The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide: the Second Epistle of S. John
of doctrine, ‘ the Presbyter to the Elect Lady and her children, whom I love in the truth. ' "
3d. Similarity of style and matter is an argument for these two Epistles having the same author as the first. This is what Baronius says ( An . 99, cap. 9) : “ Certainly, if ever it be allowable to judge likeness to one another that children are born of the same parents, any one can easily perceive, from the words, the sentences, the style, the tone, bearing as they do on the surface the same character, that these Epistles have proceeded from the same author. First, with regard to the words and sentences, there are many indications of this, as when he says in the First Epistle, ‘ I write not a new commandment unto you, but an old.’ So in the Second, ‘Not as writing a new commandment unto you, but that which we have had from the beginning.' Again in the First, ‘Every one who denieth the Son, neither hath he the Father : he who confesseth the Son hath the Father also.' And in the Second he utters the same sentiment in the words, ‘ Every one who draws back, and abides not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God : he who abides in the doctrine of Christ hath both the Father and the Son.' So too in the First, ‘ Whosoever is born of God sinneth not. In the Third the same idea is thus expressed, ‘ He that doeth good is of God ; and he that is born of God sinneth not.' And as in the First Epistle it is frequently inculcated that we should love in deed and in truth, in the Second and Third there are injunctions to love in truth. In the First Epistle we find, ‘ Many false prophets are gone out into the world; in this is known the spirit of God,’ &c. So in the Second we find the same idea in almost identical words, ‘There are many seducers gone out into the world : he who confesseth not that Jesus is come in the flesh, this is a seducer and an antichrist.' Again, we have in the First Epistle, ‘This is love, that we keep His commandments;' and in the Second, ‘ This is love, that we walk according to His commandments.' This continual inculcation of charity, love, and truth in these two Epistles clearly indicates that we have in them a genuine transcript of the mind of S. John, just as we have in the First.”
To the objection that John writes of himself as the Elder, or Presbyter, I reply that in that age Presbyter and Bishop had the same meaning, as I have shown on 1 Tim. iv. 14. Moreover, S. John, worn out at this time with the fulness of years and the weight of the apostolic dignity, was the oldest of all living Christians. The last of the Apostles, he lived until the age of Trajan, and died
Chapter 1
The Elder: S. John, as the last survivor of the Apostles, surpassed all the three Bishops both in age and dignity. As S. Ambrose says, “ an Elder, who was furnished with a sort of swan-like grace of age.” And Oecumenius says, “John speaks of himself as a Bishop under the name of a Presbyter.”
Elect: Serarius endeavours to prove by eight conjectural reasons that by the name Electa is signified not a person, or matron, but an Asiatic Church. For the Church is the elect Spouse of God, according to the words in Cant. vi. 9, “Fair as the moon, elect as the sun” (Vulg.); and S. Peter’s 1st Epist. v. 13, “The Church in Babylon co-elect with you.” Serarius thinks that this Church was one of the seven Churches of Asia, which S. John warns and teaches in the Apocalypse : or else that it was the Church of Corinth, because Gaius the host of S. Paul was a member of it, as we gather from Rom. xvi. 23 ; and 1 Cor. i. 14. For it would seem that this Second Epistle was sent with the Third to the Church in which Gaius, to whom the Third Epistle is inscribed, lived. Moreover, this Church is called κυρία, i.e. lady , either on account of the dignity of the place, or because it excelled in virtue.
But, omitting other things, it is against this opinion that S. John says in his Third Epistle, speaking to Gaius, “ I might perchance have written to the Church, but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the primacy among them, receiveth not us.” He shows by these words that he did not write an Epistle to the Church where Caius was. Wherefore it is the general opinion that the Epistle was written to a particular matron. And that this is the meaning of elect Lady, or the Lady Electa. What then is the meaning of Electa? 1st. Some say it means a faithful Christian woman. For Christians generally were called the elect. Thus S. Peter (1 Ep. c. 1) writes “to the elect strangers of Pontus,” &c.
But others, with more probability, think that Electa is a proper name. For epistles are wont to be inscribed to particular persons, who are addressed by their proper names. This too is why the word ἐκλεκτή is without the article. For if it were an appellative noun it would have the article as in the last ver. ἡ ἐκλεκτή.
Again, the word Electa is usually written with a capital letter. In a similar manner many Christians had appellatives conferred upon them instead of proper names, such as Justus, Justa, Christianus, Christiana. It may be that the faithful called her by this name because of her eminent virtue, especially because she brought up her daughters in the love of virginity, and had a religious household, as I shall show presently. Thus Electa as meaning of excellent virtue and nobility, may answer to the Heb. bechiray chosen, illustrious .
Again, it may have been that this matron, on account of her nobility, influence, and virtue, may have been chosen to preside over other Christian women, especially those who were poor, that she might give them instruction in the faith and Christian principles, and supply their wants by procuring alms for them. Lyra adds that she supported the ministers of the Church. She was then a mother, and refuge of the faithful, such as was S. Potentiana, the sister of S. Praxedes, in the persecution of the Emperor Antoninus. For as the Apostles chose S. Stephen and the six other deacons for such an office, so did the Bishops subsequently choose deaconesses to minister to women.
The Latin translation does not call her Eclecta , following the Greek, but in the Latin form Electa . This is in favour of its being an appellative converted into a proper name by reason of her dignity and office. Lucius Dexter, in his “ Chronicle,” says that this lady’s original proper name was Drusia . This is what he says, “ In the year of Christ 105, S. John wrote his Second Epistle to Drusia the elect female, who as a mother of the Church of that city at the time abounded in charity and alms-giving.” Lastly, Clement of Alexandria says, “The Second Epistle of John is most simply written to virgins. It is inscribed to a certain lady Electa of Babylon.”
Lady : from this it is plain that this Electa was a noble and influential matron, to whom, though not in accordance with his usual practice, S. John writes to confirm her, and through her others in the faith, that they might not be led astray by Ebion, Cerinthus, and the Gnostics. Such heretics would seem to have crept into this lady’s house, and were endeavouring to infect her with their false doctrine. S. John seems to intimate this in the 10th ver., where he strictly forbids her to wish them God speed, or to receive them into her house.