The men’s group at my church is studying the epistles of John this spring. I was assigned to teach 2 John which I was excited about because it has the great little verse about “pen and ink” and “face to face” that I’ve often used to talk about the wise use of technology and media.
But when I began studying it, I realized 2 John also touches on several other important issues, including the relationship of the Father and Son and Christological heresies, and that it most likely the only epistle that directly addresses a female recipient.
The Addressee(s) of 2 John
2 John begins with the words ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῆς meaning “to the chosen lady and her children.”
In the video, I outline 6 potential view and walk through the pros and cons of them, but here I will just mention the most common three views.
1. The Lady is a Local Church
This is probably the most common view, and there are internal and external reasons to hold it.
Within the book itself, the use of the term “lady” (2 Jn 1:1, 5) and a “sister” (2 Jn 1:13) could be understood as two different local churches, where John is writing from one (the sister) and to another (the lady). Such feminine language would appear to fit with other feminine terms used for the people of God in the Bible, including Jerusalem (Lam 1:1-7; Ezek 16:8; Hos 7:4; Rev 19:7–9; 21:1-2), as well as Paul’s metaphors of marriage (Eph 5:22–33; 2 Cor. 11:2–4). One might also point out that 3 John is structured very similarly, but names a single recipient, Gaius, and uses singular pronouns (you) throughout, while 2 John uses some plural pronouns (y’all) indicating the audience is a group, not an individual.
However, there are several reasons why this view is difficult to support: The elder opens the letter to “the lady” and “her children” (2 Jn 1:1). Later, he directly addresses the “lady” and speaks to her about “your children” (2 Jn 1:4-5) indicating those are not synonymous ideas, but two different referents. Also, it seems strange to write directly to an inanimate thing (a church) and then speak to it about its children. This distinction becomes clearer when considering the pronouns. 2 John begins with singular pronouns (you) when speaking to the lady about “your (singular) children,” and then switches to the second person plural (y’all) in verse 6 on and onward (compare 2 John and 3 John). Also, the term “lady” (kuria, the female form of kurios, or Lord) isn’t used anywhere else in the New Testament, and so there is no other parallel where it means “church”. In fact, the closest parallel, 3 John, uses the ekklesia to refer to those under Gaius’s care.
2. The Lady is a Mother
Because of the above problems with understanding the word “lady” to be referring to a congregation, many commentators have concluded that 2 John does, in fact, address a woman. This is not a new idea, and it is attested to in the first edition of the King James Version from 1611.
In his 1706 commentary, Matthew Henry’s introduction to 2 John says, “Here we find a canonical epistle inscribed, principally, not only to a single person, but to one also of the softer sex.” He goes on to say this is appropropriate citing Jesus entrusted the message of his resurrection to women and Priscilla’s role. In the notes on verses 1-4, he writes, “It is lovely and beautiful to see ladies, by holy walking, demonstrate their election of God. And her children; probably the lady was a widow; she and her children then are the principal part of the family, and so this may be styled an economical epistle.” This view is echoed at Got Questions which says, “It is better to view this lady as an unnamed friend of John who had actual children who were serving the Lord.”
Although this view makes good sense of the vocabulary and grammar of “lady,” its understanding of “children” (τέκνον) is less defensible. In both John’s gospel and 1 John, phrases like “children of God” always refer to believers. Similarly, 3 John speaks of “my children” (3 John 1:4), but we do not assume that letter is from a father writing to tell Giaus about his kids.
3. The Lady is a Woman Who Hosts a Church
Although there are important debates about how to interpret various passages about the proper relationships of sexed bodies in marriage and ministry, the New Testament is much clearer that first century churches met in people’s homes (1 Corinthians 16:19; Romans 16:3–5; Philemon 1:2) and those homes were often those of women (Acts 12:12; Acts 16:40), such as Nymph’s: “Y’all greet the siblings who are in Laodicea, with Nympha and the church that is in her house.” (Col. 4:15).
There are two potential tensions in this view. First, if one holds a hard complementarian position where the Bible is understood as teaching that only men are assigned any leadership roles in the church, then the idea of the lady having adult “children” under her care could seem to violate that. Second, unlike the Pauline passages above, the lady isn’t named. Some scholars think this is to prevent persecution (perhaps in parallel to the chosen woman in 1 Peter 5:13). Others have suggested the recipient is Martha, because the Aramaic form of that names means “lady” or “mistress” (think Guy Richie or Gal Gadot). And others have suggested that “chosen” or “lady” are names, making the addressee either “To the chosen Kuria” (like Rufus, Romans 16:13) or “To Lady Eklekte.” However, those are not well known names at that time, so one cannot say for certain (see Marg Mowczko for more on the names).
In conclusion, the grammar and vocabulary indicate (1) the elder opens the letter with two recipients: the lady and the children, (2) he addresses them distinctly with singular (you) and plural (y’all), (3) the “children” are adult believers as in the rest of the New Testament, and (4) a woman hosting a church in her home fits within the New Testament pattern.
Trinity and Christology
Now to the main content of the letter!
