Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 3 John 1:9 - 1:10
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
3Jn_1:9-10. Notice of Diotrephes.
ἔγραψά τι τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ] The τι , which according to the authorities is probably genuine, does not serve, as Lücke rightly remarks, to intensify = “something important,” but rather to weaken = “something, a little.”
The reading: ἔγραψα ἄν (Vulg.: scripsissem forsitan), has originated in the idea that the apostle would not write an epistle, of the unsuccessfulness of which he was previously convinced. The Church to which the apostle wrote is not that from which the brethren (3Jn_1:7) went forth (Bengel, Besser), but that to which Caius belonged. The opinion that this writing is the so-called First Epistle of John (Wolf, Storr, etc.) is just as untenable as the view that it is the Second Epistle of John (Ewald, Besser, etc.), for the contents of these two have nothing in common with the circumstances which are here alluded to. This writing must, according to the context in which it is mentioned, have treated of the reception or support of the missionary brethren. If it was only such a short occasional writing, it is easily intelligible how it may have been lost; besides, however, it is natural to suppose that it was withheld from the Church by Diotrephes.
ἀλλʼ ὁ φιλοπρωτεύων αὐτῶν Διοτρεφὴς οὐκ ἐπιδέχεται ἡμᾶς ] In these words the apostle expresses the experience which he had had of Diotrephes. It may be assumed that the apostle wrote to the Church of Diotrephes in regard to the reception of the missionary brethren, and that the bearers of the Epistle reported to him the conduct of Diotrephes, which he now tells to Caius. As to the more particular circumstances of Diotrephes nothing further is known. From what John says about him, it cannot be inferred either that he was presbyter, or that he was deacon of the Church; yet the contrary conclusion cannot either be drawn. When Grotius represents him as an opponent of the Jewish-Christians, and others, on the contrary, regard him as a false teacher of Jewish or Gnostic views, these are unfounded conjectures; if either the one or the other were the case, John would certainly have indicated it. John only accuses him of one thing, namely, the φιλοπρωτεύειν , from which his unchristian conduct resulted. φιλοπρωτεύειν is a ἅπ . λεγ .; yet in the later Greek writers φιλόπρωτος and φιλοπρωτεία appear. The scholion in Matthiae rightly explains ὁ φιλοπρωτεύων by: ὁ ὑφαρπάζων τὰ πρωτεῖα ; he ambitiously arrogated to himself the highest authority in the Church, which made himself an opponent of the apostle. By what means he was able to obtain validity for this assumptian we do not know; perhaps by assembling the Church in his house.
αὐτοῦ refers to ἐκκλησίᾳ , as a collective idea.
οὐκ ἐπιδέχεσθαι ἡμᾶς ] ἐπιδέχεσθαι , in the N. T. only here and in 3Jn_1:10, means “to receive;” it is incorrect to change ἡμᾶς into “our epistles or exhortations” (Grotius, Lücke, de Wette, etc.). In the fact that Diotrephes rejected the communication of the apostle, and refused to receive the brethren recommended in it, he justly obtained rejection for himself (so also Braune). It is unnecessary, therefore, to ascribe to ἐπιδέχεσθαι here the modified meaning: “to accept, to let pass,” in which it appears in the classics. 3Jn_1:10. διὰ τοῦτο , ἐὰν ἔλθω , ὑπομνήσω κ . τ . λ .] Though, in the absence of John, Diotrephes resisted his authority, yet John hoped by his presence to obtain for it its due weight, and therefore he had resolved to come himself to that Church and personally to oppose the intrigues of Diotrephes.
