The Elect Lady (II John 1:1)

Which book is written to “the elect lady”? II John [II John 1:1]

Second John is a brief letter comprised of only thirteen verses (II John 1:1-13). It encourages its readers to remain steadfast in the faith (II John 1:4-6) and to reject false teachers (II John 1:7-11).

Gary M. Burge (b. 1952) describes:

Second John is a message “from the front lines,” much like a scrap of war correspondence discovered long after the battle has passed. The tension implied in I John takes on a desperate tone. Therefore, John writes with two purposes in mind: to buttress his followers’ commitment to the truth and to warn them about the severity of their opposition and the need to protect themselves...Because this is a personal letter, it follows conventional first-century epistolary form—unlike I John, which is not actually a personal letter but a public theological document. (Burge, The Letters of John (NIV Application Commentary), 231)

The epistle preserves correspondence between “the elder” and a “chosen lady and her children” (II John 1:1 NASB).

The elder to the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in truth; and not only I, but also all who know the truth. (II John 2:1 NASB)

Second John is the only New Testament book addressed to a woman (II John 1:1). Her precise identity remains a mystery as the Bible does not directly identify this “elect lady”.

Allen Dwight Callahan (b. 1957) introduces:

Second John is an appeal to “the elect lady” [II John 1:1], a chosen authority in the community of the addressees: an alternative rendering of her title is “the chosen authority.” The letter is also addressed to “her children” [II John 1:1], that is, all those under her authority. In II John women, “elect ladies,” lead these circles and the Elder addresses II John to them. (David L. Petersen [b. 1943] and Gail R. O’Day [b. 1954], Theological Bible Commentary, 465)

Second John complies to the standard epistolary format of the period. Karen H. Jobes (b. 1952) compares:

Both II John and III John are in the conventional form of a Greco-Roman letter — the one as an open letter to the church personified as the “chosen lady and her children” [II John 1:1], the other written to an individual apparently known well by the author [III John 1:1]. Both end with the conventional greetings (II John 1:13; III John 1:15). (Jobes, 1, 2, & 3 John (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament))

R. Alan Culpepper (b. 1946) expounds:

The salutation follows the traditional letter form: A to B, greetings. In II John, however, the sender is identified by title rather than by name, the recipient is identified by a metaphorical reference (“an elect sister and her children” [II John 1:1]), and the greeting is delayed until after an elaborate description of the elder’s relationship to the recipients. (Culpepper, The Gospel and Letters of John (Interpreting Biblical Texts), 276)

Though its structure is normative, Second John’s addressee is peculiar (II John 1:1). Birger Olsson (b. 1938) observes:

This description of the letter’s recipients is unique [II John 1:1]. Early Christian letters—like ancient letters generally—normally have a name at this point, or they refer to the recipients as the church, God’s church, the saints, or the elect in a given location. This cryptic formula in II John early on led to other suggested translations: “to the lady (of the house) Eklekta and her children,” attested in the third century and after; “to the chosen Kyria and her children,” fourth century and after; “to the charming lady and her children.”. (Olsson, A Commentary on the Letters of John: An Intra-Jewish Approach, 48)

Second John deems its recipient an “elect lady” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV), “chosen lady” (NASB, NIV, NLT) or “very special woman” (CEV). The Message paraphrases the expression as “dear congregation”.

To be precise, Second John refers to an (CEV) elect lady, not the elect lady (II John 1:1). Though supplied by most contemporary translations (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV), the definite article is absent from the Greek text.

Tom Thatcher (b. 1967) praises:

Stephen S. Smalley [b. 1931], 318...correctly emphasizes the absence of the definite article at II John 1:1 with the translation “to an Elect Lady”. (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], Hebrews ~ Revelation (Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 514)

Colin G. Kruse (b. 1938) comments:

The introductory greetings (II John 1:1-3) are addressed to ‘the chosen lady’ (eklektē kyria) and her children’. The rest of the letter has these people in mind, even though what is said is addressed sometimes to the ‘lady’ (kyria) using the second person singular (II John 1:4-5, 13), and sometimes to both the lady and her children using the second person plural (II John 1:6-12). (Kruse, The Letters of John (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 37)

The epithet is distinctive. Peter H. Davids (b. 1947) notes:

Elect Lady [is]...a title appearing only in II John 1:1, 5. The “elect lady”(Greek eklektē kyria) is said to have children [II John 1:1] and an elect sister, who also has children [II John1:13]. (David Noel Freedman [1922-2008], “Elect Lady”, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 389)

Ruth B. Edwards adds:

There is no exact parallel to this designation in biblical or secular Greek. (Edwards, The Johannine Epistles (New Testament Guides, 27)

On the surface, the letter appears to be addressed to a woman (II John 1:1). John Christopher Thomas (b. 1954) inspects:

The letter is addressed to the Elect Lady (ἐκλεκτη κυρία) [II John 1:1]. At first sight it appears that II John is addressed to a woman and her children, as ‘Lady’ (κυρία) is used frequently in the papyri, but usually qualified in some way...Cf. the examples in Adolf Deissmann [1866-1937], Light from the Ancient East, pp. 167, 192-93. (Thomas, The Pentecostal Commentary on the Johannine Epistles, 39)

I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) delineates:

The word translated “lady” [II John 1:1] is a respectful term meaning “mistress.” It is the feminine form of the word “lord”; possibly there is a hint of the church being the bride of the Lord [Ephesians 5:25-27; Revelation 19:7-8], so that her children are the spiritual offspring of the Lord and his church. She is “chosen,” an adjective often applied to Christians to denote that it was God who called them to be his people; the word always signifies those who have responded to this call and thus actually become the people of God. (Marshall, The Epistles of John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 60-61)

The lady is said to be “elect” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV) or “chosen” (NASB, NIV, NLT) (II John 1:1). Birger Olsson (b. 1938) defines:

The Greek word eklektos [II John 1:1] means chosen, exquisite, excellent, and kyria means lady (of the house), mistress...The fact that specifically kyria is used, rather than, e.g., gynē (“woman”), can be explained according to some people in terms of its associations with Kyrios “Lord.” Kyria is the feminine form of Kyrios. (Olsson, A Commentary on the Letters of John: An Intra-Jewish Approach, 48)

Daniel L. Akin (b. 1957) construes:

“Chosen lady” [II John 1:1] is a term of endearment and respect...She is “chosen” because God elected her to belong to himself. God called the lady and those who comprise her family to be his own. The fact that she is chosen [“by God” is clearly implied] indicates the initiative of her election was with God and that her privileged position is not accidental. The spiritual status believers enjoy is the result of God’s grace and goodness. (Akin, 1, 2, 3 John (New American Commentary), 220)

Robert Kysar (1934-2013) designates:

Elect is used of Christians elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., Matthew 24:22; Romans 8:33; Titus 1:1), and means those selected from humanity by God to be his people. (Kysar, I, II, III John (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament), 123)

Though found elsewhere in the New Testament, the word “elect” is uncommon in the Johannine corpus. John Painter (b. 1935) analyzes:

The adjective eklektos is used only here (and II John 1:13) in the Johannine epistles. There is a contested reading in John 1:34 where “the elect of God” has minority support against “the son of God.”...Revelation 17:14 describes the called and the elect and the faithful (all in the nominative plural) with the triumphant Lamb. The term is somewhat characteristic of I Peter (I Peter 1:1, 2:4, 6, 9). The verb “to choose” is used in John 6:70, 71, 13:18, 15:16, 19. (Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John (Sacra Pagina), 338)

Though the terminology is scarce in the Johannine literature, the concept may not be. Peter Rhea Jones (b. 1937) probes:

The idea of election may not be pronounced in John, but it does appear in terms of Jesus as the Elect One of God (John 1:34) and the disciples as chosen (John 6:70). Indeed, rather emphatically we find the Johannine Christ saying, “You did not choose me, but I chose you” (John 15:16). (Jones, 1, 2 & 3 John (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary), 251)

Robert H. Gundry (b. 1932) correlates:

John describes this local church as “a select lady” [II John 1:1] in the sense that like the original disciples of Jesus, they’ve been selected out of worldly society (compare John 6:70, 13:18, 15:16, 19, but above all see Revelation 17:14). God has selected them for salvation (John 6:37, 39, 17:12). Mention of the selection assures them that they needn’t, and indeed shouldn’t, pay heed to false teachers who tell them they lack what’s needed for salvation. John is going to warn against such teachers [II John 1:7-11]. (Gundry, Commentary on First, Second, and Third John (Commentary on the New Testament))

Reconstructing the identity of the “elect lady” (II John 1:1) presents several challlenges. Robert W. Yarbrough (b. 1953) inquires:

Who is this “elect lady” (KJV, ESV, NRSV), “lady/Lady chosen by God” (TNIV, NEB), “very special woman” (CEV), or “dear lady” (TEV)? “She” presumably knew, but interpreters today are less certain. Moreover, she is spoken of as having children; is this literal or metaphorical? (Yarbrough, 1–3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 333)

Equivocal addresses are not uncommon in the New Testament. Judith M. Lieu (b. 1951) asks:

Is the “elect lady” [II John 1:1] any more precise than the “all those who follow the equally valuable faith as us” of II Peter 1:1, or than “those called who are beloved in God and preserved in Christ Jesus” in Jude 1:1? (R. Alan Culpepper (b. 1946) and Paul N. Anderson [b. 1956], “The Audience of the Johannine Epistles”, Communities in Dispute: Current Scholarship on the Johannine Epistles, 129)

The “elect lady” is shrouded in mystery (II John 1:1). Martin M. Culy (b. 1963) acknowledges:

Brooke Foss Westcott [1825-1901] (223) notes, “the rendering of this phrase is beset by great difficulties.” Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998] (652-54) points out that either the first or second term may be construed as a proper name (“the Lady Electa” or “the elect Kyria,” though the former is highly unlikely given the use of της ἀδελφης σου της ἐκλεκτης at the end of the letter [“the children of your chosen sister ”, II John 1:13 NASB]); the expression may be viewed as a courteous way of greeting a female addressee (“dear lady”); or “Elect Lady” may be viewed as a figurative way of referring to the church. (Culy, I, II, III John: A Handbook on the Greek Text, 141)

Urban C. Von Wahlde (b. 1941) diagnoses:

There are two problems here [II John 1:1]. The first is the meaning of the title and the second is to whom it refers. The resolution of the second helps in the resolution of the first. (Von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John, Volume 3: The Three Johannine Letters (Eerdmans Critical Commentary), 225)

Many possibilities have been raised as to the elect lady’s identity. Daniel L. Akin (b. 1957) surveys:

This [II John 1:1b] is a unique designation of a New Testament letter, and it has engendered significant discussion. Interpreters are divided over exactly who eklektē kuri kai tois teknois autēs [“the chosen lady and her children”, II John 1:1 NASB] is, and the following views have been offered...1. It is a figurative reference to a local church and its members. II John 1:13 would likewise refer to another local church...2. It is a reference to the church universal (a view favored by Jerome [347-420])...3. The recipient is an individual lady and her children. (Akin, 1, 2, 3 John (New American Commentary), 219)

Colin G. Kruse (b. 1938) relays:

Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998] lists five interpretations for the meaning of ‘elect lady’: (I) the lady Electa, referring to a certain Babylonian lady named ‘Electa;’ (ii) ‘the noble Kyria’; (iii) ‘dear lady’, a colourless term of courtesy addressed to an individual woman; (iv) an elect lady, meaning the church at large; (v) an elect lady and her children, a symbolic reference to a church in a town at some distance from the community centre in which the author is living. Brown, like many others, adopts the fifth option. (Kruse, The Letters of John (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 38)

Though many options exist, there is a clear favorite among modern interpreters. David Jackman (b. 1942) traces:

Some have taken the addressee to be an individual named Kyria (lady or mistress), or the Lady Electa (following Clement of Alexandria [150-250]). Some older commentators, Alfred Plummer [1841-1926] among them, regard her as a matriarch, perhaps a widow, ruling her family in the ways of the Lord. But most modern commentators (including Brooke Foss Westcott [1825-1901], R.C.H. Lenski [1864-1936], F.F. Bruce [1910-1990] and I. Howard Marshall [b. 1934]) opt for a corporate identity and see the destination of the letter as a local church, personified as a lady. Others (such as Rudolf Bultmann [1884-1976]) suggest the catholic or universal church; but the church in that sense has no sister (II John 1:13). (Jackman, The Message of John’s Letters (Bible Speaks Today))

For a time, the majority of scholars presumed that the elect lady was an historical individual. Though this reading is no longer dominant, it is possible and still has supporters.

