The Epistles of John, Part 31 (3rd John 9-15): A Hog in a Silk Waistcoat

At a presidential campaign event in 2008 Barack Obama took issue with the policy views coming from the camp of his opponent, John McCain.  Attempting to capitalize on his own campaign rhetoric of “change”, Mr. Obama said the following of Mr. McCain’s policies: “That’s not change.  That’s just calling the same thing something different.  You know, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.”  The phrase “lipstick on a pig” simply means that dressing something up and slapping a fresh coat of paint on it does not alter its fundamental nature.  Obama’s point was that, regardless of claims to the contrary, McCain’s policy agenda would be no different than the outgoing George W. Bush administration.

Barack Obama was hardly the originator of this phrase.  The specific “lipstick on a pig” version of it is somewhat new and has been particularly favored by politicians in recent years.  However, the roots of the saying go back to at least the mid-16^th century.  At that time, someone might have said “You can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear.”  In 1887 the great Baptist preacher, Charles H. Spurgeon, offered his own take on the idea: “A hog in a silk waistcoat is still a hog.”  It is Spurgeon’s version of the saying that I am going to make reference to.  As it relates to our study of 3^rd John, the “hog” takes the form of a man named Diotrephes, who was apparently influential in the same church Gaius was a part of.

We meet this particular hog in verses 9 and 10 of 3^rd John: I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say.  For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church.  It seems that 3^rd John was not the first letter John had written to Gaius’s church.  He is referencing an earlier message here. 

Unfortunately, the contents of this communication are lost to history.  But whatever was contained within it was probably of an instructional nature, judging by the content of John’s other letters that we have been studying.  And apparently, this Diotrephes did not care for the elder apostle’s teaching.  In fact, John says that he rejected it.  His rebuff went far beyond just being dismissive of or teaching counter to the apostle’s words.  We see that Diotrephes was accusing John with wicked words.  We don’t know exactly what the nature of these accusations were, but it hardly seems to matter.  The point is that he was acting wickedly and accusing falsely.

Frankly, this is astonishing, although certainly not unexpected.  It is astonishing from the standpoint of someone actually having the nerve to discard and, as we will see later, attempt to undermine the authority of one of the apostles of Jesus Christ.  Of course, it must be said that rejection of authority is nothing new.  Jesus Himself was rejected and opposed by the very people who should have been most delighted by His coming; the Jewish religious authorities. 

In that situation, the Pharisees and their ilk were never followers of Christ in the first place.  They were not on His side from the very beginning of His ministry.  So, their opposition to Him is perhaps more easily understood.  What makes the insurrection of Diotrephes so astounding is that he was, at least on the surface, not a member of the enemy camp.  He was within the church rather than outside of it. 

This is apparent from both verse 9 and 10.  John says that he wrote something “to the church.”  If Diotrephes were not a member of said church it would have been impossible for him to reject what John wrote to that church. And if he were outside the church why would anyone care that he rejected John’s teaching in the first place.  Furthermore, John says that Diotrephes loves to be first “among them.”  This is clearly a reference back to the church the first letter was addressed to.  So, Diotrephes was a member of this church, along with Gaius, and Diotrephes enjoyed the prospect of holding a prominent position within the assembly.

And hold a prominent position he most certainly did.  He had enough authority to forbid certain courses of action and even excommunicate those who refused to obey his wishes.  Remember that Gaius had been praised by John for his faithful and truthful love, demonstrated by his warm reception of the traveling missionaries of verses 5 to 8.  Some of his fellow church members must have been inclined to follow his example of hospitality.  And Diotrephes came down on them like an anvil.

He forbade the brethren to participate in these acts of love.  He himself refused to entertain the missionaries.  And if anyone was found to be in violation of his decrees he ordered them to be cast out of the fellowship.  It is interesting that Gaius was apparently not dismissed from the church as well.  It could very well be that both Gaius and Diotrephes were leaders together.  If so, it presents the possibility of a power struggle within this first century church.  On one side, would have been Gaius and his lifestyle that imaged Christ.  Opposed to him and opposed to the heart of the gospel, was Diotrephes and his pursuit of the spirit of antichrist.

