1:1 From the elder, to an elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth (and not I alone, but also all those who know the truth), 1:2 because of the truth that resides in us and will be with us forever.

Does this refer to a person and her offspring, or to a church and its constituent members?  Although certainty is not possible, the latter option is to be preferred.

Some early writers were undecided.  Andreas (7th century):

‘John is either writing to a church, or else to a particular woman who has ordered her household spiritually, according to the commandments of God.’

But most commentators have opted (with more or less confidence) for one or other of the two main options.

(a) A person – a specific individual and her offspring (physical or spiritual)

This view is supported by Alexander; Hodges; Kistemaker; MacArthur; Moody; Morris; Plummer, among others (Derickson).

Some earlier writers have thought that ‘elect’ represented this lady’s proper name.  So Clement of Alexandria, who wrote that this letter:

‘was written to a certain Babylonian woman called Electa, whose name stands for the election of the holy church.’

According to the first edition of the AV (1611) this lady was ‘a certaine honourable matrone’.

Matthew Poole says that ‘the elect lady’

‘appears to have been some noted person, whom both her singular piety, and rank in the world, made eminent, and capable of having great influence for the support of the Christian interest.’

Matthew Henry, similarly.

The 19th-century commentators JFB think that the reference is to a ‘person of influence’, into whose family ‘deceivers’ (v7) were:

‘insinuating themselves into her family to seduce her and her children from the faith; whence John felt it necessary to write, warning her.’

The 19th-century commentator Albert Barnes, while acknowleding the difficulty of identifying the recipient(s) of this letter, inclined to the view that it is addressed ‘to an individual, and not to a church’; and that the name of this individual is Cyria, (Κυρία).  She was a mother with children, and the apostle was warmly attached to her.

Without commiting himself to this view, Derickson notes the following arguments:

(i) Since the literal meaning makes sense, one should not make it figurative unless clear warrant is provided by the author.

(ii) The reference to an “elect lady” could reflect a title for a respected woman who was well known.

(iii) “Kyria” is well attested as an epithet in letters.

(iv) His describing her children as walking in the truth reasonably applies to literal children who have reached adulthood. This makes sense of the greeting from her sister’s children in verse 13.

(v) The Greek term translated “elect” can be a proper name with “lady” being a title of respect given her by John or others. However, his use of ἐκλεκτῆς as an adjective in verse 13 argues for ἐκλεκτῇ being an adjective rather than a noun as well. On the other hand, the adjective in verse 13 may not require that ἐκλεκτῇ be an adjective. In Rom 16:13, the epithet “elect” is attached to the name “Rufus” (Ῥοῦφον τὸν ἐκλεκτὸν). However, Paul uses the article with this adjective, whereas it is absent in 2 John.

(vi) We see Paul passing on greetings from others in his epistles (Rom 16:21, 23; 1 Cor 16:19; Phlm 23–25) and so know that what John does in verse 13 would not be unusual and could thereby indicate a literal person.

(vii) The four plural references could include the woman and her children rather than indicate a congregation.

(viii) It was not unusual in the Roman world for people to have double names, and ἐκλεκτῆ has been found on Roman inscriptions in combination with other names.

(ix) It is possible that ἐκλεκτῆς in v 13 is a name as well and it could be that two women have the same name and are Christian sisters rather than relatives.

(x) If the woman were accustomed to showing hospitality to visiting preachers, this epistle could apply just as readily to an individual situation as to a local congregation.

(xi) “It is unnatural that such a simple letter should contain such a lengthy and involved figure of speech” (Burdick).

Margaret Mowczko argues:

(i) No congregation is referred to as ‘lady’ (kyria) in the NT or in later writings.  Conversely, many women are addressed, or referred to by this term, in early writings, both Christian and pagans.

(ii) The term kyria referred especially to women of high status, many of whom managed their own households.  We may assume that the person referred to here was a householder.

(iii)The children, on the other hand, are probably not the natural children of the letter’s recipient.  They are (Mowczko thinks) spiritual children or disciples.  This would be consistent with the use of the term in the Johannine letters generally.  Compare 2 Jn 1:4 with 2 Jn 1:4.