Ruth B. Edwards contemplates:

Could eklektē kyria in II John 1:1...be taken in its more natural sense of a real woman? Four possible interpretations have been put forward: (a) Kyria might be a proper name, and eklektē an adjective (ancient Greek did not use capitals to indicate proper nouns); (b) kyria might be an adjective and Eklektē a proper name; (c) both Kyria and Eklektē might be proper names; (d) perhaps neither is a proper name. (Edwards, The Johannine Epistles (New Testament Guides, 27)

Peter Rhea Jones (b. 1937) annotates:

Early on, Clement of Alexandria [150-250] suggested that the Elect Lady was some influential woman by the name of Electa in a church in the vicinity of Ephesus. Other scholars such as Adolf Deissmann [1866-1937] and Johannes H. Ebrard [1818-1888] opted for an individual, some of them thinking of Kyria or Curia as a proper name. Still others recknoned simply with “Dear Lady.”...The author has even been associated with Ruth in the Old Testament (Rendel Harris [1852-1941]). (Jones, 1, 2 & 3 John (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary), 251)

There is a grammatical possibility that either “elect” or “lady” could represent a proper name (II John 1:1). If this is the case, the recipient would be the only named figure in Second John.

Robert W. Yarbrough (b. 1953) researches:

Is ἐκλεκτη κυρία (eklektē kyria, chosen lady) [II John1:1] the proper name of a lady (“Kyria”), with “chosen” as a modifier? (Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998] 1982:653 points out that “Eklecta” is unattested as a name at this time.) This view goes back to Clement of Alexandria [150-215]’s Adumbrations 4 (Gerald Bray [b. 1948] 2000:231) and is also reflected in a Syriac version (Brooke Foss Westcott [1825-1901] 1883:224). Among commentators, William Alexander [1824-1911] (1901:283-86) takes this position, with great imaginative powers sketching her as a lonely but noble widow of heroic stature. I. Howard Marshall [b. 1934] (1978:60n5) cites some older scholars who follow suit. A parallel might be Romans 16:13 where Paul writes, “Greet Rufus, the chosen [τὸν ἐκλεκτόν, ton eklekton] in the Lord.” Since II John lacks the definite article before “chosen” [II John 1:1], however, Romans 16:13 is not a good parallel (John Painter [b. 1935] 2002:340 and many others). (Yarbrough, 1–3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 333-34)

Like Eklekta (“elect”), Kyria (“lady” could also be a proper name. This view is ancient as well, dating at least to Athanasius (296-373). John Wesley (1703-1791) espoused this theory, writing, “Kyria is undoubtedly a proper name, both here [II John 1:1] and in II John 1:5; for it was not then usual to apply the title of lady to any but the Roman empress.” James Strong (1822-1894) also advocated this interpretation.

Ruth B. Edwards supports:

Kyria, meaning ‘mistress’, ‘lady’ (cf. Aramaic ‘Martha’) is found as a personal name in both inscriptions and papyri; eklektē, meaning ‘chosen’, or ‘elect’(of God) is an appropriate epithet for a Christian leader (cf. Romans 16:13. Rufus, the elect in the Lord; Ignatius [35-98], Letter to the Philadelphians 11.1. Rheus Agathopous, an elect man). It has been objected that one might expect the definite article with eklektē. We can reply that this letter is not written in fully idiomatic Greek, having other linguistic peculiarities (cf. the occurrence of ‘Father’ both with and without the article in II John 1:3); if eklektē kyria means ‘the Church’ the absence of the article is odd...In favour of kyria as a common noun is its frequent appearance in the papyri as a polite and affectionate form of address to an older woman (cf. Oxyrhynchus Papyri 744, ‘to Berous my lady’, etc.) Against this has been argued the absence of ‘my’ with Kyria and lack of evidence for Eklektē as a personal name in contemporary papyri (so Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998] 1982:653). Indeed George G. Findlay [1849-1919] alleged that ‘Eklektē occurs nowhere else in Greek...as a proper name’ (1909:23). One may reply that ‘my’ is not always found with kyria in the papyri, and although the name Eklektē has not so far been found in the papyri, it is attested in Greek inscriptions, along with a parallel male name Eklektos (known also in literary sources). We may mention also a series of inscriptions of imperial date from Rome with the woman’s name Eclecte or Eglecte (c.7x). Although the inscriptions are in Latin, the form of this name is Greek. The idea that Eklektē might be a personal name also receives some support from Clement of Alexandria [150-250], who thought that II John was written to ‘a certain Babylonian woman called Electa’ (according to Adumbrationes, a Latin translation of his Hypotyposes)...The idea that both Kyria and Eklektē might be proper names is described by Brooke Foss Westcott [1825-1901] (1902) as ‘very strange’, but such double names are common in the ancient world, and Eclecte occurs combined with other personal names in the Roman inscriptions mentioned. (Edwards, The Johannine Epistles (New Testament Guides, 27-29)

Most modern scholars have rejected this theory. John Painter (b. 1935) dismisses:

If the addressee is named (eklektē kyria) we may understand either “to the lady Electa” (Clement of Alexandria [150-215]) or “to the elect Kyria.” Though each of these is theoretically possible, only Kyria is a well-attested name, and Romans 16:13 provides precedent for reference to a name with the epithet “elect”(Rhouphon ton elekton). As indicated by the example in Romans, we would expect the article with this form (tē eklektē kyria). Thus there are grammatical problems with the suggestion that kyria here is a proper name. (Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John (Sacra Pagina), 340)

Ruth B. Edwards defends:

A problem often raised with understanding Eklektē as a proper name is its reappearance in II John 1:13. Mention of two women with the same name in such a short letter might seem improbable, but the ancient world had a smaller range of women’s names than we do (cf. all the New Testament Marys). The woman in II John 1:13 need not be a blood sister; she may equally well be a Christian sister, herself a church leader. Alternatively eklektē in II John 1:13 could be the adjective ‘elect’. It might seem awkward to use the same Greek word both as a proper name and as an adjective within 13 verses, but ancient writers were not so sensitive to such grammatical distinctions as modern ones; the repetition of eklektē in II John 1:13 must deliberately echo II John 1:1, and it is likely the two women shared a common role. Incidentally the final greetings are not from the ‘elect sister’ herself, but from her children. If this is a real woman, she must either be deceased or at least not present with the writer. In either case it is hard to believe she is a church. (Edwards, The Johannine Epistles (New Testament Guides, 28-29)

Elect lady (II John 1:1) need not be a proper name for the epithet to designate an individual. Ruth B. Edwards recognizes:

The case for the ‘elect lady’ [II John 1:1] as a real woman does not stand or fall on taking Kyria or Eklektē (or both) as a proper name. ‘Chosen lady’ could equally be a sobriquet (or nickname), like the Gospel of John’s ‘disciple whom Jesus loved’ [John 13:23, 18:15, 16, 19, 26, 26, 20:2, 3, 4, 8, 21:7, 20, 23, 24], for someone whom the author, for whatever reason, did not wish to name directly. (Edwards, The Johannine Epistles (New Testament Guides, 29)

Tom Thatcher (b. 1967) reflects:

The Greek eklekē kyria (Edward W. Goodrick [1913-1992] and John R. Kohlenberger III [b. 1951] 1723 + Goodrick and Kohlenberger 3257) [II John 1:1] could literally mean “to the elect Kyria” or “to the lady Electa,” both proper names, or could be an honorary nickname for a Christian woman (“the Elect Lady”). Alfred Plummer [1841-1926], 132, advocates this last option arguing that the reader is a female Christian and the literal mother of the “children” John mentions. In his view, this explains the author’s “somewhat informal [self-] designation” as “the Elder” [II John 1:1] (cf. Ruth B. Edwards, The Johannine Epistles [New Testament Guides, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996], 27-29). In support of this interpretation, one might note Romans 16:13, where Paul refers to his friend Rufus as “elect [NIV, chosen] in the Lord.” (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], Hebrews ~ Revelation (Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 513-14)

Earl F. Palmer (b. 1931) documents:

Alexander Ross [b. 1888]...(Eerdmans, 1954) argues that the letter is written to a person and her family who probably live in Asia Minor. This would mean that the letter therefore addresses her personal situation. J.L. Houlden [b. 1929] (Harper, 1973)...has observed that the word kuria (“lady”) is an equivalent to the name Martha in Aramaic, a well-attested proper name. (Palmer, 1, 2, 3 John, Revelation (Mastering the Old Testament))

The belief that the “elect lady” represented an historical individual was once dominant. I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) footnotes:

Older scholars (e.g. Alfred Plummer [1841-1926], 57ff; David Smith 162 ff; Alexander Ross [b. 1888], 129ff; Leon Morris [1914-2006], 1271) took the phrase [II John 1:1] literally as a reference to a particular lady and her children. (Marshall, The Epistles of John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 60)

This literal reading still has some advocates. Ruth B. Edwards directs:

For the ‘Elect Lady’ (or her sister) [II John 1:1] as probably an individual woman: Charles Bigg [1840-1908], The Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude (International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1910), especially p. 197 on the ‘elect sister’...Leon Morris [1914-2006], in D.A. Carson [b. 1946], R.T. France [1938-2012] et al. (editors), New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition (London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1995), p. 1271...Dorothy R. Pape [1913-2011], God and Woman (Oxford: Mowbray, 1977), p. 206...Donald Guthrie [1915-1992], New Testament Introduction (Leicester: Apollos; Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 4th edition, 1990), p. 889. (Barnabas Lindars [1923-1991], Edwards and John M. Court [b. 1943], The Johannine Literature: With an Introduction by R. Alan Culpepper [b. 1946], 131)

Allen Dwight Callahan (b. 1957) contests:

The interpretation of the addressee’s designation as signifying a church rather than a female is an old one. Clement of Alexandria [150-250] claims that this epistle is addressed to the holy church in Babylonia because he reads “to an elect lady,” of II John 1:1 as a gloss for “the likewise elect [church] in Babylon” mentioned in I Peter 5:13. The interpretation is as venerable as it is strained, and flies in the face of the plain sense of the text. The Byzantine commentator Oecumenius comes close to the obvious: “He writes with commandments of the Gospel to a church or to some woman giving spiritual governance to her household. He writes this epistle to one of the women who have received the proclamation.” Apparently independently, this is the interpretation of the Order of the Eastern Star, an African American organization for wives, widows, mothers, daughters, and sisters of the Prince Hall order of the Masons. Eastern Star rites claim five biblical women as heroines: Jeptha’s anonymous daughter [Judges 11:34] to whom the Order has given the name Adah, Ruth [Ruth 1:4], Esther [Esther 2:7], Martha [Luke 10:38], and Electa. “Electa” is the Elect Lady in II John 1:1. The sisters of the Eastern Star hold Electa to have been a martyr and assign to her the color red, symbolizing fervency and commitment. (Callahan, A Love Supreme: A History of Johannine Tradition, 11)

John F. MacArthur (b. 1939) argues:

Many commentators believe the phase “the chosen lady” (II John 1:1) refers metaphorically to a local church. The more natural understanding in the context, however, is to take it as a reference to an actual woman and her children, whom John knew personally. The letter’s obvious similarity to III John, which clearly (III John 1:1) was written to an individual, favors the view that II John was also written to an individual. Further, it would be unnatural to sustain such a figure of speech throughout the whole letter. Such an elaborate metaphor is also not in keeping with the letter’s simplicity and the tenderness of its tone. Finally, the change from the singular form of the personal pronoun “you” in II John 1:5 to the plural form in II John 1:12 applies more naturally to a woman and her children than to a church and its members. (MacArthur, 1 – 3 John (MacArthur New Testament Commentary), 212)

Earl F. Palmer (b. 1931) agrees:

I find it hard to agree with the church theory. It makes better sense in my view to interpret this letter in its most obvious sense, as a letter written by John to an esteemed friend and her family. The fact that no city designation is made also supports this view. (Palmer, 1, 2, 3 John, Revelation (Mastering the Old Testament))

Judith K. Applegate (b. 1948) bolsters:

