A Letter of Recommendation? 219 Elder’s emissaries with the pretense of refusing the Elder himself (cf. v. 9). But more importantly, the Elder manages to strategically arouse Gaius’ indignation (69) against Diotrephes’ ridiculous yet evil preten- sions: not only has Diotrephes heaped shame upon the Elder, but he has also shamed other members of the congregation by refusing them hospitality (70). By now, it must be clear to Gaius that the Elder’s implicit (as a pagan refusing to honor “the Name”; parody of a leader; ridiculous utterances in form and content) and formal (evil words; open refusal to extend hospitality; heaping shame upon well-meaning brothers) accusations unequivocally demand that he takes a stand. e) Appeal to Gaius / bad (“[those who] have not seen God”) and good (“[those] from God”; Demetrius) examples (vv. 11-12) As he ponders the conflict between the Elder and Diotrephes and his own future course of actions, Gaius is pressed by the Elder more than ever. His decision-making process is affected (or so the Elder hopes) by a compelling warning, followed by a last implicit accusation to Diotrephes and, for the sake of contrast, an exemplary and trustworthy model. Verse 11a is parenetical because it contains a vocative followed by a heartfelt injunction in the imperative form: “beloved, do not keep imitating what is evil, but what is good”. Some argue that 3 John 11a is a sort of maxim or proverb, used to create common ground between the author and the addressee, since a proverbial sentence usually belongs to a common cultural heritage (cf. Quintilian, Inst. 8,5,1-2; Rhet. Her. 4,17,24; Aristotle, Rhet. 2,21) (71). However it is also a sharp warning, since Gaius’ two options are in fact evil and good (72). The this was the case, we do not need to assume that Diotrephes’ excommunication acts were comparable to the “casting out” of the Synagogue (John 9,22.34-35), nor that “…Diotrephes must have had the tacit approval of the majority of the members of the church; otherwise this action would have failed” (contra KRUSE, John, 228). (69) Aristotle, Rhet. 2,9: “Most directly opposed to pity is the feeling called Indignation. …it is our duty…to feel sympathy and pity for unmerited distress…”. Along with indignation, the Elder might also be trying to arouse in Gaius a sense of responsibility and the perception of being the last faithful friend on whom he could rely: so WATSON, “Rhetorical Analysis”, 487 (cf. Rhet. Her. 1,5,8; Quintilian, Inst. 4,1,8-9). (70) Being excluded from a community was perceived as shameful: cf. Matt 18,15-18, where the approach is very tactful. (71) WATSON, “Rhetorical Analysis”, 497; BROWN, John, 720; KLAUCK, Ancient Letters, 11. (72) LIEU, Epistles of John, 115.