James W. Gunter | 24 April 2023 Notes on the Author and Audience of 2 John “The elder, to the elect lady and her children…” (v.1a) John is πρεσβύτερος, “the elder” (or “presbyter”). John utilized pseudonyms (“the disciple whom Jesus loved,” Jn 21:20), though never for concealment. He writes to familiar Christians who would know him by “the elder.” “Presbyter” is another good translation, which would confirm his authority and the weight of what follows (e.g. apostolos Col. 1:1).1 Peter called “himself ‘fellowelder’ (sunpresbuteros).”2 Presbuteros may be applied to the church (see Shepherd of Hermas; theologically, but not linguistically, see Romans 4:9ff; Galatians 4:21ff), but there is no good alternative for understanding presbuteros in 2 John as referring to the Apostle John himself. As for John’s audience, this “elect lady” may refer to a woman or a local congregation. In favor of a woman - somewhat wealthy who let her congregation meet in her house - are three primary arguments. First, Kyria (kuria) was not an uncommon name at that time.3 John calls her 1 “…since ecclesiastical terms were used loosely in the early days of the church, it is also possible that the writer was what we would now call a ‘superintendent’ or ‘bishop’ with responsibility for a group of churches.” (I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John in The New International Commentary on the New Testament {Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978], 60) Stott (and seemingly Wescott) outright support reading presbuteros as communicating authority. (John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John in Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids: Inter-Varsity Press, 1989], 203) 2 A. T. Robertson, The Generaal Epistles and the Revelation of John in Word Pictures in the New Testament Volume VI (Nashville: Broadman, 1960), 249. 3 Part of all of ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ could be a proper name. Could also be “to the dear Electa” (Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament Vol. II [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887], 391; Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament [4th Rev. Ed.] [London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994], 652.). Vincent’s comments are particularly unhelpful. Against Electa is 2 John 13, where eklektes is an adjective: τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἀδελφῆς σου τῆς ἐκλεκτῆς. (Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes [Biblical Studies Press, 2006], notes on 2 John) “Martha” is also offered as a potential candidate, who probably was the mistress of a sizable estate and whose name is the feminine Aramaic for “lord” or “master.” Mary, her sister, could be the “elect sister” mentioned in verse 13. The issue with this interpretation is that no evidence leads one to this conclusion, but it is, at every turn, merely a paradigm that seems to make sense of some of the words John writes. This is not a reliable methodology for Biblical interpretation. Conclusions must be arrived at through positive evidence, else human
“the elect Kyria” as he writes in 3 John “to the beloved Gaius.” Second, this makes plain, straightforward sense of the warning in verse 10 (“do not receive him into your house”) and of the use of “children,” who would be this Kyria’s offspring. Third, there is precedent for a congregation meeting (Colossians 4:15) and a missionary/prophet staying (Acts 16) in the house of a wealthy mistress. Against these arguments we may say, first, that kuria te eklekte is to be expected (though not necessary) if Kyria is a proper name, since, in the next letter, we find gaio to agapeto instead of agapeto gaio (3 John 1).4 That a noun or adjective may be used as a name (e.g. grace or faith today) is not by itself evidence for its usage anywhere as being a proper noun. Second, that this supposed woman named Kyria would snuggly fit the description of a kyria (revered woman with some type of persuasive, authoritative position in a society/community) is an often overlooked convenience with Bunyan-like significance, who, in his Pilgrim’s Progress, named characters according to their vices/virtues and roles in the story. Some of what is written about this Kyria is assumed from the meaning of her name (e.g. Smith, 163). Third, that there were hospitable, wealthy women in the church is not evidence that this lady in 2 John was one. Fourth, formulas and set phrases often lack an article in the Greek (e.g. 1 Peter 1:1), which explains eklekte kuria well.5 reasoning will piece-meal paradigms that turn out to be contrary to the revelation of God. David Smith humorously, but correctly, describes this interpretation as “a pleasant fancy, but nothing more” (David Smith, The Epistles of John in The Expositor’s Greek Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Printing Company, 1983], 163). Clement seems to have understood Electa as a proper name but in reference to a congregation (Smith, 162). 4 1 Peter 1:1 eklektois parepidemois is irrelevant here because the argument concerns John’s style of writing, not Peter’s or the Greek world’s. 5 Haas De Jonge and Swellengrebel, A Translator’s Handbook on the Letters of John (New York: United Bible Societies, 1972), 138.