First, it has been shown that there is only one clear instance of the title ‘elect’ used to refer to a named person in the New Testament (Romans 16:13), but not a church. In addition, there are at least two New Testament greetings that address unnamed women, even in the midst of other greetings to women who are named (Romans 16:13, 15). In light of these references, it is not impossible to conceive of an unnamed woman being addressed by the title ‘elect’, rather than by name. Second, Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998] points out that Johannine literature contains other references to titled, but unnamed people, such as the ‘beloved disciple’ [John 13:23, 18:15, 16, 19, 26, 26, 20:2, 3, 4, 8, 21:7, 20, 23, 24] and the ‘mother of Jesus’ [John 2:1, 3]. In this tradition it would not seem unusual to find another titled woman addressed without reference to her name. (Amy-Jill Levine [b. 1956] with Maria Mayo Robins, “The Co-Elect Woman of I Peter 1”, A Feminist Companion to the Catholic Epistles and Hebews, 95)

There is precedent for a woman guiding a house church. R. Alan Culpepper (b. 1946) concedes:

It is possible that “the chosen lady” [II John 1:1] is a particular woman in whose house the church met, as in the case of Mary, the mother of John Mark (Acts 12:12), or Lydia (Acts 16:40). (Craig A. Evans [b. 1952], John, Hebrews–Revelation (Bible Knowledge Background Commentary), 193)

If the elect lady is an historical figure, it adds intrigue to her identity. George R. Knight (b. 1941) reveals:

The “chosen lady” [II John 1:1]...has elicited a great deal of discussion. It could certainly have been an individual. Those who have followed that route have speculated much regarding who she might be. Favorite candidates are Mary the mother of Jesus and Martha of Bethany. Some argue for Martha because the word for “lady” in Aramaic (the common language of first-century Palestine) was “Martha,” while others sponsor Mary since Jesus left her in the care of John, and her traditional area of residence in her later years was Asia Minor. But all such theories are nothing but speculation. (Knight, Exploring the Letters of John & Jude: A Devotional Commentary, 182)

As noted, Mary the mother of Jesus, perhaps the most “elect” woman of all (Luke 1:30), is among the candidates posited. Though Mary would certainly have been worthy of the title, this hypothesis raises the potentially divisive possibility that there was need to write a letter to Mary to warn her about being deceived by false teachers (II John 1:7-11).

There are significant implications to the elect woman’s role if she represents a literal, historical figure (II John 1:1). Ruth B. Edwards wonders:

One sometimes suspects that a reason why the ‘elect lady’ [II John 1:1] has been so rarely taken as an individual is reluctance to assume that a woman could have led a church. But female church leaders are attested elsewhere in the New Testament: we note particularly ‘Nympha and the church at her house’ (Colossians 4:15) and Phoebe, minister or deacon of the church at Cenchreae (Romans 16:1). (Edwards, The Johannine Epistles (New Testament Guides, 29)

Stanley J. Grenz (1950-2005) and Denise Muir Kjesbo (b. 1957) investigate:

Is there a specific example that offers...confirmation that women acted as congregational leaders? In this context, egalitarians occasionally cite the “co-elect woman” Peter perhaps mentions in the close of his first epistle (I Peter 5:13). More commonly mentioned, however, is the “elect lady” of the Johannine community [II John 1:1]. John the elder addresses his second epistle to “the elect lady” and her children” (II John 1:1)...The egalitarian use of this text hinges on the identity of the recipient of the letter...Several clues in the epistle suggest that its recipient may have been a woman church leader—a prominent patron of a Christian community, like Mary [Acts 12:12] or Lydia [Acts 16:14, 40]—together with the congregation under her care. The word translated “lady” (kyria) fits best with this personal interpretation. The term is the feminine form of “lord” (kyrios), which could connote a guardian, the master of a house or the head of a family. The personal interpretation is preferable in that the New Testament nowhere uses the word as a metaphor for a congregation. This interpretation also fits best within the address itself. If “lady” refers to the church and not a female church leader, the greeting to “her children” is redundant. John’s use of children elsewhere of “my children” to address the members of his community (I John 1:1, 12-14, 3:7) suggests that in this text “her children” refers to the community ruler under the watchful care of this leader, many of whom may have become believers through her witness...In addition to the form of address, the admonition to reject false teachers [II John 1:7-11] favors the suggestion that the letter was intended for the leader of a house church...To date, the exegetical question has not been answered definitively. There are good reasons to see in this epistle support for the contention that the early congregation had women leaders. But the exegetical case is admittedly inconclusive. (Grenz and Kjesbo, Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry, 91-92)

Leonard Swidler (b. 1929) deliberates:

Though in New Testament times there was no “monarchial episcopacy,” episkopoi (literally “overseers”) did appear late in the period as sort of chairpersons of committees of presbyters. Many scholars argue that the “elect lady” [II John 1:1] (lady—kyria, as parallel to lord,kyrios) to whom the Second Epistle of John is addressed, and her “elect sister,” whose children send greetings [II John 1:13], must be “symbols” of churches. But they are perhaps just as properly understood as real persons. (For a similar view, see Ernst Gaugler [1891-1963], Die Johannesbriefe, p. 283; Zurich: EVZ-Verlag, 1964). Judging from the content of the letter, the elect lady is responsible not only for her natural children but also for the Christians in her charge (a house church as with Priscilla [Acts 18:2, 18, 26; Romans 16:13; I Corinthians 16:19; II Timothy 4:19], Nympha [Colossians 4:15], etc.?); does she not then have the function of an “overseer,” episkopa, even though the title is not mentioned, but rather kyria is? Her sister also?...Already within the same century when John’s epistle was probably written, i.e, the second century, church father Clement of Alexandria [150-250] spoke of “elect persons” as a designation for officers of the church—which included not only bishops but also widows—supporting the contention that the “elect” lady of II John could be properly be understood as a generic term for church officers. (Swidler, Biblical Affirmations of Woman, 315-16)

The evidence is inconclusive. John Painter (b. 1935) confesses:

This decision concerning the meaning of the opening [II John 1:1] and closing forms of address [II John 1:13] has nothing to do with the question of whether the leaders of such churches might have been women. We know too little of the situation to hazard an informed guess in relation to the church to which II John was addressed. Certainly the possibility that the leader of the church addressed was a woman should not be excluded. (Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John (Sacra Pagina), 334)

If the “natural” reading of II John 1:1 is that the elect woman is a literal female human, the equally natural inference is that at the very least she has influence on a Christian community.

As has been documented, most modern scholars have rejected the idea of a literal individual in favor of a metaphorical church (II John 1:1). Gary M. Burge (b. 1952) rebuffs:

An ancient tradition has thought “chosen lady” [II John 1:1] refers to a person. Both words are personal names for women in Greek (Electa, Kyria). But this usage here is unlikely. Not only does the tone of the letter imply a wider audience, but the letter itself lapses into the plural at many points (II John 1:5, 6, 8, 10, 12). (Burge, The Letters of John (NIV Application Commentary), 231)

Robert W. Yarbrough (b. 1953) remarks:

If neither ἐκλεκτη nor κυρία is apt to be a personal name, the possibility raised and rightly rejected by William Loader [b. 1944] (1992:84-85) that this refers to a prominent Christian sister is unlikely. Apart from the unsuitedness of either of the words for this purpose, the discourse in the epistle shifts so frequently to second-person plural [II John 1:6-12] that most likely a group, not an individual, is being addressed. (Yarbrough, 1–3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 334)

William Barclay (1907-1978) rejects:

It is possible to take Kuria as a proper name...The objections are threefold. (a) It seems unlikely that any single individual could be spoken of as loved by all those who have known the truth (II John 1:1). (b) II John 1:4 says that John rejoiced when he found some of her children walking in the truth; the implication is that others did not walk in the truth. This would seem to imply a number greater than one woman’s family could contain. (c) The decisive objection is that, throughout the letter, the eklektē kuria is addressed sometimes in the singular and sometimes in the plural. The singular occurs in II John 1:4, 5, 13;and the plural occurs in II John 1:6, 8, 10, 12. It would be almost impossible that an individual would be addressed in this way. (Barclay, The Letters of John and Jude (New Daily Study Bible), 147)

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) further renounces:

It is not impossible that an individual, the Lady Electa (the head of a house church?), is being addressed but there are several reasons to reject this conclusion: (1) It is most natural to take II John 1:13 as a reference to a sister church, where the author worships, whose members are called offspring and send greetings. (2) Notice that the author calls himself “the old man/elder” [II John 1:1]. That is, he is the familiar “old man,” not just an anonymous elder, and he assumes authority over the audience. Notice, by contrast, that “elect lady” has no definite article before the word in question, suggesting that we are not dealing with a particular individual. “While the addressees are referred to as ‘the chosen lady and her children’ in II John 1:1 and the elder says ‘it has given me great joy to find some of your [singular] children walking in the truth’ in II John 1:4, in the rest of the letter (II John 1:6,8, 10, 12) he addresses all of his readers in the second person plural, suggesting that’“the chosen lady and her children’ [II John 1:1] is another way of addressing all members of a local church.” (3) Notice that the document concerns community problems, not those of an individual, and so it does not read like III John, which is a personal letter [III John 1:1]. (4) The reference to the giving of a new command [II John 1:5] seems to imply a community of believers to whom it was given. In the Old Testament and elsewhere in the New Testament the people of God sometimes are personified as a woman (cf. Isaiah 54:1-8; Galatians 4:25; Ephesians 5:22-25; II Corinthians 11:2; Revelation 12:7, 21:2). It is perfectly natural for our author to address his audience this way. It would be far less appropriate to address a particular individual in this vague sort of way in a letter, and III John shows that the author is not reluctant to use personal names where appropriate [III John 1:1, 9, 12]. Thus I conclude that the “lady” is the church addressed, and her children are the members of the house church. (Witherington, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Volume 1: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John, 565-66)

The “elect lady” (II John 1:1) as a personification of a church is now the standard view among contemporary scholars. Robert W. Yarbrough (b. 1953) determines:

“It is now generally agreed that this title [II John 1:1] refers to a sister church” (R. Alan Culpepper [b. 1946] 1998:276; cf. Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998] 1982:654-55; Gail R. O’Day [b. 1954] 1992:375; Ben Witherington III [b. 1951] 2006:563-64). Marianne Meye Thompson [b. 1954] (1992:151) points out that the people of God, whether Israel or the church, are frequently referred to in Scripture as a woman or bride, whether of God or of Christ (Isaiah 54:1, 6, 13; Jeremiah 6:2, 31:21, 32; John 3:29; Galatians 4:25-26; Ephesians 5:22; Revelation 18:1-19:21). First Peter refers to “elect” (ἐκλεκτοις, ekletois) sojourners (I Peter 1:1) as the author writes from a “co-elect” (συνεκλεκτή, syneklektē) congregation in “Babylon”—likely Rome (I Peter 5:13)—showing that ἐκλεκτη can denote a local church (Brown 1982:655). (Yarbrough, 1–3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 334)

Rodney Combs (b. 1965) enumerates:

A personification designating a local congregation of believers...seems the best interpretation for several reasons: the language of love and the command given to love in II John 1:5 seems inappropriate for an individual; there are no explicit personal references such as those found in III John [III John 1:1, 9, 12]; the writer switches between “you” singular [II John 1:4-5, 13] and “you” plural [II John 1:6-12] often in the letter (unobservable in most modern translations) while being consistent with the singular in III John; and it was normal to personify towns or institutions in the first century much as we do today. (Combs, I, II & III John (Shepherd’s Notes))

David Walls (b. 1953) and Max Anders (b. 1947) support:

The lack of any personal references in the letter, in contrast to III John [III John 1:1, 9, 12], suggests that it is addressed to a church. In that case, it might be a sister church to the church John wrote to in his first epistle. (Walls and Anders, I & II Peter, I, II, & III John, Jude (Holman New Testament Commentary), 236)

I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) presumes:

“The chosen lady and her children” [II John 1:1]...is a metaphorical way of saying “the church and its members.” If the letter was sent to a particular church, there was no need to specify more particularly which church was meant—and this may have been indicated on the package containing the letter. The personification of a community was not uncommon in ancient writings. Jerusalem was regarded by the Jews as the mother of the nation [Isaiah 54:1-8; Baruch 4:30-37, 5:5; Galatians 4:25; Revelation 12:17], and it was natural for Christians to think similarly of the church. When Peter writes about her “who is in Babylon, chosen together with you” (I Peter 5:13), he is using the same idea...The interchange of singular [II John 1:4-5, 13] and plural [II John 1:6-12] in the letter and the reference to the lady’s sister [II John 1:13] all support the view that the writer is personifying the church. For detailed argument in support of this position see Alan England Brooke [1863-1939], 167-70. (Marshall, The Epistles of John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 60)