In the first several verses of 2 John, the elder applauds the lady and her children for “walking in truth” (2 Jn 1:4) and then urges them to follow the command to “walk in love” (2 Jn 1:6). Then he specifically mentions avoiding those who come with a message denying that “Jesus Christ came in the flesh” (2 Jn 1:7).
The Spirit isn’t directly mentioned in 2 John (other than being the one who inspired the words), but I emphasize the trinitarian nature of this text because, unlike Paul, who often emphasize the Jesus as Lord (“God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”, Eph 1:2), here John goes out of his way to emphasize the relationship of the Father and Son, writing, “from God the Father and from the Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.” Notice that Jesus is here identified primarily by his relationship as “Son of the Father.”
The “command” to love one another is often connected to Jesus’s words in John 15-17, but notice that here that John says “commanded by the Father,” further linking the two persons. Later, in verse 9, John again links “Christ and God” then “Father and the Son.”
Perhaps the sense that John is getting at by connecting “truth and love” (1:3) throughout the text is that the greatest truth we can know (there is one God in three persons, Matt 28:19) is the greatest love that exists (the Father has always been a loving Father to the Son, John 17:24). Walking in truth and walking in love, then, is living in that knowledge of who God is, loving our God with all we are and loving our neighbor as ourselves. This requires both orthodoxy (rejecting trinitarian and Christological heresies) and orthopraxy (rightly ordered loves).
Mediated Communication
The last fun thing is John’s discussion of “ink” and “face-to-face” which I have often used a jumping off point to discuss our modern choices between being in person and using mediated communication, and even how we use terms like FaceTime. I don’t take this to mean that John thinks “face-to-face” is always superior to writing, but instead that different messages need different mediums. Yes, some things are best said face-to-face, but the converse is also true – some things are better written down. Scripture is definitely one of those things, but so also are other things, such as those that need precision (an address or phone number) or permanence (a contract).
Today we have more choices in media which only means we need more wisdom to discern the best medium for the given situation. For example, some companies have hierarchies of media usage, where new colleagues in a trust-building phase should strive to meet in person, even if it is costly. Then once that is established, video chat can work for ongoing collaboration and other forms (project management tools, email, chat, etc.) can be used for smaller exchanges that don’t require synchronous communication.
One last point: a very similar ending is found 3 John, but the two statements have some interesting differences (in italics):
| 2 John | 3 John |
|---|---|
| Πολλὰ ἔχων ὑμῖν γράφειν | Πολλὰ εἶχον γράψαι σοι, |
| Though I have many things to write to y’all | I had many things to write to you |
| οὐκ ἐβουλήθην διὰ χάρτου καὶ μέλανος | ἀλλ’ οὐ θέλω διὰ μέλανος καὶ καλάμου σοι γράφειν· |
| I do not want to do so through paper and ink. | but I do not wish to write to you with ink and pen |
| ἀλλὰ ἐλπίζω γενέσθαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς καὶ στόμα πρὸς στόμα λαλῆσαι, | ἐλπίζω δὲ εὐθέως σε ἰδεῖν, καὶ στόμα πρὸς στόμα λαλήσομεν |
| Instead I hope to come to y’all and speak face to face | but I hope to see you soon, and we will speak face to face. |
| ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ἡμῶν πεπληρωμένη ᾖ. | |
| so that our joy may be made full. |
Notice there are several grammatical and vocabulary differences.
- 2 John beings with a present participle, while 3 John uses past (imperfect) verb
- 2 John is uses a second person plural (ὑμῖν, y’all), 3 John uses singular (σοι, you)
- 2 John and 3 John use two different verbs that both mean “want” “will” or “wish” and two different tenses (aorist vs. present)
- 2 John lists “paper and ink” while 3 John “ink and pen” and includes a second verb “write”
- 2 John says he hopes to “come” while 3 John hope to “see” and includes “soon”
- 2 John has “speak” as an infinitive while 3 John’s “speak” is future tense.
- 2 John includes the phrase about joy, while 3 John does not (poor Gaius?)
I don’t think any of these differences change the meaning dramatically, but the number of differences is interesting when considering the audience of the letters. Some commentators suggest the similarities indicate that these letters were written around the same time.
One theory (e.g., this study) is that all three letters were written and sent as a package, with 1 John as the content/sermon, 2 John as a cover letter to the congregation, and 3 John as a cover letter to the pastor, Gaius. However, that theory is harder to maintain when one considers the above discussion about “the lady”, but also because it seems unlikely that the Elder would write, “I don’t want to use more ink” in two cover letters, but then go on to include 1 John which is much longer than either letter!
It is, of course, impossible to come to a definitive conclusion about some of these minor issues, but I am glad that we have these small windows into how John and other apostles wrestled with the technology (writing, ships, etc.) available to them, urging us to develop similarly wise practices today.
Bonus PowerPoint Tricks
In the video above, I use a few different PowerPoint tricks in an attempt to make text-based teaching more engaging and clear. So I also recorded a short video on my two favorite tricks: (1) scrolling and (2) highlighting: