WHO IS THE "ELECT LADY" OF II JOHN 1?

This is the recipient of John's second epistle and would appear to be an easy identification to make, at least in general terms. But, in fact, Raymond Brown has identified five different categories of answers to the above question.

One of the first problems an interpreter runs into is explained by Metzger: “Although either or both nouns may be taken as proper names and hence capitalized according to modern usage ('to the elect Kyria [or Cyria],' or 'to the lady [or, the dear] Electa,' or 'to Electa Kyria [or, Cyria]'), the [RSV] Committee understood the words to be used metaphorically of a local congregation.” Closely related to this issue is the reference in II John 1:13 – “The children of your elect sister greet you.”

With that background, here are Brown's five possible interpretations with comments on each by Brown and others:

The lady Electa

One major objection was brought out by Grayston, namely that it is improbable that her name was Electa “for that would be her sister's name too.” (see II John 1:13)

One suggestion falling under this category has been made by Harris, whose theory is that it is “a love letter written to a Gentile proselyte widow.” Brown counters: “Such a theory casts no light on why the lady is loved by all those who know the truth (v. 1c), or why the writer is worried about false teachers (rather than other suitors) coming to the house (v. 10)...Moreover, the translation 'the lady Electa' faces a grammatical difficulty, for in Greek as in English this construction would require the definite article, which is lacking here.”

The noble Kyria

Harris notes that Kuria (or Kyria) was a proper name attested in Asia and was the Greek rendering of the Aramaic form of the name Martha. Brown says that this translation was first proposed by Athanasius. However, Brown comments that we would “expect a Christian designation ('my beloved Kyria', 'my sister Kyria', or 'Kyria elect in the Lord'), rather than such a simple, neutral designation as 'noble.'” Despite this objection, The Living Bible paraphrases verse 1 as follows: “To that dear woman Cyria, one of God's very own.”

Dear lady

Brown: “Pure fantasy is involved in speculation that the woman might be Mary, the Mother of Jesus, who was left in the care of the Beloved Disciple...Not much better is the theory that she is Martha of John 11 [see above].”

Categories 1-3 are all variations on the same theme relating the addressee to a single person. Kroeger says that if this is true, “she must have been a leader of a house church somewhere near Ephesus. It is her duty to defend her children against heresy.”

The J.B. Phillips paraphrase reads: “This letter comes from the Elder to a certain Christian lady and her children.”

And The Daily Bible edition of the NT comments, “John addresses his second letter somewhat mysteriously to 'the chosen lady and her children.' Whether that means a particular woman and her family or refers symbolically to a given church is not wholly clear, but it is probably the former, since no other symbolic language appears in the letter.”

That above comment is more than a bit misleading, especially when one compares the language in II John with I and III John:

    possible family imagery:     I John: 25 verses out of 105 = 24%

                                                II John: 4 verses out of 13 = 31% 

                                               III John: 3 verses out of 15 = 20%

Since there is very little doubt that such references in I and III John are symbolic, the same is highly likely in II John also. And as to the objection that there is no other symbolic language in II John, that is also a very poor argument for several reasons: (a) Since I could only find four other symbols employed by John in his entire first epistle, the much shorter II John would only be expected to contain at the very most one additional symbol if the ratio were to be in the same ballpark. And one could argue that “walking in the truth” (vv. 4,6) is symbolic or figurative imagery. No detectable symbolic language other than that relating to family interactions appears in III John at all.

An Elect Lady (i.e. the universal church)

The problem with this possibility is explained by Brown, who states that “the lack of an article might suggest that no particular locale was in mind...and II John has been classified as a Catholic Epistle addressed to the church universal...However, a greeting from 'the children of your Elect Sister' [as in v. 13] to an Elect Lady who is the universal church is implausible.”

A specific Johannine church

Brown, after comparing the greetings in other NT epistles states, “on percentage alone one might guess that the symbolic designation for the addressees of II John represents a community of Christians.”

“Many commentators hold to the interpretation of 'the chosen lady' as a personification of a local church and its members...since the verbs and pronouns of the epistle are all in the plural...Regularly in the Scriptures Israel or the church is designated as a woman or the bride of Yahweh.” (M.M. Thompson) She cites five Old Testament and five New Testament passages to demonstrates her point.