Birger Olsson (b. 1938) contends:

A collective sense of the term kyria [II John 1:1] is most likely: the word “lady” indicates a local (house-)church, and her children are its individual members. Biblical linguistic patterns, the vacillation between you-singular [II John 1:4-5, 13] and you-plural [II John 1:6-12] in the letter, the qualifier “elect,” and the fondness for the collective aspect of Jesus’ disciples in the Johannine writings, speaks in favor of this reading. (Olsson, A Commentary on the Letters of John: An Intra-Jewish Approach, 48)

Robert W. Yarbrough (b. 1953) suggests:

The word translated “lady” is the Greek word kyria...This Greek word was also used for a sociopolitical subdivision in Athens, a subdivision of the larger ekklesia (often translated in the New Testament as “church”). John appears to be using a word for a local congregation that is not attested elsewhere in early Christian writings. The word is chosen because of distinctive local social and linguistic conventions about when we have no additional information. “Chosen lady,” then, simply means a local congregation who, as God’s people, are by definition “elect” or “chosen” (a common term for Christians, see, e.g., Romans 16:13; I Peter 1:1, 2:9). (Clinton E. Arnold [b. 1958], Hebrews to Revelation (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 96-97)

Colin G. Kruse (b. 1938) critiques:

Hans-Josef Klauck [b. 1946] points out that Walter Bauer [1870-1960], William F. Arndt [1880-1957] and F. Wilbur Gingrich [1901-1993]’s A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament is misleading when it cites Hellenistic sources (which include references to kyria ekklēsia) in support of an interpretation of eklektē kyria as lady congregation. The references cited refer to an Athenian assembly and provide no support for a metaphorical interpretation of kyria ekklēsia. Nevertheless, Klauck agrees with most modern commentators that eklektē kyria does refer to the congregation, and he finds support for this interpretation in the many references in the Old Testament and Apocrypha to Israel as wife, bride, mother, daughter, etc. (Kruse, The Letters of John (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 38)

Though not always preeminent, the theory that the “elect lady” (II John 1:1) represents the church is ancient. Hilary of Arles (403-449) asserts:

The elect lady [II John 1:1] is clearly a church to which the letter is written. It is elect in faith and mistress of all virtues. Introductory Commentary on II John. (Gerald Bray [b. 1948], James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, Jude (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture))

That the “elect lady” refers to a church is now undoubtedly the dominant view. Marianne Meye Thompson (b. 1954) catalogs:

Many commentators hold to the interpretation of the chosen lady as a personification of a local church and its members (Glenn W. Barker [1920-1984] 1981:361; Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998] 1982:654; F.F. Bruce [1910-1990] 1970:137; C.H. Dodd [1884-1973] 1946:144; Kenneth Grayston [1914-2005] 1984:152; J.L. Houlden [b.1929] 1973:142; I. Howard Marshall [b. 1934] 1978:60; Stephen S. Smalley [b. 1931] 1984:318; D. Moody Smith [b. 1931] 1991:139; John R.W. Stott [1921-2011] 1988:204), since the verbs and pronouns of the epistle are all in the plural (“you all”) [II John 1:6-12]. Moreover, the New Testament elsewhere speaks of the church as a woman or bride, and when greetings are sent from the children of your elect sister (II John 1:13), it suggests the greetings from one church to another. (Thompson, 1-3 John (IVP New Testament Commentary), 150-551)

Tom Thatcher (b. 1967) echoes:

Most modern commentators...conclude that “the Elect Lady” is a general reference to an entire congregation, so that “her children” are the individual members of that congregation (so J.L. Houlden [b. 1929], 142; R. Alan Culpepper [b. 1946], 117; I. Howard Marshall [b. 1934], 60-61; John R.W. Stott [1921-2011], 203-04; David Rensberger (b. [1948], 148). This reading is supported by the closing verse of II John, where the elder sends greetings from “the children of your elect [NIV, chosen] sister,” apparently the congregation of which John is a member (II John 1:13). While it is possible that both congregations were led by individual Christian women, it seems more likely that the terms “lady” and “sister” are used metaphorically to portray a familial relationship between the two churches. Outside the Johannine literature, the New Testament frequently portrays the church as a woman or bride of the counterpart of Jesus (II Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5:22-32; Revelation 19:6-9). (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], Hebrews ~ Revelation (Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 514)

Some have seen Second John as having been written not to a single church, but rather to multiple churches. Martin M. Culy (b. 1963) examines:

The greeting from τὰ τέκνα της ἀδελφης σου της ἐκλεκτης [“The children of your chosen sister”, II John 1:13 NASB] makes it clear that ἐκλεκτη κυρία [“the chosen lady and her children”, II John 1:1 NASB] cannot be a metaphor for the universal church (Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998], 653). Brown (654) thus posits that the lack of article with ἐκλεκτη κυρία marks this as “a circular letter meant to be read in several communities. (Culy, I, II, III John: A Handbook on the Greek Text, 141-42)

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) infers:

In II John the author clearly is at some distance from the audience. Notice also that in II John the church is addressed rather formally as the “Elect Lady” [II John 1:1]. I therefore agree with Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998] that in II-III John we have documents written in order chronologically to two different but related house churches over which “the old man”[II John 1:1] has some jurisdiction. The picture that one gets from both Paul and the later writings of Ignatius [35-98] is that Ephesus had numerous house churches, as did the outlying cities. But are the congregations addressed in II-III John merely in the suburbs of Ephesus? Probably not. The writing of these letters suggests that these churches are far enough away that letters needed to be written to them. (Witherington, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Volume 1: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John, 406)

I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) relays:

Rudolf Bultmann [1884-1976], 107ff, thinks that the letter is a “catholic” epistle to be taken to a number of churches. But to justify this view he has to argue that the details in the letter which suggest one particular destination are fictitious. (Marshall, The Epistles of John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 60)

Bultmann’s proposal has been largely rejected based upon the fact that the church universal would have no sister (II John 1:13).

The use of feminine language for a church has precedents; even the Greek word for church is feminine. R. Alan Culpepper (b. 1946) documents:

In Revelation, the Lord returns for his bride, the church (Revelation 19:7-8), and I Peter 5:13 speaks of the church as “she who is in Babylon.” The Shepherd of Hermas sees a maiden (parthenos), whom he recognizes as the church (Visions 4.2.1-12), and Tertullian [160-225] wrote of “our lady mother the Church” (Ad Martyras1; The Ante-Nicene Fathers 3:693). Similarly, Ignatius [35-98] addresses the Trallians as “elect” (Trallians, address), and I Peter is addressed to exiles who have been “chosen” (ekletois; I Peter 1:1). (Craig A. Evans [b. 1952], John, Hebrews–Revelation (Bible Knowledge Background Commentary), 193)

Paul S. Minear (1906-2007) characterizes:

Akin to the image of the Messianic mother of the book of Revelation [Revelation 12:1-2] is that of the elect lady, a phrase used in II John 1:1 to designate the congregation to which the elder addressed his letter. Associated with this image of the local church as mother is the reference to its members as her children and to another congregation as her sister (II John 1:13; cf. I Peter 5:13). Blended in this phrase are two common ideas: that of the church as the elect...and that of the Messianic community as a woman bearing children. (Minear, Images of the Church in the New Testament (New Testament Library), 54)

Gail R. O’Day (b. 1954) observes:

The author of II John, who identifies himself as the “elder” (II John 1:1), uses feminine imagery to speak of the church. The community to which he writes is addressed a “elect lady” (II John 1:1, 5), and the community from which the elder writes is identified as “your elect sister” (II John 1:13). Lady and sister are thus metaphors for the church...The noun “lady” (kyria) is the feminine form of the noun “lord” (kyrios). This vocabulary emphasizes the relationship between the church (lady) and its Lord. This language links II John with other New Testament writings that use feminine images for the church (e.g., Revelation 12:1-2; Ephesians 5:22-31). These images may show the value the early church placed on female leadership in the church, or they may indicate the beginning of patriarchal structures of governance in which the elder becomes “lord” over lady church. (Carol A. Newsom [b. 1950], Sharon H. Ringe [b. 1946] and Jacqueline E. Lapsley [b. 1965], Women’s Bible Commentary: Revised and Updated, 623)

Second John’s imagery is not holistically feminine. Robert Seesengood (b. 1969) acknowledges:

The Johannine epistles all address questions of early Christian missionary work. They refer to the church as “the elect lady” [II John 1:1], but consistently use masculine metaphors for God and believers (II John 1:2, 5, 13; I John 2:1, 12-14). (Julia M. O’Brien [b. 1958], “Masculinity and Femininity in the New Testament”,The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Gender Studies, 532)

Those who view the elect lady (II John 1:1) as an individual naturally object to the title being read collectively. Ruth B. Edwards counters:

Most modern commentators suppose the phrase is used metaphorically for a church. In the Hebrew Bible, Jerusalem or Zion is often personified as a woman; sometimes Israel is pictured as God’s bride—imagery occasionally picked up in the New Testament (cf. Revelation 21:2; Ephesians 5:25-28). In the Shepherd of Hermas, a second-century CE allegorical writing, the Church appears as a woman in a vision and is addressed by the author as kyria (V.I.5). But there are major differences between these images and II John’s. In Revelation, Ephesians and Hermas it is the new Jerusalem or the church as a whole which is personified, not one congregation. Yet if the ‘elect lady’ of II John 1:1 is the whole church, who is her ‘elect sister’ in II John 1:13? (Edwards, The Johannine Epistles (New Testament Guides, 27)

If “elect” lady” (II John 1:1) is a reference to the church, it is one of many. Robert L. Reymond (1932-2013) registers:

In addition to their most common term, ekklesia for the noun “church,” the New Testament writers employ many other singular figurative expressions to describe the entire church such as the following: one flock (John 10:16), one body (I Corinthians 12:27; Ephesians 1:23; Colossians 1:18), one new man (Ephesians 2:15), the temple of God (or of the Holy Spirit) (I Corinthians 3:16; II Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:21-22; II Thessalonians 2:4), the Jerusalem that is above (Galatians 4:26), the new Jerusalem (Hebrews 12:22), the salt of the earth (Matthew 5:13), the light of the world (Matthew 5:14), a letter from Christ (II Corinthians 3:2-3), the olive tree (Romans 11:13-24), God’s field (I Corinthians 3:9), God’s building (I Corinthians 3:9), the chosen lady (II John 1:1), the wife (or bride) of Christ (Ephesians 5:22-31; Revelation 21:9), God’s house (Ephesians 2:19), the people of God (I Peter 2:9-10), a chosen people (I Peter 2:9), a holy nation (I Peter 2:9), a royal priesthood (I Peter 2:9), the circumcision (Philippians 3:3-11), the tabernacle of David (Acts 15:16), the remnant (Romans 9:27, 11:5-7), the Israel of God (Galatians 6:15-16), God’s elect (Romans 8:33), the faithful in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 1:1), a new creation (II Corinthians 5:17), the kingdom of God (or of heaven) (Matthew 13:1-52), the Way (Acts 9:2, 19:9, 23, 22:4, 24:14, 22), and the brotherhood of believers (I Peter 2:17). (Chad Owen Brand [b. 1954] and R. Stanton Norman [b. 1963], “The Presbyterty-Led Church: Presbyterian Church Government”, Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity, 113)

In the Johannine Literature,the church is most commonly described with familial imagery. David Rensberger (b. 1948) inventories:

Of all the Johannine writings, only III John uses the word “church” [III John 1:6, 9, 10]. Second John uses the unusual terminology of the “elect lady” [II John 1:1] and her “elect sister” [II John 1:13] to refer to Christian congregations, which may express a sense of the church’s diving calling (Judith M. Lieu [b. 1951] 1986, 67); but the letter says nothing further about this. Otherwise, all three epistles plainly show the marks of a communal history, the only term they have for the community is adelphoi, “brothers and sisters,” used seventeen times to refer to other Christians. The metaphor of Christians as a family of God’s children is thus the primary way of speaking about the church (Dietrich Rusam 1993, 163-65, 185-86). (Rensberger, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries))

George L. Parsenios (b. 1969) professes:

In II John 1:1, the Elder addresses his letter to “the Elect Lady and her children,” which interpreters generally understand to be a symbolic reference to a church and its members. Support for this interpretation comes from the close of the letter in II John 1:13, where the Elder speaks of “your Elect Sister and her children,” a phrase that clearly refers to the Elder’s own church and its members. Christians are children of God, children of their teachers, children collected within churches, and brother and sisters of one another. The use of family language to describe ecclesisastical relations raises interesting historical questions and provides valuable insight into the social relations of early Christianity, as it seems to reflect an effort to deal with the crisis of conversion to a new faith. (Parsenios, First, Second, and Third John (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament))

Others have viewed the “elect lady” (II John 1:1) as an artificial straw figure utilized to present a standard teaching. If this is the case the traditional reconstruction is misguided and does a disservice to Second John’s literary artistry.

