There once was a man in a church– a mean-spirited and unbridled supposedly leader named Diotrephes. His sick love for authority made him a church tyrant. He had this really sick obsession with authority which perhaps seemed to him as genuine concern for the church.
The old disciple John tells us that Diotrephes kept his position held by attacking good men with “malicious words.” Slander was his weapon against those who might threaten his position. By twisting words, or by circulating rumors, or by cunningly framed innuendos, he persuaded his followers against good and faithful brethren. I find it surprising to imagine how much greater harm Diotrephes might have done if he were living in the 21st century. He could have published a paper, blogged, made a nice PowerPoint presentation or had access to the Internet, or even a cellphone!
He appointed himself to authority and tried to deny fellowship to any who were not in his clique (III John 9-10), “only those who follow the hermeneutics and church government upheld by John McArthur can be in my clique!” It is reasonable to assume that he did this under the pretense of standing for the truth. We can imagine that he defended his circulation of “malicious words” against good men by saying he was “marking” them in order to keep the church pure! (Much evil has been perpetrated by just such a perversion of Romans 16:17.) He had drawn his own line of fellowship and dared any to cross it. Practically speaking, he had a list of men he approved and a list of those not approved. His admirers let him define the lines of fellowship.
Diotrephes “refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.” Those who received the ones he had “marked” were themselves “marked.” The only proof required was their kindness toward his enemies. No stronger evidence was needed than that they were guilty by association. After all, he might have reasoned, John himself had said that to receive such would be make one a “partaker of his evil deeds” (II John 11). (Again, it must be admitted that this is another text that has too often been used as little more than a convenient vehicle for self-promotion.)
While the apostle was guided by the Holy Spirit, we cannot imagine that Gaius, Demetrius or Diotrephes had any notion that these significant notes about them would be considered by millions of people for more than twenty centuries. We do not know whether they were buried with tombstones, or whether such tombstones might have had epitaphs etched upon them. If there were such monuments they no doubt have long since weathered away. But in this little epistle each has an eternal epitaph.
What reputations do men leave behind? How shall we be remembered in the short time that one, two, or maybe three generations will still think about us? More importantly, what will be remembered of our lives in the eternal record of heaven? “And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God…and the dead were judged . . . according to their works” (Rev. 20:12).
There are yet among us those who are as Diotrephes, leaders who regulate the brethren by presumption and intimidation, or who sway many by “good words and fair speeches” (Rom. 16:18). Some have an agenda to overthrow apostolic authority, just as did Diotrephes of old. These are the liberals who want to remake the church in the world’s image. Others use an exaggerated loyalty to the truth as an excuse for `prating against us with malicious words.’ These are the radicals, who find fault with anyone.
But thank God there are also many with the truth and love of a Gaius and with lovely reputations like Demetrius.
Confluent Thoughts 