3 John 1:10

Therefore, if I come, I will bring to remembrance his works which he doeth, prating against us with wicked words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and them that would he forbiddeth and casteth them out of the church.

If I come ... In 3 John 1:1:13, the apostle made this much more definite: "I hope shortly to see thee, and we shall speak face to face."

I will bring to remembrance ... Wilder supposed that, "at the same time (John) will refute his empty charges";[30] but it is a mistake to understand it in this way. What John evidently intended to do was to bring the words and conduct of Diotrephes "to remembrance, not of himself, but of the whole church, exposing his wicked conduct that it might receive the censure to which it was entitled. Nothing that Diotrephes had said concerning the blessed apostle required any refutation.

His works which he doeth ... wicked words ... It is interesting that "words" here are equated with "works." Words are indeed works, wicked words being works of Satan, and righteous words being a "work of faith." Since it is supposed that Gaius was a member of the same church as Diotrephes, or at least a resident of the same area, some have wondered why it was necessary for John to elaborate the works of Diotrephes, thinking that perhaps Gaius would have known about them already. Orr explained as follows:

The objection would be valid only if this were purely a private letter; but there are no purely private letters in the New Testament. This letter is a formal indictment of Diotrephes, as well as a testimonial for Gaius and Demetrius.[31]

Them that would he forbiddeth and casteth out ... These words clearly indicate an action called in later times "excommunication"; but the manner of Diotrephes' doing this is not suggested. It is not known if he was "an elder" who had induced the group to take such action, or if he here merely "arrogated to himself an authority which later became legal for local bishops."[32]

Roberts also noted in this context that:

The Greek makes it plain that it was the members of the church who wanted to practice this virtue (of receiving the missionaries into their homes and supporting them) who were put out of the church (by Diotrephes)[33]

This clearly indicates Diotrephes' action as being a vicious secondary boycott of every Christian who would not receive and honor his dictum that the missionaries should be turned away. He not only disfellowshiped and rejected the missionaries, he went far beyond this and disfellowshiped (even to the extent of denying them membership in the body of Christ) everyone who would not follow his lead in this matter. As noted above, it is not clear just how Diotrephes was able to do this. Dummelow explained it thus:

He could have been "the head of the church" to which Gaius belonged; but it may be that he had sufficient social influence to exclude the brethren from the Christian society of the place.[34]

However, Diotrephes might have accomplished his evil design, he had utterly no right to any such authority; and the granting of it at a later period of church history to "bishops" was likewise sinful, anti-Christian, and diabolical. Not even an entire eldership could have been justified in the brutal enforcement of a secondary boycott of their fellow-Christians because their judgment had not been honored in such a case. It is a hopeless blindness indeed that fails to discern the heinous nature of the sin of Diotrephes.

[30] Amos N. Wilder, op. cit., p. 311.

[31] R. W. Orr, op. cit., p. 624.

[32] Amos N. Wilder, op. cit., p. 312.

[33] J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 178.

[34] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 1263.