I do not use the moniker of antichrist lightly.  I think this is exactly what Diotrephes was.  However, it must be said that there are some points of qualification that need to be made to support this argument.  First of all, on the surface I grant that the behavior of Diotrephes does not completely line up with what John has described prior to this regarding the spirit of antichrist.  Recall to mind the following passages.

1^st John 2:18-19 identifies the nature of the problem: Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.  They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. 

Then, in 1^st John 4:2-3 he gets very specific: By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.  John’s description of the character of an antichrist is quite clear.  It is one who denies that Jesus is the Christ.

We have no evidence that Diotrephes was denying Christ.  John seems to make such a denial a requirement in order to be classified as an antichrist.  Some, in light of this, have concluded that the issue at stake was not theological or doctrinal.  Furthermore, they take the position that Diotrephes, while certainly not being commendable, was also not overtly evil or outside the bounds of Christian fellowship.

I disagree with this.  I believe that in order to correctly understand what the spirit of antichrist is we must look beyond just the verses that contain the word.  Follow my thought here.  It is perfectly logical and rational to suppose that the spirit of Christ is analogous to good and the spirit of antichrist is analogous to evil.  Looking at the situation from that standpoint, and if we consider more of John’s teaching on what it means to be either good or evil, we find the following.

In 1^st John 3:10 he wrote: By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.  Can anyone possibly argue that Diotrephes was displaying godly love for his brothers when he refused to accept the missionaries and kicked people out of the church if they did so?

In 2^nd John 9-10 we find John’s description of such people, and it is not just false Christians within the church.  It is the leadership of the church, the very ones supposedly there to guard, care for, and protect the flock: Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.  If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting.  Can anyone seriously entertain the notion that Diotrephes, in his slanderous refutation of John’s character and authority, was abiding in the teaching of Christ?

Furthermore, let us consider the question of motive.  What was it that caused Diotrephes to behave in the way he did?  I believe the answer is deceptively simple, and it is found almost immediately after he is introduced to the reader in verse 9.  John says Diotrephes “loves to be first among them”.  Pride is the issue that governed his actions.  It was arrogance and conceit that led to a love of power and authority.  This egotism led him to rebel against the authority of John. 

And it naturally and consistently moved to Gaius, who seems to have been seeking to follow John’s instructions and was favored by him.  In fact, the way in which Diotrephes handled the missionaries and those who tried to help them may not have had as much to do with the missionaries themselves as it did with the mere fact that Gaius, presumably a follower of John’s, wanted to support them.

For these reasons, I see no need to make any distinction between Diotrephes and the spirit of antichrist that John has been describing for two and a half letters.  And I think the point is rammed home by what John then proceeds to write in verse 11: Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good.  The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God.

Taken by itself, this verse is a solid but general reminder to Christians to pursue righteousness rather than wickedness.  It serves to clarify that those who walk like Christ are from God and those who do not have never known Him.  These points are valid, but when we consider verse 11 in the light of its proper context I think the implication of what John is getting at is very clear.  He has just finished describing the behavior of this Diotrephes character.  Therefore, it seems perfectly obvious to me that the evil he does not want Gaius to imitate is the very actions that Diotrephes is guilty of taking.  Following that line of reasoning, it makes the last phrase, if applied to Diotrephes, ultimately damning.  If John is saying that Diotrephes has not seen God, then what else can we conclude but that he was the embodiment of the spirit of antichrist?

It seems to me that Diotrephes was a textbook example of the very thing John has been warning against throughout both of his first two letters; that of the danger of antichrists within the church who seek to work counter to the gospel.  I have previously mentioned the sort of “funnel” effect present in John’s epistles.  We can see it at work again here.  It is almost as if John, having outlined the problem of false Christians generally in 1^st John, and then having narrowed the focus down to specific roles within the church in 2^nd John, now presents us with a concrete example of the abstract concepts he has been discussing. 