Judith M. Lieu (b. 1951) develops:

The identity of the “elect lady” [II John 1:1] is...obscure, although “lady” (kyria) is a common epithet in letters, whether used of a mother or sister or of someone more exalted. The profile at first presented by II John is of a woman with her children, of their responsibility for a home to which visitors may come, and of her sister, who is well known to the author. However, this is hardly sustained throughout the letter: the lady plays no real role and the letter lacks any personal details such as characterize III John [III John 1:1, 9, 12]; the second person plural address quickly takes over from the singular (II John 1:8, 10, 12; see also II John 1:5); the children are sufficiently numerous for the author to have encountered “some” of them (II John 1:4); and that he knew only the female siblings (II John 1:13) seems unlikely. On these grounds it is frequently assumed that the “real” addressee of the letter is a church, while the “sister” and her “children” represent another community...II John is not simply an ordinary letter, as is also evidenced from the high degree of artificiality when compared to III John...Second John initially has to be read as creating its own narrative, independently of questions as the intended audience of the text; within this, the “narrative recipient,” the lady is not to be dissolved as a symbol of a “real recipient”; to seek to identify “a real recipient” who might justify the personification as an “elect lady” fails to recognize that the letter creates its own, self-contained narrative world...The anonymity of the sender is matched by that of the recipient, “the elect lady”...and is sustained throughout the letter (cf. II John 1:13). This introduces an artificial note, which could suggest that the contrast between “the elder” and “the lady” is deliberately chosen as appropriate to a letter of concern and direction; the letter format was commonly used in antiquity as a fictional device and as a vehicle for teaching, for example of a philosophical nature, although the recipient is named even in these. (Lieu, I, II, & III John: A Commentary (New Testament Library), 244-45)

Not only is the identity of the “elect lady” (II John 1:1) contested, it is also unknown why the epistle opts not to name its recipient. C. H. Dodd [1884-1973) conjectures:

The possibility should perhaps not be excluded, that, in the unfavourable situation of Christianity at the time (see I John 3:13), it was judged safer, in case a document implicating the Church should fall into hostile hands, that it should appear to be a harmless letter to a friend. It is possible that the names of the writer and of the church addressed are omitted for prudential reasons—though both may have appeared...on the outside of the postal packet, according to custom. (Dodd, Johannine Epistles (Moffatt Commentary), 145)

Beth Moore (b. 1957) explains:

Many...believe that the address was more likely metaphoric to hide the identity of New Testament believers in a time of fierce persecution. If the letter fell into the wrong hands, no one could be singled out. The letter may well have been written to a church. (Moore, The Beloved Disciple: Following John to the Heart of Jesus, 213)

Regardless of whether Second John addresses an individual or a church, it is clear that the writer speaks favorably and loves its recipient (II John 1:1). Before confronting the reader with her precarious circumstances, the epistle’s opening line sets a loving tone. Second John speaks the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15).

How irregular is the salutation “elect lady” (II John 1:1)? To whom do you think the “elect lady” refers (II John 1:1)? What is the most natural way to read the text? If the title refers to an historical individual, who is she? Why does Second John not reveal the elect lady’s proper name? Do you know of anyone who uses the title “elect lady” today? Does anyone address you by a title? If Second John addresses a woman and her children (II John 1:1), where is the father? Why is the church commonly personified as a woman (Ephesians 5:25-27; Revelation 19:7-8)? How do you think of church; what terminology would you use to exemplify it? How does the interpretation of Second John change if it is read as having been addressed to an individual as opposed to a group?

While there is a natural curiosity associated with an ambiguous epithet like “elect lady” (II John 1:1), it does not alter the letter’s application. The spiritual content of the letter’s words outweigh its recipient’s identity.

Daniel L. Akin (b. 1957) assures:

Regardless of how one interprets these words [II John 1:1]...the basic application of the epistle remains unchanged. What the author would expect in belief and behavior of a lady and her children he would also expect of a local church and its members. (Akin, 1, 2, 3 John (New American Commentary), 220)

The elect lady and her children are addressed (II John 1:1). As such, a group is involved regardless. Ruth B. Edwards concludes:

Our eklektē kyria may well have hosted or led a local congregation; ‘her children’, to whom the letter is also addressed [II John 1:1], were probably not her physical children, but rather members of her house church. Thus the letter is still written to a church even if the ‘elect lady’ is taken to be an individual. (Edwards, The Johannine Epistles (New Testament Guides, 29)

David L. Allen (b. 1957) interprets:

In II John 1:13 John signs off his letter much the way as he began it by sending greetings to them from “children” of a sister church whom he refers to as “your elect sister.” As in II John 1:1, notice that John’s use of the word “elect” does not refer to an individual election, but to corporate election as he views the local congregation as a whole to be an elect body. (Allen, 1–3 John: Fellowship in God's Family (Preaching the Word), 266)

David G. Buttrick (b. 1927) advocates:

Virtually everything in scripture is written to a faith-community, usually in the style of communal address. Therefore, biblical texts must be set in communal consciousness to be understood. Even when texts are ostensibly addressed to individuals—“Theophilus” (Luke 1:3), “Philemon”(Philemon 1:1), “The Elect Lady” (II John 1:1)—they are nonetheless addressed to individuals who share communal Christian consciousness. Thus, texts do not address individuals in individual self-awareness. The issue is tricky, but crucial. Because we interpret scripture individually we tend to assume that scripture speaks to individual consciousness, to an individual in existential self-awareness. Thus, our “applications” of the Bible tend to be personal in character...As interpreters we do not ask, “What does the text say to me?” or even “What does the text say to me as representative human being” but “What is the text saying to our faith-consciousness?” Most of the “you”s that show up in the New Testament texts, in the letters of Paul or in the teachings of Jesus, should rightly be translated into “Southern” as “you-alls.” (Buttrick, Homiletic: Moves and Structures, 276-77)

Regardless of who the elect lady is, Second John is written to a community, an elect community. Peter Rhea Jones (b. 1937) postulates:

One suspects from the perspective of I John regarding the world and from John 15:19 and II John 1:7 that the Elder means to infer that the believers addressed were chosen out of the world. This election does encompass receptive believing and obedience to the commandments (II John 1:5). This election is corporate, experienced in Christian community (II John 1:1, 13). (Jones, 1, 2 & 3 John (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary), 251)

Urban C. Von Wahlde (b. 1941) concurs:

It is not a title bestowed only on that specific community...as is indicated by the fact that in II John 1:13, the Elder will also refer to his own community as “elect.” In the Gospel (John 6:70, 13:18, 15:16, 19), the disciples are said not to have chosen Jesus but to have been chosen by him. In light of this usage, it would be particularly appropriate for members of the community to refer to themselves as “elect.” Nevertheless, it is not unusual for the wider circle of early Christians to refer to themselves or others as “chosen” (eklektos). Similar usage is found in I Peter 5:13 and in the salutation of Ignatius [35-98], Letter to the Trallians. Consequently, although I am inclined to think that choice of the title is based on Johannine usage, it cannot be proved that the derivation is particularly “Johannine.” (Von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John, Volume 3: The Three Johannine Letters (Eerdmans Critical Commentary), 225)

Though it is natural to glean individual insights from the New Testament writings, they are written to groups. The elect lady is one of many elect. All Christians are chosen ones.

Why did the standard interpretation of the “elect lady” shift from an individual woman to a collective church? Have you ever written a (personal?) letter to a group? To whom would the title “elect lady” describe today? Does the adjective “elect” apply to you? Do you feel chosen?

“When you lose touch with your chosenness, you expose yourself to the temptation of self-rejection, and that temptation undermines the possibility of ever growing as the Beloved...When we claim and constantly reclaim the truth of being chosen ones, we soon discover within ourselves a deep desire to reveal to others their own chosenness.” - Henri J.M. Nouwen (1932-1996), Life of the Beloved: Spiritual Living in a Secular World

Talitha Kum: Get Up! (Mark 5:41)

What does “Talitha cumi” mean? Little girl, I say to you, arise (Mark 5:41)

The raising of Jairus’ daughter is chronicled in all three Synoptic gospels (Matthew 9:18-25; Mark 5:22-43; Luke 8:41-56). Jairus, a synagogue official, implores Jesus to come to his dying twelve-year old child (Matthew 9:18; Mark 5:22-23, 42; Luke 8:41-42). After Jesus is delayed by a hemorrhaging woman, the child is reported as dead (Matthew 9:20-22; Mark 5:25-35; Luke 8:43-49).

Undeterred, Jesus dismisses mocking mourners (Matthew 9:23-25; Mark 9:39-40; Luke 8:52-53) and clears the room, leaving only three select disciples and the girl’s parents (Mark 9:37; Luke 9:51). He then takes the girl by the hand and instructs her to rise (Matthew 9:25; Mark 5:41; Luke 8:54). At Jesus’ command, Jairus’ daughter awakens (Matthew 9:25; Mark 5:42; Luke 8:55).

Only Mark records the Aramaic words that Jesus speaks to the child (Mark 5:41).

Taking the child by the hand, He said to her, “Talitha kum!” (which translated means, “Little girl, I say to you, get up!”). (Mark 5:41 NASB)

Rudolf Otto (1869-1937) characterizes:

The account is strikingly concrete. Even the words Jesus uses to awaken the girl as uttered in Aramaic—‘talitha cumi’—are still given in the Aramaic form by the Greek narrator [Mark 5:41]. There is nothing grandiose or theatrical. (Otto, The Idea of the Holy, 210)

In this story, the reader is especially indebted to the narrator (Mark 5:21-43). Holly E. Hearon (b. 1956) explains:

The narrator leads readers through the events of the story (e.g., “and when Jesus had crossed...” [Mark 5:21] and “one of the synagogue leaders came...” [Mark 5:22]). The narrator also describes the individual scenes in the story, making them visible to readers (e.g., “and a huge crowd was following and pressing him” [Mark 5:24]). In this way, the narrator controls what the reader sees. The narrator also controls what readers know by providing them with selected information about the characters (e.g., “there was a woman who had a flow of blood over the course of twelve years...” [Mark 5:25]) or filling in “gaps” in the reader’s general knowledge by, for example, translating unfamiliar phrases for the reader (“‘Talitha koum [ταλιθα κουμ], which is translated ‘Little girl, I tell you, rise’” [Mark 5:41]). This underscores the omniscience of the narrator and the dependence of the readers on the narrator for their encounter with the world of the story. (Kelly R. Iverson [b. 1972] and Christopher W. Skinner [b. 1973], “From Narrative to Performance: Methodological Considerations and Interpretive Moves”, Mark as Story: Retrospect and Prospect, 227)

Kirsten Marie Hartvigsen (b. 1973) focuses:

Because Mark 5:41 does not contain perceptual verbs, audience members may attribute the perception of Jesus’ interaction with the girl to the extradiegetic narrator. This event constitutes the final percolutionary effect of Mark 5:23, where Jairus urged Jesus to lay his hands on the girl. By taking the girl’s hand, Jesus acts according to her father’s earlier request. Jesus also utters a speech act. Jesus’ utterance constitutes a directive point with a declarative intent, ταλιθα κουμ (Mark 5:41).This speech act is in Aramaic, but the extradiegetic narrator seems to presuppose that not all audience members are able to understand this language. The utterance is therefore translated into Koiné Greek, τὸ κοράσιον, σοι λέγω, ἔγειρε; In this manner, all audience members are able to understand the meaning of Jesus’ speech act. (Hartvigsen, Prepare the Way of the Lord: Towards a Cognitive Poetic Analysis of Audience Involvement with Characters and Events in the Markan World, 245)

Jesus enters a somber scene and it is he who breaks the silence (Mark 5:41). Of all people, he speaks to the child! He does not command an illness or a demon, but rather the girl. He also does this in the other two biblical stories in which he raises the dead as he commands the widow of Nain’s son, “Young man, I say to you, arise!” (Luke 7:14 NASB) and instructs Lazarus, “Lazarus, come forth” (John 11:43 NASB). Some have speculated that the personal address is necessary lest all the dead rise at the command of the Lord (John 5:28).

