1.04 - Gaius, Demetrius, Diotrephes
Chapter 4 Gaius, Demetrius, Diotrephes (3 John 1:1-4, 3 John 1:9-10, 3 John 1:12)
3 John full of, Personalities—Three Typical Characters of late Apostolic Times—The Gaiuses of the New Testament—Gaius of Pergamum—His Characterization—The name Demetrius—A Travelling Assistant of St John—His Visit to Gaius’ Church—The Triple Testimony to him—Diotrephes the Marplot—Significance of his Name—Nature of his Influence—His Insolence toward the Apostle—Indications of the State of the Johannine Churches.
―—―♦——— The Elder to Gaius, the beloved, whom I love in truth. Beloved, in all things I pray that thou mayest be prosperous and in health, even as thy soul prospereth. For I have been greatly gladdened as brethren came and testified to thy truth, according as thou walkest in truth. A greater joy (or grace) I have not than these tidings, that I may hear of my own children walking in the truth. ...
I have written somewhat to the Church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not receive us. On this account, if I come, I will call to remembrance the works that he doeth, with wicked words prating of us; and not contenting himself with this, he neither receives the brethren himself, and those wishful to do so he hinders and drives out of the Church. ... To Demetrius witness has been borne by all, and by the truth itself; and we bear witness besides, and thou knowest that our witness is true. —3 John 1:1-4, 3 John 1:9-10, 3 John 1:12
―—―♦——— THE Third Epistle of John is as distinctly personal as the Second is general and impersonal in its terms. The three names of Gaius, Diotrephes, Demetrius supply the topics of the letter, dividing its contents into three paragraphs, viz., 3 John 1:2-8; 3 John 1:9-10; 3 John 1:11-12. The personalities they represent are sharply distinguished and thrown into relief in these brief, pregnant lines: Gaius, a sincere and lovable disciple, with liberal means keeping open heart and open house for Christian travellers, and proving himself a “good steward of God’s manifold grace” under circumstances that severely taxed his generosity and tested his fidelity; Diotrephes, the ambitious Church officer, greedy of place and power, plying a clever, unscrupulous tongue, insolent toward authority above him and overbearing to those beneath him; Demetrius, the active, loyal, and justly popular minister and travelling assistant of the Apostle.
These three are typical characters of later Apostolic times. The first appears to have been a private member of the local Church. The second held, under some title or other, an office enabling him to exercise a preponderating influence in the same community. The third comes from the Apostle’s side; he belongs to that important body of agents employed in the primitive Church as “prophets,” “teachers,” or “evangelists,” who travelled from place to place, linking together the scattered Christian societies by their visits of edification land breaking ground for the Gospel in new districts, a body formed in the first instance of what one may call the headquarters’ staff and attaches of the Apostolic Chiefs. Gaius and Demetrius stand for the sound and staunch constituency of the Johannine Churches, which was found both in the laity and the ministry, amid the settled life of city communities and in the wider interplay of activity and mutual service that went on between limb and limb of the great body of Christ. Diotrephes represents the tares amidst Christ’s wheat; he is the prototype of the diseased self-importance, the local jealousies and false independence, that have so often destroyed the peace of Churches, making unity of action and a common discipline amongst them things so difficult to maintain.
1. GAIUS (Latin Caius) was a familiar personal name of this period. Originally a Latin praenomen (forename, like our Thomas or James), it spread with Roman influence in the East, being frequently given to slaves and freedmen. In Greek circles it therefore bore a somewhat plebeian stamp; but amongst the Romans it was occasionally used for their distinctive appellation by persons of eminence, as by the emperor Gaius (Caligula) in the first century and the famous lawyer Gaius in the second. Three other Gaiuses are known from the New Testament: Gaius of Corinth, whom St Paul baptized with his own hand (1 Corinthians 1:14), subsequently his host “and host of the whole church” (which means, we presume, that he entertained Christian travellers from all quarters: Romans 16:23) in that city; Gaius of Derbe, coupled with Timothy (of Lystra), who attended the Apostle of the Gentiles when he carried the contributions of his Churches for the relief of the Christian poor in Jerusalem (Acts 20:4); the Macedonian Gaius, who along with Aristarchus was seized by the Ephesian mob as Paul’s accomplice, is the third of this name belonging to the Pauline circle (Acts 19:29).
