OVER THE YEARS, I’ve written scores of letters of recommendation and have read hundreds more. The language is pretty predictable. The letter will open with words like, “It is a pleasure to write a letter of reference for so-and-so,” and end with something like, “I have no reservations in recommending him or her to your institution.” In between, the writer says how long they’ve known the person and in what context, then goes on and on about that individual’s most stellar accomplishments.

This kind of letter is so common in the academic world that anything less laudatory seems suspect, even if the writer generally has positive things to say. Indeed, the informal rule of thumb for those writing reference letters is often, “If you can’t write a letter saying that the person walks on water (or at least is capable of walking on water in an emergency), then don’t write a letter at all.” And of course, as a reader, you quickly learn to decode the double-speak of someone who feels obliged to write a letter but has nothing particularly nice to say: “He has been one of my most memorable employees, and I have every confidence that your experience of him will be the same as mine.”

Right. Next application, please?

LETTERS OF REFERENCE were part of the New Testament world too. They were common enough that the apostle Paul seems to have been criticized by his opponents for not using them to establish his own credibility (see 2 Cor 3:1). Unlike today, however, the point of such letters was less about saying how wonderful the person was, and more about the vicarious credibility that came from having such a letter, written by someone whose own social standing or reputation carried weight. It would be like me paying less attention to what the letter said, and more attention to who signed it.

To some extent, 3 John functions as a letter of reference for a man named Demetrius, whom John is sending to Gaius, letter in hand. The apostle hopes that his good friend will ignore what Diotrephes has been doing and extend to Demetrius the same kind of Christian hospitality he’s already shown to others. John’s actual recommendation of Demetrius, though, only takes one verse of the letter:

Demetrius is well spoken of by everyone—and even by the truth itself. We also speak well of him, and you know that our testimony is true. (3 John 12, NIV)

By ancient standards, the fact that the letter is coming from John should be enough in itself to satisfy Gaius. John says more here about Demetrius than might be expected. Why?

One intriguing possibility is that even if Gaius didn’t know Demetrius personally, he may have known him by reputation — and that reputation was not a positive one. Previously, we noted that “Gaius” was a common enough name in John’s day, and the same could probably be said of “Demetrius.” But there is only one other mention of a man named Demetrius in the New Testament: the Ephesian silversmith who instigated a riot against the apostle Paul and his companions (see Acts 19:23-41).

Paul’s proclamation of the gospel in Ephesus was so successful that it was taking profitable business away from people like Demetrius, who made and sold little silver shrines to people who came to worship at the temple of Artemis. Demetrius therefore rallied his fellow craftsmen into an angry mob. Not finding Paul, they grabbed two of his companions instead, dragging them along the street to the amphitheater. And one of those companions was named…Gaius.

If, as many believe, John wrote his letters from Ephesus, then it may be that the troublemaker Demetrius eventually became a Christian. Who knows: it may even have been through the ministry of John! And if the Gaius to whom 3 John is addressed is the same Gaius who was accosted by the lynch mob in Acts 19…well, you can understand why Gaius may have needed a bit more reassurance before taking Demetrius into his home. That’s all speculation, of course, but it makes for a nice sequel to the story in Acts, one more tale to tell about the surprising ways in which the gospel spread throughout the empire.

BE THAT AS it may, what John says about Demetrius should give Gaius confidence in the man. He is “well spoken of by everyone.” Just as Gaius himself has developed a well-deserved reputation for hospitality, so too has Demetrius established himself in John’s community as a man of good character. The verb John uses doesn’t describe superficial chit-chat; it can be used to describe giving testimony in a court of law.

The Christians in Ephesus, in other words, don’t just idly say, “Demetrius? Yeah, nice guy.” They have stories to tell that would witness to his faithfulness. Indeed, as John says, even “the truth itself” could testify. Here, John personifies the gospel and puts it on the witness stand, and he’s confident in what kind of testimony the gospel would give to the character of Demetrius.

Moreover, the apostle himself testifies on behalf of Demetrius: “We also speak well of him, and you know that our testimony is true.” If all John wants to do is give a personal endorsement, he doesn’t really need that second part. But when he reminds Gaius “you know that our testimony is true,” he is probably referring back to the importance of keeping to the true gospel as taught by the apostles. That’s particularly the case against the background of the controversy that split John’s community and radiated outward to Gaius’ community, creating tension even between Gaius and Diotrephes.

How will Gaius respond to the letter? Will he respect his friend’s apostolic authority and do right by Demetrius and the gospel, despite the pressure from Diotrephes? Demetrius comes highly recommended, but given all that’s happened, John knows there are no guarantees.

That’s why, even though it’s necessary for John to write a letter of introduction now for Demetrius’ sake, he doesn’t want the letter to do all the work in the relationship. As we’ll see, sometimes it’s better to talk things out in person.