The strongest evidence supports eklekte kuria as referring to a congregation. First, John’s use of “children” elsewhere in his epistles (and elsewhere e.g. Jn 1:12) is in reference to Christians/members of churches, not seminal offspring. (also 3 John 4) Disciples are children of those they are brought up under. The members of a congregation are the children of that local body. Nothing in 2 John demands we read “children” differently. Second, the same title occurs at the end of the letter (“your elect sister”) where the “children,” not the sister, greet. John’s addressing “the elect lady” and her “children” throughout the letter seems most consistent with how one would speak of the corporate and individual spheres of a congregation (2 John 6, 8, 10, 12). In short, if “elect lady” refers to an individual, then we cannot readily explain the corporate thread that runs through this letter, as it does John’s other epistles. Third, in this corporate context, “house” reads smoother and more cohesively as referring to the church (v.10; cf. 1 Timothy 3:15). Further, both eklektos and kuria are most commonly used as improper nouns and adjectives, not names, with eklektos (and synonyms) serving as a designator for the church throughout Scripture. This is the normative interpretation up until this point in the Bible, and strong evidence is warranted if we are to diverge. Fourth, the church is the de facto ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ. Kuria is a title of honor and respect6 - “lady/mistress” not simply “woman.” Sarai was Hagar’s kuria (LXX Genesis 16:4, 8, 9; see also “maid/mistress” Isaiah 24:2). Josephus utilizes kuria in the same way (Antiquities 13.302; 17.137), though in Wars (17.139) it is rightly translated “mother,” which likewise must be seriously considered as an alternate translation in 2 John 1.7 The immediate context has “children” in view. 6 Louw-Nida 87.54. 7 Marshall points out that “Jerusalem was regarded by the Jews as the mother of the nation [Isa 54:1-8; Baruch 4:30- 37; 5:5; Galatians 4:25; Revelation 12:17].” (pg.60) See also Peter J. Leithart, The Epistles of John Through New
The Septuagent refers to God’s city as his kuria (LXX Isaiah 40:10, though the Hebrew does not read thus). This reverence for the church of the living God was echoed in post-apostolic Christendom.8 The Shepherd of Hermas describes her as holy multiple times. For Ignatius and early Christian generations, God, Jesus, and the church formed one entity. She is, as Paul describes, en soma, the embodiment of Christ, His Spirit, and consequently the image of the Father to the world.9 The glory of the Triune God abides within and upon her. She is kuria as her husband is kurios (Rev. 21:9; 22:17).10 The real question is not whether “the elect lady” can refer to an individual woman, but why we hesitate to assume that such a venerable title should be given to a local congregation.11 Against an ecclesial view of kuria, one may argue that the church catholic, not local, is the body and bride of Christ. Thus, if John means to call one congregation the mistress of Christ, then he in effect makes Christ out to be a polygamist when he speaks of another at the end of the letter. Eyes: From Behind the Veil (Monroe: Athanasius Press, 2009), 187-188; De Jonge, 135. The interpretive tradition of referring to the church as “mother” is traceable to the Apostles and beforehand in the motherhood of Jerusalem. 8 See also Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible Vol. II (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 539. 9 Schmidt was helpful in researching and thinking through this paragraph. Karl Ludwig Schmidt, “Καλέω, Κλῆσις, Κλητός, Ἀντικαλέω, Ἐγκαλέω, Ἔνκλημα, Εἰσκαλέω, Μετακαλέω, Προκαλέω, Συγκαλέω, Ἐπικαλέω, Προσκαλέω, Ἐκκλησία,” ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 532. 10 Textus Receptus reads “Lord Jesus Christ” in verse 3, evidence at least one scribe understood kuria as referring to the church, with the connection between kuria and kurios. 11 Contra. Yarbrough: “elect lady” is no unusual address for the church. (Robert W Yarbrough, “2 John” in CSB Study Bible: Notes, ed. Edwin A. Blum and Trevin Wax [Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2017], 2003). Marshall provides a summary argument: “…the interchange of singular and plural in the letter and the reference to the lady’s sister all support the view that the writer is personifying the church.” (pg.60) See also Leithart, 187; Stott, 203-204; N.T. Wright and Michael F. Bird, The New Testament in Its World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2019), 795, 803; D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 677; Colin G. Kruse, “1-3 John” in NIV Zondervan Study Bible ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015), 2571; De Jonge, 138. In favor of lady as an individual see Smith, 162-163; Robertson, 249. Elwell and Yarbrough miss the mark by claiming that either interpretation (lady as individual vs. lady as congregation) lends itself to the same message (Walter A. Elwell and Robert W. Yarbrough, Encountering the New Testament: A Historical and Theological Survey [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013], 352), primarily with vv.9-11 in view.
God, the Author of Scripture, cannot deny Himself, so this obviously cannot be the reading. That the church catholic is the proper bride of Christ (e.g. Ephesians 5:23) does not preclude New Testament authors from admonishing and exhorting congregations with language that implies their own local churches are bodies in and of themselves. (e.g. 4:10-16) This is not to say that these individual congregations constitute wholly separate, utterly complete bodies of Christ, but rather that they are temporal, locative manifestations and expressions of His body and bride, such that one may look at a local church and say rightly, “That is the body of Christ,” not because that congregation by itself constitutes the body of Christ, but because that congregation by itself truly represents and images Christ in its context. Insofar as Christ’s sacraments operate in localities, and insofar as Christ’s Word goes forth in localities, so far does Christ’s body manifest itself in localities. Thus, that John would address one congregation as “the elect lady” and refer to another as “your elect sister” is good and proper. The church is the elect lady in the Word and in the world. Therefore, when we find an “elect lady” in Scripture, the church is to receive all hermeneutical assumption. The burden of proof always rests on interpretations that say otherwise. While there is evidence in John’s second epistle consistent with understanding kuria as referring to an individual woman, the evidence is far from convincing.