Orr says, “For another example of personification of a church as a 'chosen lady' (also apparently for security reasons) see I Pet. 5:13.” Marshall similarly states, “This is in all likelihood a symbolic manner of addressing a church (cf. 1 Pet. v. 13), perhaps intended to baffle any hostile people into whose hands the letter might fall.”

“She is evidently well known to Christians in many places; she is loved by all who 'know the truth.' No individual traits appear throughout the letter, however; in this respect it forms a contrast with 3 John...Such considerations have led many interpreters, from the fourth century onwards, to understand 'the elect lady' as a corporate personality.” (Bruce) Of course, Bruce's comments would equally apply to an understanding of the 'lady' as the universal church.

“'Elect lady', probably refers to a local church, the members of which are called 'her children.'” (Quanbeck)

“The elder refers to the recipient of his letter as a 'chosen lady,' an appellation most commentators believe refers to a local church congregation; the corporate body is elect (2 Jn 1,13).” (Klein)

The footnote to the Jerusalem Bible states that it is a “figurative reference to one of the local churches under the jurisdiction of the Elder.”

Keener talks about the likelihood that her 'children' (Rev 2:23) represents her disciples, and cites 2 John 1,13 and 3 John 4 as support.

The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery says that “the author regularly employs family imagery to convey the message that a true believer loves both God (the believer's Father) and fellow Christian (the believer's sibling). A key verse is I John 5:1: 'Every one who loves the father loves his child as well' (NIV). The frequently used term 'brother' (adelphos) affectionately communicates this idea and is intended by the author to include both genders. In fact, both 'lady' and 'sister' convey the same notion in 2 John (2 Jn 1,13, respectively) and serve as metaphors for two local church assemblies. According to John, the way one relates to a family member is a reliable measuring stick of authentic faith.”

“Christians could be addressed as '(little) children' (1 Jn 2:1,12,14,18,28; 3:7,18; 4:4; 5:21; 2 Jn 1:4,13; 3 Jn 4...), evoking teacher/pupil or parent/child relationships (cf. Sir 3:1; 4:1) and emphasizing the role of the child as a symbol of the future. The description suggest the focus for hope through whom the community's wider values would be perpetuated (cf. Rev 12:2).” (Drane) These passages demonstrate the widespread utilization by John of family metaphors in application to the church.

Spencer has voiced an objection to these last two corporate understandings in that a whole congregation cannot be addressed as both an individual church leader and her children.

Brown's following rejoinder adequately addresses that “problem.” “The objection that a woman addressed II John cannot herself represent a church and still have children who are members of that church does not respect the plasticity of symbols; for children are mentioned in personified female descriptions of Israel and of Zion/Jerusalem in Isa 54:1,13; Lam 4:2-3; Baruch 4:30; 5:5; and also in Gal 4:25-26...).” I would add another example which is even more pertinent to this question, namely from the Revelation of John. The fluid imagery in Revelation 12 appears to first present the “woman clothed with the sun” as a representation of the church, but by the end of the chapter the dragon goes off to make war on her offspring, another symbol for the church.

This verse is footnoted in Today's English Version, saying “This probably refers to a church and its members (also in verses 4-5).” Similarly, The Message paraphrases the address as “my dear congregation.”

Finally, there are the words of Zane Hodges: “No personal names are found in it, and the suggestion that the recipient was named either Eklecta...or Kyria...carries little conviction...It has therefore been suggested that the apostolic writer adopted a literary form in 2 John, in which a particular Christian church is personified as 'the chosen lady' and its members are called 'her children.' The personification of nations and cities as female personages is common in the Bible.., and the Christian church is often referred to as 'the bride of Christ' (cf. Eph. 5:22-23; 2 Cor. 11:2; Rev. 19:7). The conclusion that 2 John is addressed to a church is further supported by the observation that in the Greek the writer drops the singular number for his pronouns after verse 5 and uses a singular again only in verse 13. Indeed, the general nature of the epistle's content is most appropriate to a community.”

Conclusion

Akin wisely concludes his remarks on the subject by saying, “Regardless of how one interprets these words, however, the base application of the epistle remains unchanged. What the author would expect in belief and behavior of a lady and her children he would also expect of a local church and its members.”

I also like the summary given by F..F. Bruce: “The weighing up of the possibilities for the individual or corporate character of the 'lady' is part of the exegesis of the letter; so long as either interpretation claims the support of serious students of the document, the question must be treated as an open one.”