It is against probability to identify St John’s Gaius, in another region of the Church and at an interval of forty years, with St Paul’s friend at Corinth; the coincidence of name is as little surprising as it would be to find two hospitable Methodist Smiths in distant counties of England. There is, however, a fragment of tradition suggesting that the Gaius of 3 John was the Gaius ofActs 20:4: the Apostolical Constitutions (vii. 46) relates that Gaius of Derbe was appointed by the Apostle John Bishop of Pergamum. This statement falls in with the view set forth in the last chapter, that 3 John, long with 2 John, was directed to the Church of Pergamum; in view of 3 John 1:10, it suggests the conjecture that Diotrephes was deposed by the Apostle and the worthy Gaius set in his place. The ApostolicalConstitutions, though not earlier than the fifth century, is a work derived from older sources and contains morsels of genuine history. But the identification is precarious, considering the distance of time involved. Moreover St John speaks of Gaius as one of his “own children” (3 John 1:4), whereas the Derbean Gaius was a convert of St Paul’s. The writer makes no reference to Gaius’ age and his earlier services, such as would have been appropriate and almost inevitable in the address of 3 John, had he been associated with the beginnings of Christianity in Asia Minor and the early days of the Gentile mission. We incline to think that the author of the Constitutions correctly records the name of Gaius as raised to office by St John’s appointment (registers of this kind were long extant), but has by a mistaken guess identified the Pergamene bishop with St Paul’s earlier comrade.
Gaius of Pergamum (as we venture to distinguish him) was, like Polycarp the martyr bishop of Smyrna, St John’s true child in the faith, and was a man of like simplicity of character. His steady “walk in the truth” has given to the Apostle the “greatest joy” that a Christian teacher can experience (3 John 1:3-5); and this at a time and in a region in which “many antichrists” are found, many who have “gone out” from the Apostolic fold into ways of error (1 John 2:18-27; 2 John 1:7-11). Gaius is marked as “the beloved” amongst St John’s children—“Whom I love in truth” (3 John 1:1): four times in twelve verses is he so addressed. His disposition was amiable, and his Christian character had developed in an altogether admirable way; the Writer can only wish that in other respects he “were as prosperous as he is in the matters of “the soul” 3 John 1:2). The emphasis thrown on health in this connection points to something amiss there; beside this, the behaviour of Diotrephes had brought trouble upon Gaius, whose expulsion was even attempted (3 John 1:9-10).
Repeatedly9 Christians had come from Gaius’ neighbourhood, either emissaries of the Apostle or private members of the Church travelling or in migration, having all of them something to say in praise of him; to his “love,” shown by unstinted hospitality, testimony has been borne “before the Church” of Ephesus 3 John 1:6), since this kind of service was a matter of public interest and was indispensable to the furtherance of the Gospel (see Chapter 2). Gaius’ entertainment of strangers was indeed a signal act of faith (3 John 1:5), and constituted him a “fellow-worker with the truth” (3 John 1:8); he “will be doing well” in continuing to “send forward in a manner worthy of God” those who pass through his city marked with the stamp and token of Christ’s “name” (3 John 1:5, 3 John 1:7). At the present time, it appears that Gaius was the one man of position in his Church on whom St John could rely—the Apostle doubts whether the companion letter (see Chapter 1) addressed to the Church will be received (3 John 1:9); his was the one door that John’s messengers could count on finding open to them when they came that way. But for Gaius, the Christian society in this place might have severed itself from the Apostolic communion, while it welcomed the Antichristian errorists (granting that 2 John is the letter intended in 3 John 1:9). An important link would thus be broken in the chain of Churches running through Asia Minor, which formed a vital cord of Christendom.