So again, it is quite astonishing that a man would rise up from within the church, lead the believers astray, excommunicate the faithful, and usurp the authority of Christ’s apostles.  But by no means should such a situation be unexpected if we have been paying attention to John.  Furthermore, these things are unfortunately all too common.  Not only is false teaching and bad leadership prevalent but the usurpation of apostolic authority is as well.

Paul dealt with such a situation in Corinth.  He had to repeatedly defend not only his right to be in authority, but his very character, against the personal assaults of the Corinthian versions of the antichrists John has been describing.  In 1^st Corinthians 9:2 we find Paul alluding briefly to the rejections of his own authority that he had suffered.  He writes: If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you.  Then in 2^nd Corinthians chapter 10 he gets even more specific and personal.  In verse 2 he mentions: some, who regard us as if we walked according to the flesh.  The phrase “walked according to the flesh” refers to being unsaved.  So, these slanderers were questioning whether Paul was even a Christian.  And as if that were not bad enough, they were prepared to take the personal insults even further.  They ridiculed his appearance and gifts.  Paul brings this up in verse 10: For they say, “His letters are weighty and strong, but his personal presence is unimpressive and his speech contemptible.”

We lack this level of detail with the conflict between Diotrephes, Gaius, and John.  Nevertheless, whatever specific “wicked words” were used to attack John, the heart of the matter is the same.  It is rooted and sourced in the excesses of human ambition.  Probably everyone reading this is already aware on some level of the dangers of pride.  But the contextual application provided by John here should be nothing short of gut-wrenching and terrifying.

John has described a man consumed by pride to such an extent that it drove him to rebel against the highest level of authority in the Christian church at that time.  This man is clearly classified as both evil and being unknown to God.  If we might be tempted to overlook the terrible danger of conceit and the lust for other evils that it gives birth to, surely this sobering letter from John to Gaius must give us pause in our thinking.  If we fail to be brought up short by even the remote possibility of straying onto the trail blazed by Diotrephes and others like him, then what does that say about our appreciation of our position in Christ?  In point of fact, it may reveal that we have no position in Christ at all.

Laying that aside momentarily, and continuing to move through the remaining verses of 3^rd John, we come to verse 12: Demetrius has received a good testimony from everyone, and from the truth itself; and we add our testimony, and you know that our testimony is true.  We are suddenly presented with a new player in this saga of church strife.  Who is Demetrius and how does he factor into the situation?

The only other person who bore this name mentioned in Scripture is found in Acts chapter 19 in relation to Paul’s ministry in Ephesus.  This city was the site of one of the seven wonders of the ancient world; a huge temple to Diana, the Roman goddess of hunting.  Many people within the city were employed in the silversmith trade; primarily for the crafting of metal images of the goddess to facilitate worship among the populace.  When Paul arrived on the scene and began to teach that the Roman gods were not true gods at all, the craftsmen of the city, led by this Demetrius, rightly perceived that the message of the gospel was a threat to their line of work.  So, they started a riot for the purpose of silencing Paul and his associates.

There is no reason to believe the man mentioned here by John is the same person.  Demetrius of Ephesus certainly could have become a believer and participated in the ministry of John.  But there is no evidence that would lead to that conclusion.  The safest assumption, therefore, is that Demetrius was simply one of John’s associates.  And he may have been the bearer of the letter John had written to Gaius’s church.

The flow of thought in 3^rd John 5 to 8 seems to suggest that the missionaries had visited this church once before.  That is the occasion being referred to by John where Gaius demonstrated his love and Diotrephes his hate.  Gaius had treated them kindly, and after leaving they journeyed on to John’s church where they gave a good report of Gaius.  Now, perhaps, they are returning to Gaius’s church, possibly even carrying this letter from John, and he is urging Gaius to minister to them once again.  Demetrius may have been one of those missionaries.  Or he could have been an outside third party that John sent on ahead of his hoped-for visit (mentioned in verse 10).  This could have been a way for John to attempt to smooth the situation and defuse tensions a bit prior to his arrival.

