The Letters of St. John, Part 3

I haven’t said anything yet on the second and third letters, which are both very short.  Both are about two pages long, if not less.  You can read each in less than five minutes. 

Let’s look at the second letter at the moment.  The theology inside the letter follows the first, which is much more fleshed out.  What I find interesting in the second letter is who it is addressed to.  John, referring to himself as “presbyter” is writing to a “chosen lady and to her children,” 

1 The Presbyter to the chosen Lady and to her children whom I love in truth—and not only I but also all who know the truth—

2 because of the truth that dwells in us and will be with us forever.

3 Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us from God the Father and from Jesus Christ the Father’s Son in truth and love.

Who is this chosen lady?  The NAB introduction to the letter identifies the woman as a Christian community and the children would be various churches within the community.  Wikipedia lists that also as a possibility but lists two other additional possibilities.  

A second hypothesis is that John is addressing an actual lady, and Wikipedia identifies her as “Kyria” which in Greek means “lady.” 

A third hypothesis is that the lady is Mother Mary herself.  While on the cross, Jesus, as we all know, hands His mother over to John’s care.

Let’s contemplate all three of these hypothesis.  Why would John address the community in such an indirect way and then continue with the metaphor throughout the letter? 

5 But now, Lady, I ask you, not as though I were writing a new commandment but the one we have had from the beginning: let us love one another.

Perhaps he was fearful that some Roman official would intercept the letter and identify the community for their persecution.  He does do similar in Revelations.  It’s possible but I find it unconvincing.  In the third letter he addresses a person, a “Gaius.” 

It does sound to me he’s addressing a real lady.  There’s one last reference to the lady, and that’s in the sign off at the end,

13 The children of your chosen sister send you greetings.

The NAB note on that last line believes the “chosen sister” is the Presbyter’s new church community, as well as the commentary at New Advent. 

But if children is supposed to be a metaphor for the churches inside the community, why would such a personal letter conclude with all these other churches sending her greetings?  The metaphor seems to be overly complicated group of churches sending greetings to a community, which in turn is itself a group of churches?  Getting inside a writer’s head, it just doesn’t ring true to how a writer would write. 

The word “chosen” is extremely loaded.  In the first line, the person being addressed is the “chosen lady” and in the last line the children sending back greetings come from a “chosen sister.”  Is the chosen lady the Blessed Mother?  Wikipedia seems to rationalize the chosen lady’s children as those kinsfolk of Jesus, but that doesn’t have to be.  “Behold you mother,” Christ says.  At this point, all people could be referred to as her children.  As to who the chosen sister is, we all are Brothers and Sisters in Christ.  Religious people choose their brothers and sisters.

So here’s another time I resist conventional interpretations.  I lean to a real woman being addressed.  I hold out the possibility this woman is the Mother of God, though I don’t think there is enough in the text to verify it. 

Kerstin Commented:

The lady could be a metaphor for the Church.

My Reply:

Which lady, Kerstin? The chosen lady or the sister? And if the chosen lady, then who is the sister? This is the problem with metaphors, and why should John write in this indirect way? I don’t recall Paul doing this in any of his epistles.

The NAB intro believes it’s one community of churches writing to another. When St. Paul writes to a community he calls them by their geographic area, such as Corinthians or Galatians. For anyone it would seem to me to write and address the addressee in metaphor requires some convoluted situation or entangled thought process. Of course it’s possible but to me the most likely scenario would be a direct address.

If you still think it’s metaphor, then why in the third letter he addresses the recipient directly and not in metaphor?

###

Let’s round this out by saying something about the third letter.  What I find interesting is the turn in the letter from a warm greeting between friends to a repudiation of a third man and the reference to a fourth man who the author uses for supporting testimony.  So there are four people in all in this letter: the author, who identifies himself as “the elder” and presumably is St. John the Evangelist, the person receiving the letter, Gaius, the third man who the author seems to be in conflict with, Diotrephes, and the fourth man who the author uses to attest for him, Demetrius. 

There are others mentioned generically as well.  There are the brethren at the beginning of the letter, who presumably are the same people at the end of the letter referred to now as “the friends.”  The brethren must be rank and file of the church, and I think one could make the distinction that the brethren refer to some of the rank and file of Gaius church, and the friends refer to the rank and file of the elder’s church.  Notice that some of the brethren came to the elder to testify to Gaius’ life in the truth.  Apparently having testimony is very important to the culture within the church at this time, and given the internal disagreements over orthodoxy we can understand why.

The turn in tone from the warm paragraphs referring to Gaius to the paragraph on his conflict with Diotrephes is stark.  It seems to come out of nowhere.  Here’s the entire paragraph:

9 I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to dominate, does not acknowledge us.

10 Therefore, if I come, I will draw attention to what he is doing, spreading evil nonsense about us. And not content with that, he will not receive the brothers, hindering those who wish to do so and expelling them from the church.

11 Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. Whoever does what is good is of God; whoever does what is evil has never seen God.

12 Demetrius receives a good report from all, even from the truth itself. We give our testimonial as well, and you know our testimony is true.

We learn that Diotrephes loves to dominate and does not acknowledge “us.”  So who is “us”?  St. John the Evangelist or the church of which he leads?  If we look at it as a rejection of the author, it makes the strongest case that the author is not St. John, for who would reject an actual apostle who lived with Christ?  Wikipedia, which has a very good entry on the letter, does mention this.  

But the author stipulates that Diotrephes “will not receive the brothers” and actually has expelled them from the church.  I don’t think Diotrephes is necessarily rejecting St. John here, but trying to get autonomy from St. John’s church, and set himself up as his church’s leader.  It never does say what the conflict is over.  Is it over theology or just internal church politics?  If I had to guess I would say it’s over theology.  Surmising Diotrephes’s thinking here, he might conjecture that although St. John may have lived with Jesus, it doesn’t necessarily mean he understood the nature of Jesus.  A gnostic sees Jesus and the world very differently. 

And Demetrius, who has received a “report from all,” comes in to attest to a report from “the truth itself.”  In that sentence I think we can surmise that the conflict is over theology.  It’s amazing how many times testimony, either directly or indirectly, is alluded to in this letter.  What appears to be a short, simple read is quite dynamic.  Fascinating!