Jesus speaks to the girl in Aramaic which Mark preserves (Mark 5:41). Mark is the only canonical gospel which incorporates Aramaic into its Greek text. Raquel A. St. Clair (b. 1970) surveys:

Mark shows evidence of knowing both the sacred language (Hebrew) and common language (Aramaic) of first-century Jewish people. In Mark 7:11, the narrator transliterates and provides an interpretation for the Hebrew word korban (gift, offering). Likewise, in Mark 11:9-10, he transliterates the Hebrew hosanna. Moreover, there are five instances in which the narrator transliterates and translates Aramaic words or phrases (Mark 5:41, 7:34, 14:36, 15:22, 34). (St. Clair, Call and Consequences: A Womanist Reading of Mark, 87)

James A. Brooks (b. 1933) supports:

Mark and the oral tradition before him valued and preserved the Aramaic words Jesus used on this momentous occasion. Four instances of this are in Mark (also Mark 7:34, 14:36, 15:34), more than in any other Gospel and something that may indicate the primitiveness of Mark. Since the return from the Babylonian exile, Aramaic had been the language of the common people in Palestine. Jesus probably did most of his preaching and teaching in Aramaic. Therefore most if not all of his words in the Greek Gospels are a translation, and this fact is part of the reason the Gospels quote Jesus differently. Because Aramaic was not understood by Greek-speaking copyists of Mark’s Gospel, the textual witnesses vary in their reading at this point. (Brooks, Mark (New American Commentary), 95)

Donald H. Juel (1942-2003) understands:

The use of Aramaic by Mark represents an appreciation of the aesthetic dimensions of narration. Mark’s audience does not know the foreign words; they require translation. On three other occasions Mark recalls Jesus’ words in his native Aramaic: once in another miracle story (Mark 7:34), once in recounting Jesus’ prayer in the garden (Mark 14:36), and finally in repeating Jesus’ sole word from the cross (Mark 15:34). The Aramaic gives the story a taste of authenticity and a mysterious feel. (Juel, ,Mark (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament), 87)

Fred B. Craddock (b. 1928) advises:

Instead of preaching from Mark, let Mark be our instructor in preaching. Mark actually uses some attractive, strange words. He uses some Aramaic words, and it makes you feel like you’re actually there. He says, “Abba.” [Mark 14:36] Do you remember what he said to Jairus’s daughter? “Talitha koum.” [Mark 5:41]. That’s striking, Talitha koum. (Dave Fleer [b. 1953] and Dave Bland [b. 1953], “The New Homiletic: Suggestions for Preaching from Mark”, Preaching Mark’s Unsettling Messiah, 23)

The linguistics contribute to the presentation of a powerful scene. Michael Card (b. 1957) observes:

By my count, there are seven people in the room; the three disciples, the two parents, Jesus and the dead girl. This is a dramatic moment in the Gospel of Mark. It is the first time we hear Jesus speaking in his native tongue of Aramaic: “Talitha koum [Mark 5:41].” It is tender, as his words to the bleeding woman were tender [Mark 5:34]. “Little girl, I say to you get up!” [Mark 5:41] (Card, Mark: The Gospel of Passion (Biblical Imagination Series), 79)

Most scholars agree that Jesus spoke Aramaic. This means that Mark preserves the only direct quotes from Jesus’ earthy life (Mark 5:41, 7:34, 14:36, 15:34). In doing so, Mark provides a rare glimpse into the unfiltered Jesus.

Géza Vermès (1924-2013) determines:

There can be little doubt that Jesus himself spoke Galilean Aramaic, the language, that is to say, surviving in the popular and somewhat more recent paraphrase of the Pentateuch, the Palestinian Targum, and in the Talmud of Palestine. Practically all the terms which the Synoptic Gospels preserve in Aramaic before rendering them in Greek point in that direction. In the command addressed to the daughter of Jairus, Talitha kum [Mark 5:41], ‘Get up, my child,’ the noun (literally, ‘little lamb’) is attested only in the Palestinian Targum. Another Aramaic word, mamona, ‘money’, used in the Sermon on the Mount, in Matthew 6:24, mostly occurs in the Targums. The rabbis, even in Aramaic phrases, usually employ the Hebrew word, mamon. Targumic parallel is similarly decisive in determining that when Jesus said Ephphetha [Mark 7:34], ‘Be opened’, he spoke Aramaic and not Hebrew. (Vermès, Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels, 53)

Robert H. Stein (b. 1935) opines:

The Semitic expression “Talitha koum” (cf. Mark 3:17, 22, 7:11, 34, 9:43, 10:46, 14:36, 15:22, 34; Matthew 5:22, 6:24; John 1:42, which means, “Little girl...arise” (Τὸ κοράσιον...ἒγειρε, To korasion...egeire; cf. Mark 12:26, 16:6), suggests, among other things, that Jesus’s mother tongue was Aramaic (John P. Meier [b. 1942] 1991:255-68). The Greek translation that follows (and, of course, the whole Gospel) reveals that the native language of Mark’s readers is Greek. The Aramaic expressions found in Mark do not function as magical incantations (Robert H. Gundry [b. 1932] 1993:274-75; contra Gerard Mussies [b. 1934] 1984:427). Even less do they serve as secret “gnostic” formulas, since they are openly stated along with their interpretations. Nor are they used “to demonstrate the superior power of eastern words of healing” (Gerd Thiessen [b. 1943] 1983:254), since the expressions in Mark are used mostly in nonmiracle settings (cf. Mark 3:17, 7:11, 14:36, 15:34; also Matthew 5:22, 6:24; John 1:42). (Only two Aramaic expressions are found in the setting of a healing miracle, here and Mark 7:34.) It is best to understand that these expressions as remnants of the Aramaic traditions with which Mark was familiar (Joachim Gnilka [b. 1928] 1978:211). In their abbreviations of Mark, Matthew and Luke omit them (except for Matthew 27:46). (Stein, Mark (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 274-75)

Bernard J. Lee (b. 1932) acknowledges:

Because our earliest texts are Greek, we are not certain about the original words in any single thing that Jesus said, with the possible exception of an occasional phrase actually transmitted in Aramaic, such as Abba [Mark 14:36] (the intimate form of “Father”); Talitha Kum [Mark 5:41] (“Little girl, arise!”); and Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani [Mark 15:34] (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me”). That is not thick enough history to recover the full throated voice of Jesus. The early quest for the historical Jesus indicated the futility of seeking the original words, the verba ipsissima of Jesus. (Lee, The Galilean Jewishness of Jesus: Retrieving the Jewish Origins of Christianity, 53)

Critical scholarship is not universally convinced of the Aramaic’s authenticity. Charles Leland Quarles (b. 1965) reports:

The Fellows of the Jesus Seminar...rightly acknowledge that “Jesus undoubtedly employed the term ‘Abba’ (Aramaic for ‘Father’) to address God [Mark 14:36].” They did reject the authenticity of the Aramaic words which appeared in Mark 5:41 and Mark 7:34. Though the Aramaic forms normally suggested authenticity, the Gospel writer had used the Aramaic term to make an ordinary command sound like a magical formula to the ear of the Greek-speaker. (Bruce Chilton [b. 1949] and Craig A. Evans [b. 1952], “The Authenticity of the Parable of the Warring King: A Response to the Jesus Seminar”, Authenticating the Words of Jesus, 419)

Though exact quotations from Jesus are scarce, this does not detract from the New Testament’s witness. Gregg R. Allison (b. 1954) and Michael J. Anthony (b. 1953) clarify:

The truthfulness of all of Scripture does not mean that the New Testament sayings of Jesus contain the exact words of Jesus. If Jesus spoke mostly Aramaic...then few of the actual words of Jesus are found in the New Testament. Indeed, there are only two phrases of Jesus in Aramaic: “Talitha cumi” (“Little girl, I say to you, arise!”; Mark 5:41) and “Eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani?” (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Mark 15:34; see Matthew 27:46). Instead of the exact words of Jesus, the New Testament contains the exact voice of Jesus. (James R. Estep, Jr. [b. 1963], Anthony and Allison, “Revelation, Scripture, and Christian Education”, A Theology for Christian Education, 85)

John Azumah (b. 1962) assesses:

Some fragments of the original Aramaic have..been preserved...However such Aramaic fragments are the exceptions that prove the rule and it is clear that what the early Christians identified as being of the greatest significance in Jesus was not the original words and syllables spoken by him. The heart of the matter lay elsewhere, in who Jesus was, in what he had done, in his ongoing risen presence. (David Marshall [b. 1963], “The Divine and Human Origins of the Bible: Exodus 32:15-16; Jeremiah 1:9; II Timothy 3:16-17; Luke 1:1-4; I Corinthians 7:10-17; Mark 5:41”, Communicating the Word: Revelation, Translation, and Interpretation in Christianity and Islam, 95-96)

Jesus’ words and deeds are not mutually exclusive. Christopher D. Marshall (b. 1953) observes:

In some respects Jesus’ words and deeds are virtually interchangeable in Mark. Just as his words of command are imbued with power to bring about their own realisation (e.g. Mark 1:27, 41, 4:39, 5:41, 9:25ff, 11:14, etc.), so his actions are infused with didactic power that qualifies them as preaching (Mark 1:39) and teaching (Mark 1:27, 8:14-21). (Marshall, Faith as a Theme in Mark’s Narrative, 39)

English translations render the Greek in English but retain the Aramaic through transliteration, effectively making it as foreign to the contemporary reader as it was to her ancient counterpart (Mark 5:41): “Talitha koum” (CEV, HCSB, MSG, NIV, NLT), “Talitha cumi” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NKJV), “Talitha cum” (NRSV), “Talitha kum” (NASB) or “Tal’itha cu’mi” (RSV). The fact that Mark feels the need to translate the expression is telling, much like a foreign film necessitates subtitles.

Such explanatory clauses are typical of Mark’s gospel. Whitney Shiner (b. 1949) documents:

In a number of places Mark provides explanations to his listeners. He translated foreign words (Mark 5:41, 7:34, 14:36, 15:22, 15:34), provides “explanations” of Jewish practices (Mark 7:3-4), comments on the emotional cause of actions (“they were frightened,” Mark 9:6; “for they were afraid,” Mark 16:8), a natural cause (there are no figs on the tree because “it was not the time for figs,” Mark 11:13), and an occupational reason for action (Simon and Andrew were “throwing nets in the sea—because they were fishermen,” Mark 1:16). (Shiner, Proclaiming the Gospel: First-Century Performance of Mark, 176)

Robert H. Gundry (b. 1932) expounds:

Willem S. Vorster [1941-1993] (in Neotestamentica 14 [1981] 68) observes that Mark uses and translates foreign (i.e. Aramaic) words and phrases to put across his narrative point of view — here [Mark 5:41], for emphasis on the power of Jesus’ word to raise even the dead. In only one other instance does the Aramaic plus translation have to do with a miracle (Mark 7:34), whereas in a number of other instances it has nothing to do with miracles (see Mark 3:17, 7:11, 14:36; and especially Mark 15:22, 34, where we read the same formula ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον, “which is translated,” i.e. “which means when translated”) — a point that weakens the suggestion that the Aramaic originally lacked a translation, that the following command to silence originally referred to keeping the Aramaic secret as a foreign magical formula...and that Mark added a translation with the result that it is now the miracle itself which needs to be kept secret (Joachim Gnilka [b. 1928] 1.211-12; cf. Mark 10:46, where Mark makes the Aramaic appositional to its preceding translation; Mark 11:9-10, where “hosanna” lacks a translatable prayer into a hardly translatable exclamation). (Gundry, Mark, Volume 1 (1-8): A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, 284)

Jesus says, “Talita kum” (Mark 5:41). C.E.B. Cranfield (b. 1915) dissects:

Ταλιθα χουμ, A transliteration of Aramaic telîtā kûm, of which the first word is the feminine of talyā’ (=‘lamb’ or ‘youth’) and the second is the Mesopotamian form of the imperative ‘arise’. Α D Θ f13 pm lat syphs have the Palestinian form of the feminine imperative kûmî. It is not at all clear which form Mark wrote. (Marie-Joseph Lagrange [1855-1938], Vincent Taylor [1887-1968] prefer χουμ; Ernst Lohmeyer [1890–1946] χουμι.) (Cranfield, The Gospel According to St Mark: An Introduction and Commentary, 190)

Talitha is a term of endearment (Mark 5:41). The affectionate word literally means “little lamb”; like Mary, Jesus has a little lamb. John R. Donahue (b. 1933) and Daniel J. Harrington (1940-2014) gloss:

In Aramaic this phrase literally means “little lamb, arise”; the word “lamb” (talitha can be a term of affection, especially for a young child (see II Samuel 12:1-6). (Donahue and Harrington, Mark (Sacra Pagina), 178)

James R. Edwards (b. 1945) comments:

The Greek translation, “little girl,” is endearing. The word korasion, a diminutive of korē (a stately young woman or maiden), indicates prime childhood, perhaps “little lady.” Such nomenclature reveals the vast difference in Jesus’ perspective of the girl from the mourners’ perspective [Mark 5:38-40]. (Edwards, The Gospel according to Mark (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 167-68)

In tenderly touching her and his choice of words (Mark 5:41), Jesus gives Jairus’ daughter permission to be a child again.