There is nothing to indicate that Gaius was a man of intellectual mark or popular gifts. He may have been put into office later, as tradition in the Apostolical Constitutions signifies; but we know him only as a well-to-do and liberal-handed layman. Warmth of heart, sound judgement and unflinching loyalty—these were his conspicuous qualities; by their exercise he rendered to the kingdom of God a service beyond price, and his name will be held in remembrance “wherever this gospel shall be preached.”
2. By the side of Gaius stands DEMETRIUS, introduced with this letter in his hand by the commendation of 3 John 1:12, Demetrius’ name is pure Greek—derived from that of Demeter (Latin Ceres), the goddess-mother of the fields and crops—and was fairly common in all ranks of life. St Paul’s opponent at Ephesus, “the silversmith” (Acts 19:1-41), is the only other Demetrius in the New Testament; his Ephesian residence and ability for public work are considerations favouring the notion of identity. One would like to think that the idol-Maker had become a witness for the true God; but there is no evidence of the fact. The name “Demas,” of Colossians 4:14 and 2 Timothy 4:10, is probably short for “Demetrius.” That deserter of St Paul is found in our Demetrius by a recent writer,10 who on the strength of this correspondence supposes 3 John to have been addressed to Thessalonica with a view to the reinstating of “Demas,” whose reception in the Thessalonian Church was (on this hypothesis) resisted by Diotrephes out of loyalty to the Apostle of the Gentiles! But this theory labours under many improbabilities; and we may take it that the Demetrius of 3 John, whether connected with the old shrine-maker of Ephesus or not, belonged to the mission-staff under St John’s direction and was employed in the province of Asia. Presumably he was a stranger to Gaius, and had not hitherto visited this particular Church.
3 John 1:11 leads up to the eulogy upon Demetrius, setting him in contrast with Diotrephes (3 John 1:9-10); in the latter Gaius will see “the bad” to be avoided; in the former “the good” to be “imitated.” Since in verse 6 Gaius is urged to continue his aid to “foreign brethren” on their travels, it seems that Demetrius is expected to come to him in this capacity, along with companions whom the Apostle is dispatching on farther errands. From the fact that Demetrius is praised as one “attested by the truth,” we gather that he is visiting Gaius’ Church in order to uphold the true Christian doctrine and practice, which were imperilled by the action of Diotrephes and by the inclination here manifest to entertain heretical teaching (2 John 1:9-11). Demetrius, if he gains a footing, will enforce the warning conveyed through 2 John, and may check the insolence of Diotrephes, pending the arrival of St John himself (3 John 1:10).
Three distinct testimonies are adduced to this man’s work: “To Demetrius witness hath been given by all”—words implying a wide field of service, and an unqualified approval of his work in the Church (compare 1 Thessalonians 1:8); “and by the truth itself “—this signifying, in view of 3 John 1:4 and of 2 John 1:1-2, not his integrity of character, but (objectively) “the truth” of Christianity finding itself reflected in Demetrius’ teaching and life, which show him to be “of the truth” (1 John 3:19) and worthily qualified as its exponent and champion. St John adds his personal certificate, which carries decisive weight with Gaius: “and we moreover bear witness (to him), and thou knowest that our witness is true.” This triple commendation betrays an undertone of solicitude. The Apostle had some fear as to how his representative might be received (compare 3 John 1:9); Gaius must be prepared to give him unhesitating and energetic support.
3. DIOTREPHES is the marplot of the story, the evil contrast to Gaius and Demetrius. His name supplies some clue to his character and attitude.
