Another important woman lost in translation...

[Woody]

Quote:

I agree. This seems to be spin-doctoring, of which we have a heavy infestation lately.

G

Spin - doctoring ?

That's a serious charge.

I don't see that at all.

I find what he has posted - to be very informative.

[CoAspen]

Haven't you heard, Tom is chief among 'spin doctors', all that wealth of information with an opposite point of view? What else could it be, him or the ones that he quotes? What are we to ever do!!!! My MY.

NOT!!!!!!!

[Woody]

You are exactly right about that CoA.

Here is what I posted on my FB page:

Quote:

"You can’t make up an empty mind. Stock your mind, stock your mind. You might be poor, your shoes might be broken, but your mind is a palace." —Frank McCourt

Some will filter their mind SO much as to not allow anything that might go contrary to their pre-conceived notions.

What a shame.

[doug yowell]

There are a good number of things about this letter that indicate it was written to a congregation and not to an individual.

First of all,

Second,

Fourth,

Fifth,

Finally,

John(3:17)forgot to mention the fact that this important woman church leader was so influential that John forgot her name (unlike Gaius in his other letter)

[John317]

Haven't you heard, Tom is chief among 'spin doctors', all that wealth of information with an opposite point of view? What else could it be, him or the ones that he quotes? What are we to ever do!!!! My MY.

NOT!!!!!!!

It would be wonderful, CoAspen, if you could show analysis rather than merely make sarcastic remarks.

[John317]

[Woody]

Quote:

It would be wonderful, CoAspen, if you could show analysis rather than merely make sarcastic remarks.

It was not CoA who started the sarcastic remarks. He simply responded to them.

And from my experience - one can't respond with reason to empty headed remarks. The author of the remarks will simply not know how to respond or to receive them.

[John317]

Some will filter their mind SO much as to not allow anything that might go contrary to their pre-conceived notions.

What a shame.

The real shame, Woody, is that you make these kinds of remarks without discussing the information or arguments. All you've done is state your conclusions, and conclusions aren't evidence.

I would really like to see you or Tom or Co-Aspen (or anyone else) discuss the points brought up on post #551582.

[John317]

Spin - doctoring ?

That's a serious charge.

I don't see that at all.

I find what he has posted - to be very informative.

Here's the spin, for which there is no basis in Second John:

Quote:

Like Phoebe, this unnamed woman leader of the NT church, gets downgraded to just a dear lady by the patriarchal tradition handed down by the church fathers that preceded and influenced the translators.

Here's the evidence showing that the above remark is "spin":

Quote:

There are a good number of things about this letter that indicate it was written to a congregation and not to an individual.

First of all, much of 2 John is written in the second person plural-- i.e., "you all" or "you people." For instance, see verses 6, 8, & 10. If John were writing to a single indivdiual woman, he wouldn't say, "you [plural] have heard... that you [plural] walk in love...You [plural] watch out that you [plural] do not lose what you [plural] have worked for... If anyone comes to you [plural]... you [plural] do not receive him..."

Second, 1 John 5 asks that the recipient of the letter and the writer "love one another." This is something that the apostle John is more likely to say in the context of a congregation than to say to a particular female Christian. The phrase makes better sense if addressed to a church.

Third, the word "church" in Greek is feminine in gender, and "lady" would harmonize well with that.

Fourth, elsewhere in John's writings, the church is depicted as a "bride" (Rev. 21: 2,9; 22: 17).

Fifth, the Greek word kyria ("lady") referred to a social subunit in the Greek city-state. John may use this word for a local congregation instead of the more common feminine word ekklesia.

Finally, the last verse of 2 John suggests that John writes from one congregation to another, which he terms "your elect sister."

[Woody]

Quote:

I would really like to see you or Tom or Co-Aspen (or anyone else) discuss the points brought up on post #551582.

Discussions go 'round and 'round. When the points are discussed it just gets ignored and the next round comes. Then we are told that no Biblical evidence was presented after volumous quotes were provided. There is no end to the whining.

[CoAspen]

I agree with Tom and point out the many posts that don't deal with his remarks and input of sources which he believes supports his position, is not spin! To repeat that is simply disparaging his efforts as fluff with out substance. Finding the 'spin' comments being posted about Him I find funny and if some were to find them 'sarcastic', well...........

[John317]

.... the masculine form of the word, kyrios, is used very frequently and is most often translated as "Lord", "lord" or "master". That word conveys superiority, even supremacy. It is one in control of and having authority over others and was the title with which servants greeted their master. It was also the title for addressing a civil ruler or authority.

The literal meaning of kyria is that it is simply the feminine form of lord or master.

In both the Septuagint and the Greek NT, the word, kyrios, is the translation of YHWH, or Jehovah. It refers to Christ as "Lord" in many verses, including John 20: 28. When referring to humans, it means, "lord," "master," "owner," or "sir." All of the Greek-English lexicons and dictionaries define kyria as "lady."