(iv) Given that the ‘lady’ and the ‘children’ are separately addressed makes untenable the idea that the former refers to the congregation.  For, if the ‘lady’ is the church, who are the children?  (It is absurd to suggest that the ‘lady’ is the church and the ‘children’ are the congregation, for the two (church and congregation) are one and the same thing in the NT thought.

(v) Most NT congregations were ‘house churches’, consisting of a dozen or so members.  The ‘elect lady’ was probably the host and leader of the congregation that met in her own house (assuming that the same person would normally be host and leader).

Mowczko concludes:

‘Women were active in New Testament churches. They were involved in a variety of ministries. Some were prophets, deacons, or missionaries. Others, like the Chosen Lady, were hosts, patrons, and leaders who cared for local congregations. The participation of women in congregations and in missions, at all levels, was vital, valued, and acknowledged in New Testament letters. Today it is important to recognize that these women were not an anomaly. Women ministers were a feature of New Testament Christianity.’

(b) A church and its constituent members

This view is held (again, with varying degrees of confidence) by most modern commentators, indcluding (according to Derickson) Barker; Boice; Brooke; Brown; Bruce; Burge; Culpepper; Culy; Dodd; Grayston; Haas, de Jonge, and Swellengrebel; Houlden; Marshall; Smalley; Smith; Stott; Strecker; Williams; Yarbrough.  Also the contributor to Hard Sayings of the Bible.

Hilary of Arles thought that:

‘the elect lady is clearly a church to which the letter is written.’

Kruse gives four reasons for supporting this interpretation:

(i) While the addressees are referred to as ‘the chosen lady and her children’ in verse 1 and the elder says ‘it has given me great joy to find some of your [singular] children walking in the truth’ in verse 4, in the rest of the letter (vv. 6, 8, 10, 12) he addresses all his readers in the second person plural (‘you’), suggesting that ‘the chosen lady and her children’ is another way of addressing all members of a local church.

(ii) In the OT and the Apocrypha Israel is referred to as a wife, bride, mother, and daughter, indicating that there would have been some precedent for a Christian community to be addressed in similar terms.

(iii) In 1 Pet 5:13 the church in Rome is described as ‘she who is in Babylon’, indicating that NT Christians could speak of a Christian community as a woman.

(iv) The letter closes with the words ‘the children of your chosen sister send their greetings’ (v. 13), which appears to be a way of conveying the greetings of the elder’s Christian community to his readers. If this is the case, then the letter opens and closes with references to Christian communities: the one to which this letter is sent (‘the chosen lady and her children’), and the one to which the elder belongs (‘the children of your chosen sister’).

(Paragraphing added)

So also Stott:

‘The phrase is…likely to be a personification than a person—not the church at large but some local church over which the elder’s jurisdiction was recognized, her children (1, cf. 4, 13) being the church’s individual members.’

Stott thinks that the references to ‘love’ do not suit an individual application.  He adds that, if an individual is meant, she would have to be a widow with rather a large family, some of whom were faithful believers and others not.

Marianne Meye Thompson:

‘The congregation to which he is writing is designated metaphorically as the chosen lady and her children; we would say “the church and its members.”’

Thompson notes the following scriptures where Israel or the church is characterised as female: Isa 54:1, 13; Jer 6:21; 31:21; Lam 4:2–3; Jn 3:29; 2 Cor 11:2; Gal 4:25–26; Eph 5:22; Rev 18–19.

NET Bible notes:

‘The internal evidence of 2 John clearly supports a collective reference… In v. 6 the addressee is mentioned using second person plural, and this is repeated in vv. 8, 10, and 12. Only in v. 13 does the singular reappear. The uses in vv. 1 and 13 are most likely collective.’

This would be consistent with the NT characterisation of the church as ‘female’.

