Jump to content
Online Baptist

The Elect Lady of II John


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I was wondering if anyone had thoughts as to who the elect lady and her children are in II John. At the end of the book the Apostle John also mentions her elect sister and her children.

I have two thoughts....

1. A Christian woman and her children and her biological sister that is also saved or another sister in Christ and her children.

2. Both local churches with their respective congregations. 

A strictly literal reading would lead more towards option 1. However, Christians are often referred to as children in Scripture, and the church is referred to as a woman, although a chaste virgin that could lead towards option 2.

If you have another option or something I haven't thought of let me know what you think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
17 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

It doesnt really make sense for members to be called children of the Church, members of the Church are the Church, not the children of the Church. 

I get what you are saying. I have had the same thought as well. So would you say it is probably just a Christian lady being addressed and the Apostle John also knows her sister? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

"The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have the known the truth." 2 John 1

It seems to me that the apostle John knew the lady, and her children, personally. And, it also seems to me, that all those not only in the congregation in that area who loved the truth were beloved by the apostle John, all those, including us in our age, who love the truth, are beloved by the apostle John.  

"I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have have received a commandment from the Father." 2 John 4. As with the apostle John, all ministers of the gospel rejoice when they find the members of the church walking in truth: in this situation, the elect lady and her children.

"The children of thy elect sister greet thee. Amen." 2John 13. It seems to me that the elect lady had a sister in the area where the apostle John was at or had ministered too.  The elect sister had children also and this was a greeting from the children of her sister. It seems to me that the the elect lady was strong in the faith and a close friend to the apostle John. I sense a close relationship, a deep love for the truth of the scriptures, and a closeness between the individuals listed.

Throughout the book of 2 John, the apostle John is contrasting those individuals who love the truth, who love doctrine, and deceivers within the local church. So, within the context of 2 John, it seems to me that the apostle John is talking to two sisters with two sets of children in two areas and who all love the truth and are beloved of John the apostle. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Pastor Markle has a fine study on 2 John in his, "A Forum Bible Study on 2 & 3 John." Here is the link to the study:

In his study, Pastor Markle discusses the elect lady and the corresponding passages.

Edited by Alan
grammar
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
27 minutes ago, Alan said:

Pastor Markle has a fine study on 2 John in his, "A Forum Bible Study on 2 & 3 John." Here is the link to the study:

In his study, Pastor Markle discusses the elect lady and the corresponding passages.

Thank you for your thoughts on this and for providing Pastor Markle's study in 2 and 3 John. I will definitely take a look.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • Moderators

Again, I know of no historical precedent that would forbid men speaking/writing to women. If you have evidence for this, I would be interested in seeing it.  It is not inappropriate for a man to write a woman (although in some circumstances it may be inadvisable), either now or back then, and it certainly is no evidence of an illicit relationship.  That's like teenage foolishness - "They're talking! They must like each other!" :4_13_13:

Since you seem to be speaking from present day assumptions rather than historical conditions, I would like to clarify that it's just plain rude (and occasionally discriminatory) for a man to refuse to communicate directly with a woman based on her gender. I agree that if there was a husband present, it would be more appropriate to include both of them in the letter; however, if the husband was unsaved, it would make sense why he was excluded.  If this was a single lady, she is presumably an adult and capable of monitoring her own behavior and communication without requiring some kind of middleman. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...