This type of language is customary in Mark. Bonnie Bowman Thurston (b. 1952) notes:

Diminutives are characteristic of Mark’s style; see Mark 5:41-42, 6:22, 28, 7:27-28; and so forth. (Thurston, Preaching Mark (Fortress Resources for Preaching, 67)

Richard Schneck (b. 1941) contends that talitha alludes to Isaiah’s poetic description of Israel’s future shepherd who “gathers the lambs with his arm and in his bosom he will carry them” (Isaiah 40:11; Mark 6:34). That long awaited shepherd destined to lead Israel out of exile has arrived. (Schneck , Isaiah in the Gospel of Mark I-VIII, 137-138).

There has been some speculation that Talitha is a proper noun. Max Wilcox (1927-2010) argues:

It seems strange that anyone should have addressed an unconscious (or dead) person as “girl” and not by her own name. The context is thoroughly Jewish, the girl’s father has a Jewish name (Jairus=Ya’ir) [Mark 5:22, 35, 36], and he is a synagogue ruler [Mark 5:22, 35, 36, 38]. If his name is given, why not that of the daughter? Further the Greek manuscripts and the versions have problems in Mark 5:41. The best attested reading is Talitha koum, but at first sight that seems to make the verb masculine (qwm) instead of feminine (qwmy). The other three sets of readings all look like attempts to make sense of the matter by seeing in talitha (or in their equivalents of it) a proper name. Thus all make both subject and verb explicitly feminine. The problem could be solved if (1) talitha could be documented as a proper name and not just an Aram word meaning “girl,” and (2) if in the spoken language the final yod in feminine form qwmy were silent as in the corresponding Syriac. (David Noel Freedman [1922-2008], Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6:309-10)

Though this is not impossible, the fact that Mark translates talitha as a noun rather than a proper name seems to indicate that Talitha is not the child’s name.

There is variation in the ancient manuscripts regarding the verb Jesus uses (Mark 5:41). This discrepancy is reflected in contemporary translations which read either koum (CEV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NLT, NRSV) or koumi (ASV, ESV, KJV, NKJV, RSV).

George Aichele (b. 1944) admits:

The apparatus to the Eberhard Nestle [1851-1913] et al. (1979) of the Greek New Testament indicates that talitha koum is the best attested spelling of the transliterated phrase in Mark 5:41, but there is also evidence among the ancient manuscripts of Mark for talitha koumi and talitha koum(i). The fifth-century codex D, famous for its Aramaic transliterations into Greek, has rabbi thabita (= rhabotha) koumi. (Aichele, Jesus Framed, 59)

Ezra Palmer Gould (1841-1900) distinguishes:

κούμ is the Hebrew imperative כים. κουμι of the Textus Receptus is the proper feminine form. κούμ is the masculine used as an interjection. (Gould, The Gospel According to St. Mark (International Critical Commentary), 101)

Robert G. Bratcher (1920-2010) and Eugene A. Nida (1914-2011) add:

Instead of the masculine form koum of the great majority of modern editions of the Greek text, Textus Receptus, Alexander Souter [1873-1949] (and RSV) have the feminine form koumi (cf. the discussion on Marie-Joseph Lagrange [1855-1938]). (Bratcher and Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Mark, 180)

Kent Brower (b. 1946) rationalizes:

There are several variants of the Aramaic phrase talitha koum, probably due to the unfamiliarity of copyists with Aramaic. Some texts read tabitha, a confusion from the name in Acts 9:40. The variation between koum and koumi is due to gender in Aramaic. Thus koum is masculine but is used here without reference to gender. But koumi is imperative feminine singular and is probably a later correction (R.T. France [1938-2012] 2002, 234 n. 41). The earliest text is likely talitha koum. (Brower, Mark: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition (New Beacon Bible Commentary), 157)

Alfred Edersheim (1825-1899) footnotes:

The reading which accordingly seems best is that adopted by Brooke Foss Westcott [1825-1901] and Fenton John Anthony Hort [1828-1892], Ταλειθά κούμ. The Aramaic or Rabbinic for maiden is either Talyetha or Talyutha (טליוחא). In the second Targum on Esther 2:7,8, the reading is טלוחא (Talutha), where Jean de Léry [1536-1613] conjectures the reading טליחא (Talitha), or else Talyetha. The latter seems also the proper equivalent of ταλειθά, while the reading ‘Talitha’ is uncertain. As regards the second word, qum [pronounced kum], most writers have...shown that it should be qumi, not qum. Nevertheless, the same command is spelt קומ in the Talmud (as it is pronounced in Syriac) when a woman is addressed. In Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 110b, the command qum, as addressed to a woman suffering from a bloody flux, occurs not less than seven times in one page. (Craig A. Evans [b. 1952], “The Healing of the Woman – Christ’s Personal Appearance – The Raising of Jairus’ Daughter”, The Historical Jesus, Volume IV: Critical Concepts in Religious Studies, 84)

Adela Yarbro Collins (b. 1945) preserves:

Julius Wellhausen [1844-1918] argued that the original reading was ραβιθα (“girl”), which he reconstructed from the corrupt reading of Codex D, rather than ταλιθα (“girl”), because the latter word is more refined and less dialectical and thus a correction. He also argued that κουμι (“koumi,” i.e. “arise” or “stand up”), read by Codex D, is original, as the Old Palestinian form of the second person singular feminine imperative; he considered κουμ (“koum,” i.e., “arise or “stand up”) to be a later Mesopotamian form. (Collins, Mark (Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible), 285)

This grammar could be an indicator of Jesus’ accent. Géza Vermès (1924-2013) supposes:

It may also be presumed that like Peter, whose northern identity betrayed his speech [Matthew 26:73; Mark 14:70; Luke 22:59], Jesus also spoke the Galilean dialect of Aramaic. His command addressed to the ‘dead’ daughter of Jairus is reproduced as Talitha kum (‘Little girl’, or literally, ‘Little lamb, get up’) in the oldest codices of Mark 5:41. But kum represents Galilean slovenly speech in joining the masculine form of the imperative to a feminine subject, as against the grammatically correct kumi which we find in some of the more recent and polished manuscripts of the Gospel. (Vermès, The Changing Faces of Jesus, ccl)

Mark translates “talitha” for its Greek speaking readers as “Little girl” (CEV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) or “Damsel” (ASV, KJV).

A.T. Robertson (1863-1934) compares:

Mark uses the diminutive κοράσιον, a little girl, from κόρη, girl. Luke 8:54 has it ‘Η παις, ἔγειρε, “Maiden, arise.” (Robertson, The Gospel According to Matthew and the Gospel According to Mark (Word Pictures in the New Testament), 307-08)

Robert H. Gundry (b. 1932) notices:

In talking about her, Jesus called her “the little child (Mark 5:39). In talking to her he affectionately calls her “Little girl” [Mark 5:41]. (Gundry, Commentary on Mark)

Jesus bids the girl to arise (Mark 5:41). R.C.H. Lenski (1864-1936) documents:

A.T. Robertson [1863-1934] 1215 claims that the aorist imperative ἔγειραι does not appear in the New Testament, and that we should read here the present imperative ἔγειρε, “be arising.” Either could be used; the question is one for the text critics to decide. (Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Mark’s Gospel, 231)

This is far from a rude awakening; Jesus meets Jairus’ daughter on her own level in a language she understands. The child has likely heard the command, “Little girl, get up!” many times throughout her life.

Ralph Earle (1908-1995) conjectures:

It has been suggested that these may have been the very words with which the little girl was wakened by her mother each morning. Here we see the human tenderness of Christ, as well as His divine power. What a beautiful combination! (Earle, Mark: The Gospel of Action (Everyman’s Bible Commentary), 53)

David L. McKenna (b. 1929) praises:

“Talitha, cumi” is an invitation of love that literally means, “Little lamb, arise.” Jesus’ authority, tough with wild winds and raging demons, becomes as tender as a shepherd lifting the littlest of lambs. (McKenna, Mark (Preacher’s Commentary), 116)

Some interpreters have contrasted the provocative vocatives that Jesus uses in relation to the two women he heals in the chapter (Mark 5:22-43). Jesus calls the hemorrhaging woman “daughter” (Mark 5:34) while referring to Jairus’ daughter as “little girl” (Mark 5:41).

Bas M.F. van Iersel (1924-1999) interprets:

The privileged position of the girl is reversed in the combination of the two stories. Though the father is the first to appear on the scene and Jesus decides to oblige him, he actually helps the woman first: the inferior is given precedence, the first will be last and the last the first; but there is more at issue than order. The woman who has no one to fall back on is addressed by Jesus as ‘daughter’ [Mark 5:34], and is thereby shown to belong to the new family of Jesus. The daughter of Jairus, though, is addressed as ‘talitha’ [Mark 5:34], which is explicitly translated into the Greek κοράσιον, which mean ‘girl’. (Iersel, Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary, 212)

While Mark intentionally juxtaposes the two stories (Mark 5:21-43), Jesus describes both women in intimate terms (Mark 5:34, 41). Reading talitha as a slight does a disservice to the text and to Jesus. Jairus’ daughter need not be maligned for the hemorrhaging woman to be elevated.

When translating Jesus’ Aramaic, Mark actually adds the interjection “I say yo you” (Mark 5:41). R.C.H. Lenski (1864-1936) recognizes:

In his translation Mark adds, “I say to thee,” which is merely interpretive. (Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Mark’s Gospel, 231)

Alfred Plummer (1841-1926) critiques:

The Aramaic here hardly justifies the insertion of ‘I say unto thee.’ As in Mark 3:17 and Mark 15:34, the rendering given by Mark raises questions. (Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Mark, 66)

Though not in Jesus’ words, “I say to you” conveys tone and indicates the unique authority of the speaker (Mark 5:41). This authority is also underscored by his verb tense.

Robert H. Gundry (b. 1932) gathers:

Mark’s quoting Jesus’ original Aramaic, introducing it with the present tense in “he says to her,” and inserting “I’m telling you” into the translation accentuate the empowering command [Mark 5:41]. (Gundry, Commentary on Mark)

Jesus’ words are markedly prosaic. The Aramaic is simple; Jesus does resort to language that makes him sound especially religious.

Dick France (1938-2012) updates:

The words ‘Talitha cum’ (in the vernacular Aramaic) are remarkably low-key: ‘talitha’ is literally a young sheep or goat but was used colloquially for a child, and ‘cum’ simply means ‘Get up’. So ‘Get up, kid!’ is an idiomatic equivalent. (France, Mark (Daily Bible Commentary: A Guide for Reflection and Prayer), 81)

Scottish Canadian William Wye Smith (1827-1917) renders the phrase, “Lassie, wauken” (Smith, The New Testament in Braid Scots, 49).

