216 Luca Marulli Diotrephes, the Elder continues, “does not receive us” (55). Once again he draws a strong parallelism between the lack of help offered by the pagans in v. 7 and Diotrephes’ refusal in v. 9: the verb devcomai and its cognates are often used as equivalent of lambavnw and its cognates, making them—in the context of hospitality—practically synonyms (cf. Acts 28,2; Phlm 17; Josephus, C. Ap. 1,247; Mark 6,11; Col 4,10; Did 11,1-3; Acts 17,7.18,27; 21,27.28,7; Rom 16,2; Phil 2,29; Ignatius, Smyrn. 10,1; Hermas, Sim. 8,10,3.9,27,2) (56). Having suggested this daring parallelism, the Elder gains momentum as he announces his possible coming: “for this [reason], if I come…” (dia; tou'to, eja;n e[lqw, v. 10). Diotrephes, by rejecting the Elder ’s envoys, has de facto rejected the Elder himself, without giving him a chance to defend his honor. A public response to the public challenge was expected, and very likely the Elder alludes to it in v. 10. Notice that the Elder talks about a possible coming before expanding on Diotrephes’ contentious behavior. Further, as many commentators have already noticed, v. 10 does not contain any doctrinal accusation or threat of excommunication (57). It appears to us that the announced coming of v. 10 serves a rhetorical purpose in the Elder’s argumentation. To begin with, it is clear that the Elder is not threatening to come with the purpose to excommunicate Diotrephes: his intention is more likely to keep — instead of breaking up — their relationship (58). Secondly, the lack of any word of excommunication may also imply that the Elder does not have enough authority over Diotrephes (59). If Diotrephes refused to accept the Elder’s emissaries, and fiercely hinders others from doing so, he clearly does not fear the Elder ’s wrath. It is therefore important to understand that the Elder’s (55) Verse 9 literally reads Diotrevfh" oujk ejpidevcetai hJma'", but it is evident that the Elder refers to the lack of hospitality towards his envoys. It is not necessary to assume that the Elder himself was refused hospitality, since in the ancient world there was the common understanding that “[t]he reception of the letter and its bearer proved the good will of the recipient toward the writer” (MALHERBE, “Inhospitality”, 228). Cf. Phlm 17; P. Oslo II,55 (II-III CE); P. Oxy. XIV,1663 (II-III CE); P. Oxy 32 (=CPL 249); P. Ryl. 4,691 (III CE); 1 Macc 12,8. (56) MALHERBE, “Inhospitality”, 230. (57) LIEU, Epistles of John, 158 notices that the Elder does not see Diotrephes’ refusal of hospitality charged with theological meaning, whereas Paul (2 Cor 10- 13) and Ignatius (Trall 2; Magn 3.6-7; Eph 5) do with regards to their own opponents. (58) GEHRING, House Church, 283. (59) HOULDEN, The Johannine Epistles, 10; RENSBERGER, The Epistles of John, 120.