In order to prove the claim that the translators are "downgrading" "another important woman" in the NT, it would be necessary to show valid evidence of it. But that's exactly what's missing.

It's a desperate argument to make women's work in the church dependent on a particularly obscure understanding of Romans 16: 1-2 and 2 John 1 & 5.

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

What does this tell us of how John regarded this woman? (He certainly was not as obsequious to the recipients of his other two letters.)

The obsequiousness that the Apostle John shows the "dear lady" in Second John is actually good evidence that he is addressing a church and not an indivdiual woman and her children. We find the same kind of obsequiousness in the second chapter of John's first letter.

Quote:

Was he conveying something about how others regarded her, such as the church, as suggested by Vines? Was she the one chosen to be in charge?

Not surprisingly, I am inclined to think that is quite possible. ....

More likely, John is conveying something about how Christ regards the church. Christ Himself does the same in His own letters to the churches of Revelation 2 to 3.

The "elect lady and her children" are words appropriately used of the church of Christ. That is far more likely and in harmony with the rest of Scripture than that John is addressing a woman who has been chosen by God to be in charge of the church.

Who does the Bible say God chose?

Eph 1: 4 answers:

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love."

[Gail]

Could I ask a dumb question- just for my own personal knowledge bank:

In the British class system, isn't the term "lady" for the wife of a "lord"? IOW- in this sense it designates a rank.

When using the word, "lady" to translate kyria, is it meant in this English class sense or as a simple non-ranking way as a synonym for a (typical) woman? Is there any way to determine which it meant in the Greek? I don't know any Greek so am depending on others for light on this.

[John317]

.... The direct message and warning given by John leaves an implied context that the false teachers would be expected to be coming to her.

The implied context is that the false teachers could be expected to come to the church, not to a particular woman. We find the same warnings to the church all through the New Testament, and particularly in the letters of Jesus to the churches in Rev. 2 and 3.

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

If she was not the one in charge or of some significant position in the church why would they come to her anyway?

You're assuming what you haven't yet shown to be true. The language of the letter indicates that the false teachers will come to the church, not to the woman whom you assume has been put in charge of the church. In fact, your assumption ignores the fact that the letter is written to plural recipients, as in verses 6, 8 and 10. The writer would not likely have addressed himself to "you all(plural)" if he were speaking only to a particular woman.

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

And for that matter, why would John feel a need to warn some ordinary woman of the church, especially for such a serious antichrist teaching? It would seem more probable that John would send such a warning to the one in charge, the pastor or elder of the church.

More likely the warning would be given to the entire church, as all the other warnings in the NT are given. For instance, see 2 Tim. 3: 1-6 and Rev. 2 & 3.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

2 John reads (to me) as referencing a church, and the "children" are the members the church--the church's offspring.

The "elect sister" and her "children" would be a sister church and its members.

I'm not sure why this is such a problem for people. To try and make this into a case for apostolic endorsement for women's ordination (or, at the very least, the undisputed claim of women's importance in the church) seems rather absurd (to me)...

[jasd]

QR frame:

...not taking issue with someone who has earned my respect, namely, rudywoofs - but I worked up the following sometime earlier and hopefully, not seeming contentious - thought I'd post it rather than waste it.

See what y'all think...

We know by Saint John's use of the singular (thee and thy of verses 4,5,13) and the plural (some of which examples John317 has noted)..., that the 'Elect Lady' and 'her children' are two separate subjects conjunctively compounded -- and not linguistically -- a church -- except as denoted by the address; the 'Elect Lady' and 'her children'..., her spiritual children if you will, her congregation.

The indication provided seemingly tracks an Elect Lady and her congregation of 'spiritual children' made up of both men and women, as Saint John used the grammatical masculine in verses 1, 4, and 8 -- a gender default (like French) when both male and female are present.

Proffering the two [conjunctive] compounded subjects, 'Elect Lady' and 'her children', as representing a singular church is superflously redundant and indicates a sort of wiggle-wobble in Saint John's thinking by his use of both the singular address and the plural.

Should one bruit the argument that the Elect Lady and her children represent a church and -- as this is the only use in NT Writ of such terminology -- well, the argument utilizes a very numinous and tenuous thread and cannot be sustained. Moreoever,

the epistle 3 John supplies us with the fact (several times over) that when Saint John desired to address the ekklesia/church as church, he did so -- without resort to metaphor.

So, I suppose that what 2 John tells its reader is -- a notable woman had and led a congreation of men and women. But Whoa!--ain not that like -- hierarchical anathema?

Anyway, don't need 2 John to sustain the concept of women in leadership roles. Saint Peter (as well secondarily, Saint John in Revelation) did that well enough by stating that all, ...all Xtians are a holy and Royal Priesthood.

