<p>1:10 <em>Therefore, if I come- </em>A visit to Gaius would mean John could also visit Diotrephes; they lived nearby to each other, which makes sense when we realize that Diotrephes had disfellowshipped Gaius from his local church.</p><p><em>I will bring to remembrance his works which he does, prating against us with wicked words, and not content therewith, neither does he welcome the brothers; and those that would, he forbids and throws them out of the church</em>- Bringing to remembrance could imply some exercise of Spirit judgment against Diotrephes which required John's personal presence. Or it could just imply that he would confront Diotrephes over his behaviour.</p><p>John has just commended Gaius for receiving &quot;the brothers&quot;, the mission workers from John's home church (:3). But the local church which had expelled Gaius would not receive those same &quot;brothers&quot;, and in turn excommunicated any who would fellowship and support them. Neither would that church &quot;welcome&quot; John himself (:9). It was all the picture of daisy chain fellowship; if Diotrephes was against John, he was against the &quot;brothers&quot; from his church, so he was against Gaius who supported them, cast him out of the church, and then drove out any others who supported their missionary work. It was guilt by association; and it is all called &quot;evil&quot; in :11.</p><p>His &quot;malicious words&quot; were <em>poneros</em>, evil, the same term used in speaking of the Judaist system of opposition to Christianity as &quot;the evil one&quot; (see on 1 Jn. 2:13,14; 3:12; 5:18). Diotrephes was therefore likewise also a Judaist. &quot;Forbidding&quot; is likewise a word associated with how the Judaists sought to &quot;forbid&quot; preaching to the Gentiles (1 Thess. 2:16), and the legalistic forbidding of littles ones to come to the Lord (Mt. 19:14; Lk. 11:52; Acts 8:36; 10:47; 11:17). To 'cast out' of the church was to reflect in Christian terms how the Jews cast out from the synagogue those who accepted the Lord as Messiah (Jn. 9:22,34,35), just as they &quot;cast out&quot; the Lord Jesus from the vineyard of Israel (Mt. 21:39 s.w.). Diotrephes had the mentality of Judaism and was seeking to turn the Lord's church into a Judaist dominated synagogue. Casting the Lord's brother out of the church is to cast Him out; this should act as a sober warning to those well-respected church leaders who act in this way to this day. The same word is used about the 'casting out' to condemnation in the last day (Mt. 8:12; 22:13; 25:30). No matter how much nice speak is used, to cast a brother out of the church is to condemn him. It is God's intention that &quot;there should be no schism in the body&quot; (1 Cor. 12:25). If we refuse to break bread with validly baptized, good living brethren- then we are working against God. And if we then go on to disfellowship anyone who will not agree with our opinion on a brother, we are doing just what Diotrephes is condemned for doing.&nbsp;</p><p>It could be that there is a chronological progression here. Prating against John personally, i.e. gossiping about and slandering him, left Diotrephes not content until he had done something worse; and so he refused to welcome or materially support &quot;the brothers&quot; who were mission workers for and with John (:3,5,7); and then he forbad Gk. 'hindered' others in his church from supporting them; and finally he threw out of the church those like Gaius for doing the good work of giving support to missionary workers. This is where the mania about disfellowship leads. And it happens so often to this day. It should not be presented in respectable spiritual terms as merely a case of being overzealous for God's truth. John calls such behaviour &quot;evil&quot;, and it is. And the final absurdities, of disfellowshipping sincere believers for materially supporting the sincere missionary workers of a sincere apostle, all come about from a psychological and spiritual slide downhill. Hatred is as a darkness which blinds the eyes of such men, so that they cannot see where they are going (1 Jn. 2:11).</p><p>A fair case can be made that he received the Apocalypse <em>early</em>, well before AD70, and wrote his gospel and letters <em>afterwards</em>. In this case, the similarity of wording would partly be explained by the fact that the language of his Lord rubbed off almost unconsciously as well as consciously upon John's style of thinking, speaking and writing. Thus &quot;If I come, I will bring up the things he is doing&quot; (3 Jn. 10) reflects the Lord's style: &quot;If you do not repent, I will come to you&quot; (Rev. 2:5). There are many other examples- finding them is good homework for the enthusiast. Now the practical point is surely that we are living the essence of the Kingdom life now; we &lsquo;have eternal life&rsquo; in the sense that we are experiencing the nature and quality of the spiritual life which by grace we will eternally live. And that life is the life of the Lord Jesus; in His life on earth we see a picture of the nature of the eternal life which we hope to life for evermore. Therefore understanding Him personally is to understand the good news of the future Kingdom of God.</p>