How do we reconcile the portrayal of Diotrephes in 3 John 1:9–10 with potential bias, since we only hear one side?

I. Historical and Literary Context of 3 John

3 John is a short letter addressed by the Apostle John to a believer named Gaius, encouraging him in hospitality and warning him of an individual named Diotrephes. Manuscript evidence (such as Papyrus 74 and Codex Vaticanus) supports the authenticity of 3 John as part of the Johannine corpus. Even though it is brief, it offers insight into early Christian community dynamics.

This letter highlights pastoral care, unity, and truth. John’s role appears to be that of an elder providing oversight to various local congregations. As with all New Testament writings, it is consistently recognized in historical sources (e.g., early church fathers such as Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria) as genuine. Thus, despite its short length, there is strong support that what we read is reliable and historically rooted.

II. The Scriptural Portrayal of Diotrephes

In 3 John 1:9–10, we read:

> “I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will not welcome us. So if I come, I will address what he is doing, spreading malicious gossip about us. Not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers and even stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.”

Four key traits stand out:

1. He “loves to be first.”

2. He “will not welcome” John or his associates.

3. He spreads “malicious gossip.”

4. He goes so far as to “refuse to welcome the brothers” and expel those who do.

This depiction offers a frank criticism, describing Diotrephes’ behaviors that undermine Christian unity and hospitality. The immediate context of John’s letter suggests Diotrephes was a local leader or influential figure in the church.

III. Considering the Question of Bias

Some wonder if John’s portrayal of Diotrephes might be biased, since the letter provides only John’s account of the conflict. In modern educational or journalistic settings, hearing only one side can raise concerns over fairness or objectivity.

Yet, the ancient setting of church leadership and apostolic oversight was rooted in recognized authority. John was an apostle and eyewitness to the ministry of Christ (cf. 1 John 1:1–3), and his letters were circulated among believers who already respected apostolic teaching. Textual and historical witnesses—from sources like the Muratorian Fragment—call attention to the acknowledged authority of apostolic letters in the first and second centuries.

The brevity of 3 John can also be explained by a practical motive: John intended to address matters more fully in person. Hence, the portion of the story presented in writing is necessarily concise. The consistent testimony of the early churches regarding John’s valid authority gives reason to trust his perspective, especially regarding congregational disputes.

IV. The Reliability of John’s Assessment

1. Apostolic Integrity. John’s reputation in early Christianity was that of “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 21:20), entrusted by Jesus with significant responsibilities (John 19:26–27). Early church documents (e.g., the writings of Polycarp) attest to John’s faithful witness and leadership.

2. Manuscript Consistency. Existing Greek manuscripts of 3 John show internal consistency, leaving no evidence that the passage about Diotrephes was tampered with or added later. The uniformity across manuscripts (including the centuries-old Codex Alexandrinus) affirms that the portrayal of Diotrephes is part of the original text.

3. Early Church Recognition. The letter’s inclusion in the biblical canon, attested by church councils (e.g., Council of Hippo in AD 393), suggests that the early believers received John’s depiction of Diotrephes with seriousness and faith. There is no record of dissenting traditions suggesting a different side to this story.

4. Character Corroboration. Diotrephes’ behavior—seeking preeminence, resisting hospitality, and gossiping—fits patterns described elsewhere in Scripture about problematic leadership (cf. 1 Timothy 3:6; 2 John 1:7–9). This negative leadership style, while only described from John’s vantage point, aligns with broader warnings in the New Testament about self-serving individuals in the church.

V. Logical and Behavioral Considerations

From a behavioral perspective, self-promotion and controlling tendencies often result in conflict within organizations or communities. Introducing the possibility of “hearing only one side” can be healthy skepticism, yet it does not diminish the patterns John condemns.

Moreover, historical commentary (e.g., that of Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria, who discuss the Johannine writings in their treatises) testifies to the consistent reception of 3 John as a sober rebuke of divisive behavior. Diotrephes may have had reasons or grievances of his own, yet the letter indicates a pattern of harmful actions: slander, refusal of hospitality, and excommunicating those who desired to welcome legitimate brethren.

If Diotrephes had a valid grievance, the customary New Testament pattern would be to address it with the church and possibly with guidance from other mature believers (cf. Matthew 18:15–17). Instead, the letter describes clear opposition to apostolic teaching and fellowship, signaling genuine misconduct.

VI. Affirming the Text as a Reliable Witness

1. Harmony with the Johannine Corpus. The character of 3 John matches the themes found in 1 and 2 John, emphasizing truth, love, and discernment. The author’s emphasis on welcoming faithful teachers (cf. 3 John 1:8) is consistent with New Testament instructions such as those in Romans 12:13 and Hebrews 13:2.

2. Witness of Early Believers. Many church fathers freely cite or acknowledge the pastoral letters (1–3 John). No competing narratives indicating Diotrephes was falsely accused have emerged from antiquity. If Diotrephes had a widespread contrary claim documented, skeptics of the day might have preserved it. Instead, ancient testimony supports John’s authority.

3. Practical Implications. Even if we only have one side recorded, John’s reputation, the letter’s inclusion in the canon, and the corroborative behavior pattern speak strongly. It underscores the broader New Testament teaching about spiritual leaders who act contrary to the spirit of Christlike humility (cf. 1 Peter 5:1–3).

VII. Conclusion and Takeaway

Reconciling the portrayal of Diotrephes in 3 John 1:9–10 with concerns about potential bias ultimately hinges on recognizing the historical credibility of John’s apostolic authority, the consistency of New Testament teachings on leadership, and the manuscript and patristic evidence supporting 3 John as genuine and authoritative. While we do, in fact, have only John’s perspective, his position as an apostolic leader, consistently validated through early church testimony and historic manuscript evidence, provides a firm foundation to trust his report.

This brief glimpse into Diotrephes’ actions serves as both a warning against divisive, self-exalting leadership and an encouragement to uphold gracious hospitality and true unity. If there had been significant bias or distortion, it is unlikely 3 John would have withstood the careful scrutiny of the early church. Instead, the text remains an enduring testament to accountability and the vital importance of humility among those who serve within the community of faith.