Gundry:

‘“To a … lady and her children” means “to a local church and the individual members that make it up.” For if the lady were an individual mother, it’s strange that in verse 13 her sister’s children but not the sister herself send greetings (compare John’s personifications of the church at large as a woman, a bride, and a wife in Revelation 12:1–17; 19:7; 21:2, 9; 22:17). Besides, the business of loving one another (verse 5) applies elsewhere to church life (John 13:34–35; 15:12, 17 and several times in 1 John); and it’s more likely that a church than that an individual Christian lady and her children would be loved by “all who know the truth” (verse 1). ‘

Kevin DeYoung argues:

‘Some maintain that the “elect lady” in 2 John is the pastor/elder of the church. The elect lady, however, is not the pastor of the church; she is the church. Not only is the letter much too general to be addressed to a specific person (cf. 3 John), and not only is female imagery often used of the church (cf. Eph. 5; Rev. 12), but, most decisively, John uses the second-person plural throughout 2 John, indicating that he has not an individual in mind but a body of believers (vv. 6, 8, 10, 12).’

Karen Jobes thinks that the author is employing ‘a metaphor for the church and those who have been reborn into it.’  Jobes makes the following points:

(i) Verse 13 refers to ‘the children “of your chosen sister,” which, along with the absence of any personal statements in the letter, strongly tilts away from a literal reading that these are references to two individual women.’

(ii) Such personification is based on the grammatical gender of what is being personified.  In this case, ‘church’ is female, and thus lends itself to female personification.

(iii) Female personification is found elsewhere in the Bible and cognate literate (see refs above).

(iv) The content of this short letter (focusing on obedience, sound teaching, and warnings about antichrists) best suits a congregation.

(v) The word ‘child’ (τέκνον) is frequently used in the Johannine writings to refer to spiritual children (of Abraham, Jn 8:39, of God, Jn 1:12; 11:52; 1 John 3:1, 2, 10; 5:2, and even Satan 1 Jn 3:10).

(vi) The word ‘chosen’ (ἐκλεκτῇ) makes best sense if the lady and her children are a metaphor for the congregation(s).  This would be ‘consistent with the thought in John’s gospel that Jesus’ followers are chosen (John 6:70; 13:18; 15:19). Specifically in Johannine thought they are chosen “out of the world” (John 15:19), and therefore this adjective alludes to the duality drawn between those of the world and those of God (e.g., John 8:23; 17:6, 14, 15, 16; 18:36; 1 John 2:16; 4:5).’

Johnson agrees that this is

‘the author’s way of referring to a church and its members. We see this also at the end of the letter in the greeting from the elder’s own congregation, whom he calls “the children of your chosen sister.” These two house churches are part of the same family of congregations in the same geographical area.’

Derickson marshalls the following arguments:

(i) The universal respect for the lady by “all who know the truth” argues against an individual.

(ii) The matters addressed best suit a church situation rather than an individual.

(iii) Neither the lady nor her children are named, whereas in 3 John three people are named.

(iv) The church is personified as a woman in 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25–27, 31, 32; Rev 21:2, 9; 22:17.

(v) This is analalous to Peter’s application of the adjective συνεκλεκτὴ to “she who is in Babylon” in 1 Pet 3:15, which should be taken as referring to a church.

(vi) This makes better sense of the closing greeting in verse 13.

(vii) It was common in Greek and Jewish culture to personify cities and countries as female.  So also Israel and the church are often as a woman or a bride.

(viii) In the light of intense persecution of Christians in the second half of the first century, it would not be surprising if the writer sought to protect the recipients by means of symbolic representation.

This interpretation is also adopted by Burge (NIVAC), O’Day (Women’s Bible Commentary, 3rd ed.), Brown and Wright.  The last-mentioned conjectures that the reason John referred to this sister church in such a cryptic way was that danger was at hand, and it would be safer to make the opening and closing of the letter look like an ordinary family message.

Osborne remarks that this is the view of most commentators, although he allows that the first interpretaton is possible.  So also Campbell, who remarks that:

‘In favor of the “lady” being a congregation is that while personified, there are no specific details offered as to her identity.’

Conclusion

‘An elect lady and her children’ is probably a slightly cryptic way of referring to a local church and its constituent members.