A Letter of Recommendation? 217 goal in mentioning his possible appearance at this precise junction of the text is not intended to announce his actual coming (60). Even from a grammatical point of view, the clause ejavn followed by a subjunctive does not indicate certitude, but rather probability (cf. Matt 18,3). Instead, it is designed to arouse in Gaius a sense of urgency (61) (as Gaius is called to consider despicable Diotrephes’ refusal) and perhaps provoke some discomfort (as he is also confronted with the possibility of entering into conflict with Diotrephes) (62). Clearly, the improbable coming of the Elder could not stir a fearful reaction in Diotrephes. The purpose of the visit would merely be to “cause to remember” (uJpomnhvsw) the deeds that Diotrephes “keeps doing” anyway (uJpomnhvsw aujtou' ta; e[rga a} poiei', v. 10). The very vague character of the expression itself (“recall” to whom?) (63), shows that the Elder was acutely aware of his lack of authority vis-à-vis Diotrephes (compare the contrast between the authority-filled passage of 2 John 10 and 3 John 10) (64). Further, the verb uJpomimnh/vskw carries a sense of admonition and warning in other places of the NT (cf. 2 Tim 2,14; 2 Pet 1,12; Titus 3,1; Jude 5), but never that of condemnation or reproof. The lack of a public opportunity to re-establish his challenged and frankly trampled authority and honor did not restrain the Elder’s reaction. Feeling the need to secure Gaius’ allegiance, The Elder displaces the conflict between himself and Diotrephes from the public arena to the private arena. Instead of confronting Diotrephes — who had already refused the Elder’s emissaries and probably would not (60) Cf. CULPEPPER, 1 John, 134 and BROWN, John, 749. (61) Cf. Aristotle, Rhet 2,5: “…when it is advisable that the audience should be frightened, the orator must make them feel that they really are in danger of something…at an unexpected time…”. (62) The potential conflict between Gaius and Diotrephes raises an interesting question regarding their “location”. While a consensus exists on the fact that Gaius did not belong to the same house-church as Diotrephes, since Diotrephes “loves to be first among them” (v. 9) (POLHILL, “The setting of 2 John and 3 John”, 36; RENSBERGER, The Epistles of John, 120; BROWN, John, 729; MALHERBE, “Inhospitality”, 226; CULPEPPER, 1 John, 133), it is not clear whether Gaius was the head of another house-church (GEHRING, House Church, 283-284) or was being called by the Elder to become one (BROWN, John, 731-732). There is no evidence in 3 John that Gaius hosted a congregation, and one cannot even infer that the Elder was asking him to do so as a reaction to Diotrephes’ misconduct: while criticizing Diotrephes’ deeds, the Elder never questions his authority. (63) CULPEPPER, 1 John, 134. (64) Cf. HOULDEN, The Johannine Epistles, 10, and KLAUCK, Ancient Letters, 35.