What is clear is that Demetrius was a solid Christian of integrity.  He received a three-fold commendation from John.  First John wrote that “everyone” had testified as to his goodness.  John also added his own testimony, reminding Gaius that he knows what John says is true.  Finally, even the truth itself testified to Demetrius’s character.  This is as much as if to say: the record of the true gospel message of Christ, the witness of John and the other apostles, the historical records of the gospels and the book of Acts, and the explanation of the New Testament epistles.  All of these sources combined to elevate Gaius’s expectation of what he would find in the person of Demetrius.

John closed his third letter much the same as he did his second letter.  In verses 13 and 14 he wrote: I had many things to write to you, but I am not willing to write them to you with pen and ink; but I hope to see you shortly, and we will speak face to face.  Here we see again the reference to his planned visit.  We have no way of knowing whether John ever made this trip.  But in consideration of what he hoped to accomplish I see two points as it relates to leadership.

First, think about what we know of the men associated with this letter.  Two of them, Gaius and Demetrius, were positive examples of Christians.  One of them, Diotrephes, was a negative picture of everything a Christian is not.  It should be obvious which is preferable for church leadership.  In light of that, what is it that qualified Gaius for the leadership he already seemed engaged in?  We do not know if Demetrius was part of a leadership team or not, but he definitely seemed suited for it.  So again, what was it that determined these men’s qualifications?

In short, it was the visible and public record of their characters.  It was their reputations.  Gaius walked in the truth.  He acted faithfully in what he accomplished for the brethren.  He showed his love for other Christians.  Demetrius received a good testimony from everyone, and even from the truth itself.  John, at this point the most senior elder in the whole of Christendom, added his personal recommendation.  These men were commended not for what they said but what they did.  It was their proven track record of integrity that established them as men worthy of the title and responsibility of a leader.

If we consider the specific qualifications of leaders in Scripture, the portrait of a man worthy of leadership becomes even more clear.  1^st timothy 3:2-7 lists 13 requirements for one who would become an overseer in the church.  They are: beyond reproach, faithfulness to spouse, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, self-controlled, gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money, in control of his own home, and possessed of a good reputation outside the church.

If you were counting you might have realized that I listed only 12 requirements, not 13.  The reason is that the 13^th requirement is the clincher that determines whether all the rest can be proven or not.  The last qualifier of one who is ready to lead is that they must not be a new convert.  The verse in 1^st Timothy chapter 3 reads as follows: and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil.  What is Paul getting at in this verse?  Why would newness of conversion to Christ result in conceit and condemnation?

The reason is that there is a single unifying element that is required in order to prove the presence or lack of any and all of the requirements that Paul lists.  That missing link is time.  It takes time to prove loyalty.  The possibility of being disloyal must be present before faithfulness can be truly determined.  An opportunity to betray has to be seen and discarded by the one who is presumed to be true to his word.  Character is not demonstrated quickly.  It is borne of stress and difficulties and triumphs in the face of adversity.  This is why men newly minted as Christians should not ever be put into positions of authority.  The body of Christ needs to examine their lives over a period of time.  The signs of leadership material need to be present not just for a day or a week or even a year.  They must repeatedly demonstrate to all that they are a good fit for the responsibility of guiding and shepherding a flock of Christians.

Now, we obviously have no way of knowing the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Diotrephes to whatever position he held in the church.  But I guarantee you that he was not put through a sufficient time of seasoning and testing beforehand.  The type of corruption that pervaded his character cannot remain hidden for long.  It will emerge at various times and in diverse circumstances.  And it is up to fellow Christians to be discerning and observant enough to notice the red flags before it is too late. 

That means, for those who are reading this, that if you are a Christian and involved in a local church (and one cannot go without the other, but that is an issue for another time), then you have a responsibility to dig deep into the lives of your brothers and sisters in Christ.  And conversely, they have a responsibility to dig deeply into yours.  You cannot function properly within the body of Christ by standing on the perimeter and keeping a “hands off” mentality to your Christianity.  There is no record of any such thing in the New Testament being held up as the model of how to live. 

