222 Luca Marulli associated with the letter’s recipient (Phil 4,21-22; Titus 3,15). However, the NT never uses the word fivlo" to refer to a fellow Christian, except for one instance in John 15,15, where Jesus addresses his disciples as “friends”. Despite the questionable relevance of John 15,15 to shed light on 3 John 15, one thing is remarkable: that the very last words of the short letter are still playing an important role in the Elder ’s attempt to put Gaius under pressure as he decides to stand for John or not. Up until this point, the letter has clustered a number of elements leading Gaius to acknowledge the Elder’s point of view and be sympathetic with the injustice and arrogance he and his emissaries were enduring. The whole persuasive argumentation of the letter is deployed in Gaius’ mind. However, the very last words of the letter must have sounded both familiar and demanding, as they showed Gaius that: a. the Elder’s friends are also Gaius’ friends, and vice versa; b. should Gaius decide to stand against the Elder, he will also stand against his entire entourage (81); c. Gaius is required a certain degree of accountability, as he is asked to greet the “friends” with him. The very last words of the letter constitute a final appeal to do what is good by implicitly hinting at potentially heavy implications of a possible alienation from the Elder and all that he represents. * ** Third John follows a well established and common pattern in literary and non literary letters and discourses of the first century. To persuade one’s audience (using epideictic or deliberative rhetoric), it was necessary to earn good will, strategically arouse positive and negative emotions, assign praise and blame, stimulate emulation and disgust, and use any means to which the audience was sensitive to convince it of the necessity and logic of the suggested course of action. This paper shows that Third John is not a mere letter of recommendation, but a carefully drafted persuasive discourse in which the Elder intentionally organizes his arguments to guide Gaius step by step in his decisional process. The Elder focuses on the qualitative stasis of the whole issue: the question which the Elder wants Gaius to answer is not whether Diotrephes actually did what he did (conjectural stasis), nor does the Elder expect Gaius to define what Diotrephes did (81) This second point has already been seen by WATSON, “Rhetorical Analysis”, 500.