With ὑπομνήσω , which is here used with the secondary signification of blame, it is not necessary to supply αὐτόν ; although Diotrephes is meant, yet John did not write αὐτόν , because he had in view at the same time all those who adhered to him (so Braune correctly); comp. 2Ti_2:14. In what the ἔργα of Diotrephes, to which the apostle intends the ὑπομιμνήσκειν to refer, consisted, the following participial clauses state.[22]
ΛΌΓΟς ΠΟΝΗΡΟῖς ΦΛΥΑΡῶΝ ἩΜᾶς ] ΦΛΥΑΡΕῖΝ (in the N. T. a ἍΠ . ΛΕΓ .; the adj. ΦΛΎΑΡΟς , 1Ti_5:13) = nugari; Oecumenius paraphrases it by ΛΟΙΔΟΡΕῖΝ , ΚΑΚΟΛΟΓΕῖΝ : this, however, does not express the idea of the chatter that sags nothing which is contained in φλυαρεῖν . The verb, in itself intransitive, is here construed with the accusative (as ΘΡΙΑΜΒΕΎΩ , Col_2:15; ΜΑΘΗΤΕΎΩ , Mat_28:19), thus: “he prates against us slanderously with wicked words.”
καὶ μὴ ἀρκούμενος ἐπὶ τούτοις ] Diotrephes did not content himself with ΦΛΥΑΡΕῖΝ against the apostle alone ( ἈΡΚΕῖΣΘΑΙ is only here used in construction with ἘΠΊ ; elsewhere the dative is found: Luk_3:14; Heb_13:5, and other passages); he injured the brethren also.
ΟὔΤΕ ΑὐΤῸς ἘΠΙΔΈΧΕΤΑΙ ΤΟῪς ἈΔΕΛΦΟῪς ΚΑῚ Κ . Τ . Λ .] With ΟὔΤΕ the following ΚΑΊ corresponds; ΑὐΤΌς is contrasted with ΤΟῪς ΒΟΥΛΟΜΈΝΟΥς .
There is no reason to take ἘΠΙΔΈΧΕΣΘΑΙ here in a different sense from that of 3Jn_1:9, although it takes a different bearing towards different persons, one way in regard to the apostle, another way in regard to the ἈΔΕΛΦΟΊ , who are here mentioned, and who are to be regarded as ΞΈΝΟΙ ; they are the same as were spoken of previously (3Jn_1:7, etc.).
With ΤΟῪς ΒΟΥΛΟΜΈΝΟΥς we are to understand ἘΠΙΔΈΧΕΣΘΑΙ ΑὐΤΟΎς (C reads just ἘΠΙΔΕΧΟΜΈΝΟΥς instead of ΒΟΥΛ .); there were therefore some persons in the Church who were ready to receive the strangers, in opposition to Diotrephes; but Diotrephes did not permit it, nay, he opposed them with all force.
ΚΑῚ ἘΚ Τῆς ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑς ἘΚΒΆΛΛΕΙ ] It is not ΤΟῪς ἈΔΕΛΦΟΎς , but ΤΟῪς ΒΟΥΛΟΜΈΝΟΥς that is the object.
ἘΚΒΆΛΛΕΙΝ ἘΚ Τῆς ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑς signifies expulsion from the Church, as the object is not ΤΟῪς ἈΔΕΛΦΟΎς , but ΤΟῪς ΒΟΥΛΟΜΈΝΟΥς ; the expression is arbitrarily weakened if we understand by it merely that “Diotrephes no longer admitted those who opposed him to the meetings of the Church which he held in his house” (Braune). The common opinion is, that Diotrephes had actually already expelled some persons from the Church, whether irregularly by means of faction, or with arrogant violence, or whether by intrigues he had brought about resolutions of the Church to that effect; but it is also possible that the apostle describes as an act of Diotrephes what he in his pride had threatened to do, so that the expression then is one of keen irony.
If arbitrary hypotheses are not admitted, we must regard as the cause of the behaviour of Diotrephes only his vanity—which showed itself in his ΦΙΛΟΠΡΩΤΕΎΕΙΝ . By the way in which a part of the Church (especially Caius) had interested itself in the strangers, and had been mentioned in John’s communications on the subject, Diotrephes, in his vanity, had probably felt offended, and this had excited his anger, which led him to the conduct which John rebukes in such simple but severe words.
[22] Ewald strangely overlooks the following words when, after translating the preceding words, he says: “But the author cannot dwell on this painful incident; he breaks off abruptly, to turn back to the good, exclaiming: Beloved!” etc.