Interestingly, the OT had a hierarchy of the Royal, then the Priesthood, then the Eunuchs, then the masses. I guess there's something said there...

[John317]

....Anyway, don't need 2 John to sustain the concept of women in leadership roles. Saint Peter (as well secondarily, Saint John in Revelation) did that well enough by stating that all, ...all Xtians are a holy and Royal Priesthood.

What Peter says about all Christians being a holy and royal priesthood doesn't contradict Paul's directions about the difference between men and women's roles in the work of the church.

[jasd]

Saint Paul needs to be parsed more acutely and more diligently than he has been heretofore.

There cannot be such overt contradiction between the Apostles. Saint Peter and Saint John were so clear-to-meaning as not to be mistakenly read.

The onus is upon the Pauline.

[phkrause]

2 John reads (to me) as referencing a church, and the "children" are the members the church--the church's offspring.

The "elect sister" and her "children" would be a sister church and its members.

I'm not sure why this is such a problem for people. To try and make this into a case for apostolic endorsement for women's ordination (or, at the very least, the undisputed claim of women's importance in the church) seems rather absurd (to me)...

Excellent points Pam, I tend to agree with you.

[Gail]

Here is Matthew Henry's take on it:

Quote:

Religion turns compliments into real expressions of respect and love. And old disciple is honourable; an old apostle and leader of disciples is more so. The letter is to a noble Christian matron, and her children; it is well that the gospel should get among such: some noble persons are called. Families are to be encouraged and directed in their love and duties at home. Those who love truth and piety in themselves, should love it in others; and the Christians loved this lady, not for her rank, but for her holiness. And where religion truly dwells, it will abide for ever. From the Divine Persons of the Godhead, the apostle craves grace, Divine favour, and good-will, the spring of all good things. It is grace indeed that any spiritual blessing should be given to sinful mortals. Mercy, free pardon, and forgiveness; for those already rich in grace, need continual forgiveness. Peace, quietness of spirit, and a clear conscience, in assured reconciliation with God, together with all outward prosperity that is really for good: these are desired in truth and love.

[Gail]

This doesn't specify whether the lady is a leader or not, just says she is a noblewoman, someone with rank in society.

[jasd]

Saint John called congregants 'children' eight times in the epistle just preceding 2 John, with a variant twice more. If he did not use 'children' in his second epistle in the same manner -- it would portray him as being out of character.

Best assumption is that the Elect Lady and her children indicated the composites of a first-century house church.

One might note the absence of the article 'the' from the Interlinear Greek as pertains Elected Lady; the which would imply an exceptionally high status or quality that in turn seems rather unusual were the term merely referencing a church, as that singularly unusual church seems to have been unknown to history...

However, best reading of the relative pronoun ous/whom (verse 1) in the Greek indicates that Saint John addressed the Elect Lady and her children as a group. Again, however...

Matthew Henry denotes eklektos the Elected Lady, as Lady Electa -- a proper noun usage -- which seems to be taking some liberty with what appears to be an adjectival use of eklektos in the MS.

[Tom Wetmore]

2 John reads (to me) as referencing a church, and the "children" are the members the church--the church's offspring.

The "elect sister" and her "children" would be a sister church and its members.

I'm not sure why this is such a problem for people. To try and make this into a case for apostolic endorsement for women's ordination (or, at the very least, the undisputed claim of women's importance in the church) seems rather absurd (to me)...

If true, it is the only time in the NT where the church is identified in such a manner. The word ekklesia is used uniformly and as has already been pointed out, John does so in his 3rd letter. What would explain why he would refer to the church in his 2nd letter as a lady? Nowhere else in the NT is a church referred to as a lady or sister.

As for the "children" reference, John consistently calls those to whom he minsters as his children, in both of the other letters. Paul similarly refers to believers as children as ones brought into a new birth relationship with Christ. It quite logical to understand that the children of this chosen noblewoman and her sister as those that she similarly had brought into the faith and now ministered to.

[olger]

2 John reads (to me) as referencing a church, and the "children" are the members the church--the church's offspring.

The "elect sister" and her "children" would be a sister church and its members.

I'm not sure why this is such a problem for people. To try and make this into a case for apostolic endorsement for women's ordination (or, at the very least, the undisputed claim of women's importance in the church) seems rather absurd (to me)...

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

The first word translated as "chosen" or "elect" is commonly used in the NT and most often carries the implication of one chosen of God. So this woman was one of the elect or God's chosen.

You first need to show evidence that John is writing to a woman rather than to a church.

To the contrary, one should assume a literal meaning unless it is clearly meant as figurative. This is not a piece of apocryphal writing as in Revelation that one should first assume figurative unless clearly having a literal meaning. This is a personal letter that otherwise has quite plain and literal meaning bearing distinct similarities to his 3rd letter which was addressed to a person.