere. Loving one another, especially by supporting fellow believers in their ministry, is the most basic practice of every born-again believer. Therefore, believers who refuse to provide hospitality to itinerant ministers who are in need of food and shelter are clearly not abiding in love – even disobedient. Diotrephes was clearly wrong at this point, because not only was he passive in receiving the apostles’ representatives. He actively prevented anyone who would help them. Diotrephes was the bad guy.

Let’s paint the same scenario in today’s context.

Back then, churches were not separated by denominations yet. Today, the universal church consists of many denominations. Back then, the ministry of apostles was imminent. Today, the direct ministry of apostles has ended. We have an equivalent of modern-day evangelists and missionaries who travel around, ministering to people in various places. Back then, the unity of Christians from different local churches can be accepted with relative simplicity. Today, the simple acceptance of Christians from different local churches is clouded with denominational differences.

Given the new complications of the modern church era, will a Diotrephes of today still be a clear-cut example of disobedience, loveless-ness, and selfish control?

Let’s say Diotrephes was alive today, and he behaved exactly the same way. Let’s explore the possibilities that may have prompted him to act in the similar manner. I can think of 3 things that could have possibly been running in his head:

Firstly, maybe he does not believe those who claim to be apostles, or take upon themselves the title of apostleship. Therefore, he is protecting his church from false modern-day apostles.

Secondly, maybe he does not agree with the teaching of the traveling ministers. In accordance with his personal stand, of course he will not allow that traveling minister to take the pulpit in his church. Naturally, he will warn his church members about the false teachings that are rampant among some highly acclaimed speakers of today. And advise his congregation to avoid such ministers if necessary.

Thirdly, maybe he believes in the exclusivity of his local church, the independence of his assembly from other denominations, and his church’s accountability towards the lordship of Christ alone, and no one else. Hence, he will have reservations against a traveling minister who may come and tell his church something that is totally different from the assembly’s teachings. He is not obligated to accept the minister into his church because he is not accountable to him. Or, he does not want the minister to start telling his church what to do, and lead some to believe so, because of his international recognition elsewhere.

Is that true of certain churches today? If Diotrephes’ were to do the same thing today, will his actions still be clearly wrong? Or will the lines of right and wrong be blurred, if the similar action is taken in a modern context?

Question of application: Let’s say a traveling minister, who deals with healing ministries and all those signs and wonders thingies, comes to town. Diotrephes is a leader of a church in that town. Diotrephes does not agree or believe in his ministry. Should he receive him in his church? Should he offer, or provide hospitality to him while he is conducting his 3-day revival meetings at the stadium?

Will Diotrephes still be a bad guy if he refuses such a minister?

Maybe it does not have to be such an extreme example. Here’s another question of application: Let’s say a Christian from a different denomination comes to town. He is a minister from an Anglican background. He believes in infant baptism, and Diotrephes doesn’t. But the Anglican guy is an excellent bible teacher. He goes around organizing seminars. He travels everywhere teaching, proving, and convincing people about the reliability of Scriptures and New Testament documents. Should Diotrephes allow him to do that for his church? Should Diotrephes let his church members welcome the Anglican guy into their homes if he is seeking a place to stay?

If you were Diotrepehes, what would you do for both occasions? That, my friend, is a better question.