And furthermore, it simply cannot work.  Just in the specific case of what I am discussing right now (and there are plenty more that we could talk about), that of selecting leaders, there is no way someone’s qualifications can be determined with any degree of accuracy if they are not integrated deeply enough into other people’s lives.  It is that intimate, possibly even uncomfortable, level of relationship where flaws begin to emerge and be seen clearly.  You are not going to pick up on a pride issue such as what infected Diotrephes by merely saying “hello” and “good-bye” on Sunday mornings and Wednesday afternoons.

The second point that I see from all of this is how to deal with the potential reality of a bad leader revealed or even a good leader gone bad.  In the case of the church both Gaius and Diotrephes were members of, it had long since passed beyond the early warning or prevention stage.  Diotrephes was in full blown rebellion to apostolic authority, he was working counter to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and he was threatening to take the whole church down into the abyss with him. 

Because of this, in 3^rd John we are afforded a glimpse of what to do about it if and when this type of situation arises.  We find it back in verse 10.  John was planning to travel to this church.  It was not going to be a casual visit.  We read that he was going to “call attention to his deeds which he does.”  The solution is quite simple, although probably not easy.  It is to confront.  Earlier, I mentioned the qualifications for elder in 1^st Timothy.  Later in that same letter Paul outlines for Timothy the procedure to follow if an elder is caught up in sin.  We find it in chapter 5, verses 19-20: Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.  Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning.

The witnesses against Diotrephes were already many.  The evidence against him was conclusive.  When John arrived at Gaius’s church he was prepared to enact public rebuke upon Diotrephes and remove him from leadership.  Although John does not specify all of this, I think the implication of what he intended to do in calling attention to the deeds of Diotrephes is clear.

Bringing it back around to the modern state of the church we are left with the following conclusion.  First, be on point about righteously judging the walk of your fellow Christians and welcome their judgment of your own walk.  Be on the lookout for the “hogs in the silk waist coats”, to borrow Spurgeon’s terminology.  Second, if a church fails on point number one, and an unqualified man (the hog in the metaphor) is placed into a position of authority, then the church must have the courage of their convictions and deal with the sin among them.  Feelings may get hurt.  Egos may become bruised.  People may leave.  But this is the bride of Christ we are talking about.  It is larger and more important than any one or a hundred of us.  We who populate it bear the responsibility of doing everything in our power to present it to Christ spotless and kept in good order.  This is very much an issue of obedience versus disobedience for the church.

On that note, notice how John ends his letter in verse 15: Peace be to you.  The friends greet you.  Greet the friends by name.  There is just one word I want to focus on as I close this narrative of John’s epistles; peace.  What a fascinating way for him to close.  I wonder if, as he sat and penned these final lines, he recalled the night 60 or so years ago, when his Master said something very similar.

Jesus’s words are recorded for us in the gospel of John.  In chapter 14, as they reclined at supper the night of the Passover, just hours before he would be betrayed, Jesus said to His disciples: “Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me.”  After His resurrection, on three separate occasions the Lord appeared to these men.  And each time, in chapter 20 and verses 19, 21, and 26, He greeted them the same way: “Peace be with you.”

Why was Jesus so concerned about His dear brothers, His friends, being at peace?  Why was He so interested in their hearts being worry and stress free?  The reality is that we live in a world that has no peace.  Wars rage, atrocities abound, injustice prevails, and even where civilization, law, and order hold sway it is but a thin veneer covering the raging beast of mankind’s twisted and sick collective heart.  Introduce even the slightest breakdown in civil order and the immediate tendency of the general populace is toward anarchy and chaos.

Into this mess are thrust the sons and daughters of God, the adopted brothers and sisters of Jesus.  He knows better than any of us the heartache and misery we will endure while in these bodies of sin and death.  The assaults upon our righteousness will come from within just as often as from without.  In the light of this reality Christ knew that the only path toward personal inner peace for His friends was to trust His Father and Him implicitly.  That is why He followed His admonition to not be troubled with an exhortation to believe.