“Diotrephes” is as rare in Greek as the companion names are common; we find it twice only in secular, and nowhere besides in sacred history. The word was a Homeric and poetic epithet, reserved for persons of royal birth, meaning Zeus-reared, nursling of Zeus (the king of the gods); such an appellation would scarcely occur except in noble and ancient families. Diotrephes, we imagine, belonged to the Greek aristocracy of the old royal city. Hence, probably, his “love to be first; and hence the deference yielded to him by the Pergamene Church, which shared in the sentiments of local patriotism and could ill brook dictation coming from Ephesus. Sir W. M. Ramsay (in his Letters to the Seven Churches) has shown how keen a rivalry existed amongst the leading cities of this province; and if, as we have seen reason to believe, Pergamum was the destination of 2 John and the seat of the mutiny against Apostolic order indicated in 3 John 1:9-10, the eminence of this city as the historical capital of Asia, and the lively susceptibility of Greek civic communities on points of honour and precedence, help to explain the perplexiug situation. Diotrephes, with his high-flown name, appealed to and embodied the hereditary pride and long-established ascendancy of Pergamum, which ever “loved to be first.” While the title κυρία (lady, mistress) of 2 John 1:1 renders kindly and courteous deference to Pergamene dignity, that dignity took in the behaviour of Diotrephes toward St John an insubordinate and schismatic expression. The Apocalyptic Letter assigns a melancholy eminence to Pergamum, as the place “where Satan’s throne is” (Revelation 2:13). Pride of place was the sin of Diotrephes. Whether he-was Bishop of his Church, in the sense in which Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna were a generation later, does not appear. It is questionable whether mon-episcopacy (i.e., the rule of a single bishop placed above the elders) existed at this date, though Asia Minor was its earliest seat and tradition assigns its foundation to St John. The dominance of Diotrephes may have been that of personal force and social status, rather than of official right. In any case, the occurrence illustrates the tendency to concentrate power in a single hand, which gave rise to the Episcopate of the second century. It is noticeable that the matters in which Diotrephes offends St John—refusing to admit travelling brethren and attempting11 to “hinder” and even “excommunicate” those who would entertain them—appear to have been originally a principal charge of the separated bishops, viz. the superintendence of hospitality and of inter-church relations. It is conceivable that Diotrephes was one of the first experiments in Episcopacy; and that, puffed up by his new office, he had rebelled against his father in Christ and refused to take direction from Ephesus.
How Diotrephes could have dared to rail at St John, the one surviving Apostolic “pillar” and the most revered and august figure of Christendom—“prating against us (or talking nonsense of us),” the Apostle writes, “with wicked words”—what he could have found to say to St John’s discredit, it is hard to realize. The Apostle’s extreme age may have given rise, in ill-disposed minds, to the reproach of senility; probably St John had never been so strong in administration as St Peter or St Paul. The local churches, it might be urged, had grown to maturity and should no longer be kept in leading-strings. The Apostle, a dear and venerable relic, is stationary at Ephesus; what goes on elsewhere he learns through his agents—intermeddlers like Demetrius, who fill their master’s ears with their prejudices and overrule the wiser and more responsible men upon the ground! Such “prating” would be natural enough in the circumstances; it was mischievous in itself, and most provoking to the great Apostle. He intends to “come”; and has no doubt that when he does so, he will be able to expose Diotrephes’ misrepresentations and to call him to account. A double danger arose from the check given to St John’s authority in Pergamum and the obstruction put in the way of his delegates. Not only would this Church be cut off from the general fellowship of Christians, but it might afford harbourage to the Antichristian doctrine, that was invading the Johannine fold. Against these two dangers the two minor Epistles are directed.
Gaius and Diotrephes represent the loyal and disloyal sections of the Churches of Western Asia Minor; Demetrius is one of the “messengers of the Churches”— travelling apostles, prophets, or evangelists—who passed from one community to another and linked the Christian societies together. The “many deceivers” of 2 John 1:7 are the heretical teachers who multiplied around the thriving Churches of this region towards the close of the first century, and were the forerunners of the great Gnostic leaders of the subsequent age; while St John’s “children,” who give him “joy” by “walking in the truth,” but must be warned lest they “lose the things they have wrought” and lest they “become partakers in the evil deeds” of “deceivers and antichrists” (2 John 1:2, 2 John 1:4, 2 John 1:8, 2 John 1:11; 3 John 1:4), form the bulk of the Christian constituency under St John’s jurisdiction, who are faithful to the Apostolic doctrine and devoted to St John himself as their father in Christ, but are in danger of being misled by the plausibilities of the new doctrine and entangled by the craft and intrigues of its promoters.