What is it that results from that belief?  Many things to be sure.  But for the purposes of this study I want to focus on just one.  The type of faith, the type of belief, the type of trust talked about in the pages of Scripture is always accompanied by obedience.  James said it well in his letter; Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself (James 2:17).  The works that James is talking about is the fruit of an obedient heart that trusts implicitly in the God who rules and governs it.

John was of course no stranger to this concept, and we have considered it well throughout these pages.  He was a man who expected us to “not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth” (1^st John 3:18).  Thus, this elder apostle, the last of his brethren, expected obedience.

He expected us to confess our sins, trusting the faithfulness and righteousness of God to forgive us (1^st John 1:9).  He took it for granted that only those who have come to know God would keep His commandments, and conversely those who fail to keep those commandments do not know God at all (1^st John 2:3).  There was no parlance with the world for John.  He required the same strict discipline that God always has, to do away with love for the world or the things in the world (1^st John 2:15).  John’s understanding of the core of God’s commandment and message to mankind was that it was wrapped in brotherly love for one another (1^st John 3:11).  Our mandate, from John’s perspective, is to lay down our lives for each other if necessary, and failing that to provide what each one needs to live (1^st John 3:16-17).  He warned us to test the teaching we receive against the measuring rod of true confession of Jesus as the Christ (1^st John 4:1-2).  For this elder apostle, the commands of God were a light and airy joy rather than a heavy and cumbersome burden (1^st John 5:3).  The need to guard ourselves from idolatry was front and center in his mind (1^st John 5:21).  In spite of the potential awkwardness, John expected his students to turn away false teachers who came to their door (2^nd John 10).  He exhorted us to demonstrate our devotion to Christ in acts of love, faithfulness, and truth (3^rd John 3-6).  And John was prepared to defend the gospel and the church that he loved by exposing the error, the false doctrine, and the evil of anyone who would seek to compromise the truth (3^rd John 10).  It goes without saying that he expected the same of all Christians.

Now then, what does all of this have to do with peace?  It has everything to do with it.  Obedience to God’s commands is the pathway to peace and confidence before Him.  Twice in 1^st John the apostle confirms this.  In 2:28 he wrote: Now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming.  Then in 3:21 we find: Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God. 

Much is made today of psychological problems as the root of most or even all evil in the world.  There is a diagnosis and corresponding treatment regimen for just about everything under the sun pertaining to the moral and spiritual collapse of our culture.  The abdication of personal responsibility and avoidance of accountability is the god of our age.  And in many cases these twin demons are fueled, aided, and abetted by the preponderance of psycho-therapists ready to leap at the opportunity of acquiring a new patient.  Meanwhile the pharmaceutical companies laugh all the way to the bank and Satan giggles as we join him on his road to hell.

Sadly, this warped perspective has infected the church.  Christians line up along with their neighbors to listen to someone tell them why their stress and anxiety are not their fault and how they can cure it with a little pill or two.  But the Bible teaches a different reality.  It teaches a pattern of faithful obedience to a loving Creator God which results in a peace that surpasses all understanding.  The reason so many Christians fail to find the peace that Jesus spoke of or the peace that John left us with is that they are wrapped in the seductive embrace of sinful disobedience to the commandments of God that are easily found in the pages of Scripture.

The issue could be loving that fellow church member who grates on your nerves like nails on a chalkboard.  Or perhaps you are living in sin, hiding what you do behind closed doors from your fellow Christians, and failing to confess it to the Lord in genuine repentance.  You might be faced with the need to confront a “hog in a silk waist coat” like Diotrephes, who is in a position of authority and shouldn’t be there.  Regardless of what the specifics of your situation are, the pathway to true peace and confidence before God, along with the parallel elimination of stress and anxiety, is to cast yourself upon His mercy and obey Him implicitly.  Fail to do that too consistently and for too long and you may find, when you approach the judgment throne of God, that all along you were one of the hogs yourself.