David E. Garland (b. 1947) remarks:

Talitha koum is an ordinary Aramaic phrase made memorable by the extraordinary miracle. (Clinton E. Arnold [b. 1958], Matthew, Mark, Luke (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 36)

N.T. Wright (b. 1948) evaluates:

What’s so special about these words? Why leave them untranslated, along with only a handful of others (like ‘Abba’ in the Gethsemane scene, Mark 14:36)? The best answer is probably that the scene, and the crucial words, made such a deep impression on Peter and the others that whenever they told the story afterwards, even in Greek to non-Jewish audiences, they kept the crucial words as they were. It wasn’t a magic formula, a kind of ‘abracadabra’; they were ordinary words you might use to wake up a sleeping child. But part of the point of the gospel story, and of this whole section of Mark, is precisely that the life-giving power of God is breaking into and working through the ordinary details of life. (Wright, Mark for Everyone, 63-64)

The entire scene is wrought with simplicity (Mark 5:35-43). M. Eugene Boring (b. 1935) appraises:

Jesus does not pray, engages in no rituals, has no “technique”—he only touches and speaks, and the girl is raised [Mark 5:41]...Even the Aramaic phrase, foreign to Mark’s Greek-speaking readers, is no magic word, but when translated is seen to be the simple speech anyone could employ in waking someone from sleep. By translating the phrase, Mark removes the story from the world of magic and focuses on the authority of Jesus that cannot be resisted even by the power of death. (Boring, Mark: A Commentary (New Testament Library), 162)

There is discussion as to what Mark’s inclusion of Aramaic accomplishes. George Aichele (b. 1944) concedes:

A Greek transliteration, talitha koum, of Jesus’s Aramaic words appears in Mark 5:41. Since the transliterated words are immediately translated into Greek, to korasion, soi legô, egeire, they serve no informative function in the text. Either the reader knows Aramaic and the transliteration is unnecessary, or the reader does not know Aramaic and the transliteration plays no role in the story, except perhaps to add an exotic quality. A similar transliteration/translation combination appears in Mark 7:34 – “and [Jesus] looked up into the sky and groaned and said to him: Ephphatha, which means: Be opened.” Other comparable transliteration/translation combinations appear at Mark 3:17, where the nickname “Boanerges” is translated as “sons of thunder,” and Mark 7:11, where “Corban” is translated as “gift to God.” Unlike Mark 5:41 and 7:34, these latter instances are not elements of healing stories...Why these transliterated words are included in Mark’s text along with translations of the words is not clear. All four of the transliteration/translation combinations appear in Mark in the direct discourse of Jesus. Each is an oddity which disrupts the text: in each case, the translation which accompanies the transliterated words enables them to be understood, but the function of the transliterated phrase itself is not clear. In fact, the transliteration seems to serve no purpose. No deep narrative structure accounts for this surface effect, nor does the transliterated phrase appear to have any particular theological significance. It is significant that all of the respective parallels to these passages in Matthew (Matthew 9:25, 15:30, 10:2, 15:5, 26:39), Luke (Luke 8:54, 6:14, 22:42), and John (John 12:27) omit the transliterations. (Aichele, Jesus Framed, 57-58)

Many scholars presume that Mark was the first gospel written and if so, it might be significant that Matthew and Luke redact the Aramaic from their accounts (Matthew 9:18-25; Luke 8:41-56).

There may be a grammatical rationale for the discarding of the Aramaic. Rex Weyler (b. 1947) considers:

Matthew and Luke often disagree about the sequence of events in the life of Jesus, but generally follow Mark’s chronology when they do agree, suggesting that they both used Mark as a reference. Mark’s language appears earlier and closer to Aramaic. For example, the account of Jesus healing a child in Gerasenes (Mark 5:41) identifies a “little girl” by the Aramaic word talitha. Luke and Matthew appear to fix up or simplify confusing syntax in Mark’s more primitive style, and scholars doubt the Mark author would copy a simple construction by making it more convoluted. (Weyler, The Jesus Sayings: The Quest for His Authentic Message, 89)

Graham H. Twelftree (b. 1950) deliberates:

Matthew removes Jesus’ special words of healing in his source (talitha koum, Mark 5:41/Matthew 9:25). It is not that this would have been understood as magical. Rather, Matthew wants nothing to be seen as effective in healing other than Jesus himself. Also, in light of his didactic intention, Matthew would want to convey to his readers that in their emulation of Jesus’ healing ministry they are not to rely on anything other than the power of Jesus. (Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker: A Historical & Theological Study, 119)

Mark is traditionally regarded as Peter’s memoirs and many attribute the Aramaic to it having left an indelible impression on the spectators (Mark 5:37). This is the first time that Jesus raises someone from the dead and that milestone would presumably be unforgettable.

Rodney L. Cooper (b. 1953) surmises:

Mark’s Gospel is the only one that uses these Aramaic words. This is probably because this account of Jesus’ miracle came directly to Mark from the apostle Peter. Peter was impressed with Jesus’ tenderness, his lack of concern about the purity laws, and his power. (Cooper, Mark (Holman New Testament Commentary), 89)

R. Alan Cole (1923-2003) concurs:

His words to the girl, Talitha cumi, in her own Aramaic mother tongue...are preserved in Mark alone [Mark 5:41]. If, as tradition has it and internal evidence may in part at least support, Peter was Mark’s informant, then the scene must have made such an impression upon the three apostles present that the actual words of Jesus were remembered long after [Mark 5:37]. (Cole, Mark (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 165)

It cannot be denied that the Aramaic has impact. Steven A. Crane (b. 1964) perceives:

Aramaic was the language of Jesus. Koine Greek, or common Greek, was the language of commerce. Mark translates it for a Roman audience, and for us. “Little girl, I say yo you, get up!” [Mark 5:41] Why give us the Aramaic? Possibly for emphasis. It creates a dramatic effect for the listeners (and for us). (Crane, Marveling with Mark: A Homiletical Commentary on the Second Gospel, 101)

Donald H. Juel (1942-2003) analyzes:

There is something mysterious about the words, and their mere presence suggests some distance from Jesus—who did, in fact, speak another language. Readers experience some sense of distance from the events while at the same time experiencing the power of the story...The Aramaic words have the greatest impact when the story is read aloud. (Juel, Gospel of Mark (Interpreting Biblical Texts Series), 116)

A friend or pastor might have offered words of consolation to the pained parents. But Jesus does not enter the home as merely a counselor, pastor or friend. Jesus appears as a savior, and it is as the little girl’s savior that he speaks (Mark 5:41).

John Phillips (1927-2010) marvels:

Two words and the soul is snatched from the maw of the old lion, death [Mark 5:41]. The child’s pale cheeks blushed red with new life. Her eyelids fluttered. She opened her eyes, saw Jesus, and sat up! Just like that! (Phillips, Exploring the Gospel of Mark, 128)

What Jesus says is not as important as the fact that what is done is accomplished simply through speech (Mark 5:41). In raising Jairus’ daughter, Jesus’ humanity is on display in the tenderness of his words while his divinity is featured in their power. The raising of Jairus’ daughter serves as a reminder of the infinite capacity of what the Almighty can do. Jesus can speak to the dead; even death cannot separate us from Jesus’ love (Romans 8:38-39).

Other voices abound in Jairus’ house. The hopeless wails of professional mourners and those mocking the newly arrived savior ring out as well (Mark 5:38-40). In their midst, the one true voice is unfamiliar to the child (Mark 5:41). Yet Jesus’ words are the only ones remembered verbatim. His words still reverberate; they are the lasting ones. May we listen only to that voice which invites us to live, which demands we get up and do what we are called to do.

Why does Mark retain Jesus’ Aramaic when raising Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5:41)? What impact does the injection of Jesus’ native language have on your reading of the story? Why did the other gospel writers not preserve the Aramaic? What does utilizing Greek at the expense of the original Aramaic say about what mattered most to the early church about Jesus? With what accent do you hear Jesus speaking? Presuming that he does not, why Jesus not address Jairus’ daughter by name? Is “talitha” an appropriate designation for a twelve-year old girl (Mark 5:42)? What terms of endearment do you use? What would you want Jesus to call you? From what occasions do you remember an exact quote? What would have happened if the girl had listened to the other voices instead of the call of Christ? To whose voice are you listening?

Many commentators have equated Jesus’ exotic words with magical incantations (Mark 5:41). Adela Yarbro Collins (b. 1945) writes:

It is noteworthy...that the only words of Jesus that the evangelist gives in Aramaic in this context are the powerful words by which, in part, Jesus raised the girl from the dead [Mark 5:41]. The implication is that, for Greek speakers in the audience, the Aramaic words were in themselves perceived to be mysterious and powerful. Lucian of Samosata [125-180] satirizes the use of holy names and foreign phrases in healing by having one of his characters ask whether the fever or inflammation is afraid of them and so takes flight. (Collins, Mark (Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible), 285-86)

Joel Marcus (b. 1951) explicates:

The retention of Aramaic here is partly for effect: the exotic foreign words increase the sense of mystery about the miracle that is about to occur. Cf. Lucian of Samosata [125-180]’s reference to the tendency of faith healers to use rhēsis barbarikē, “foreign language” (False Philosopher 9). The only other healing story in which Jesus’ words are rendered in Aramaic is the narrative about the deaf-mute in Mark 7:31-37; in both cases, as Gerard Mussies [b. 1934] (“The Use of Hebrew and Aramaic in the Greek New Testament,” 427) points out, the Aramaic words are the verbal counterpart to the non-verbal healing action...and in both cases the healing takes place in seclusion. The combination of the motifs of seclusion and mysterious words is probably not accidental; Gerd Thiessen [b. 1943] (140-42, 148-49) notes that in the magical papyri, injunctions to silence frequently occur before or after occult formulae, in order to guard their secrecy (Papyri Graecae Magicae, 1.40, 130, 146-47, etc.). Also strikingly parallel to our narrative is Philostratus [170-247]’s story of the resuscitation of a dead girl by Apollonius of Tyana: “He simply touched her and said some secret words to her and woke her from seeing death” (Life Apollonius of Tyana 4.45). Not only does this tale share with ours the motif of secret words, but it also includes the pattern of the healer touching a dead girl and thus “awakening” her. The combination of motifs is so close that it is hard not to agree with Rudolf Pesch [1936-2011] (1.310) that our story reproduces typical techniques of ancient faith healing. (John P. Meier [b. 1942] [Marginal Jew, 2.580] raises the possibility that Philostratus is plagiarizing the Gospels, but admits that he cannot establish the probability of this assumption. (Marcus, Mark 1-8 (Anchor Bible), 363)

William L. Lane (1931-1999) counters:

The retention of Aramaic formulae in Marcan healing contexts (Mark 5:41, 7:34) has led to the conjecture that, analogous to pagan custom, the early Christians commonly believed in the efficacy of esoteric utterances composed of foreign or incomprehensible words. There is no support for this proposal either in Mark or in the subsequent tradition. The evangelist retains Aramaic with translation in other contexts unrelated to healing. Moreover, there is no evidence that “Talitha cumi” [Mark 5:41] or “Ephphatha” [Mark 7:34] were ever used by Christian healers as a magic spell. Their presence in the narrative reflects a faithfulness to the tradition that Jesus had actually spoken these words on specific occasions. (Lane, The Gospel of Mark (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 197-98)

Allen Black (b. 1951) dismisses:

Some argue that Mark preserves the Aramaic here and in the healing at Mark 7:34 as examples of foreign words used as magical incantations (similar to “abracadabra”). However, Mark’s translation of the Aramaic weighs against that understanding. So does the fact that most of Mark’s uses of Aramaic terms are not connected with working miracles (Mark 3:17, 7:11, 11:9-10, 14:36, 15:22, 34). (Black, Mark (College Press NIV Commentary), 108)

Camille Focant (b. 1946) agrees:

Although it is expressed in a foreign language, the expression “Talitha koum” uses quite ordinary words in the Aramaic language [Mark 5:41]. It therefore can certainly not be considered as a sort of “magic word” (contra Rudolf Bultmann [1884-1976], The History of the Synoptic Tradition, 214; with Simon Légasse [1926-2009], 1:350). However, in quoting the words of Jesus in Aramaic before giving their translation in Greek, the narrator draws attention to the expression, as if he was highlighting it. In the Greek translation he adds, “I say to you,” which emphasizes the commitment of Jesus in this word. It is a performative word that must realize what it states. (Focant, The Gospel according to Mark: A Commentary, 214)

Lars Hartman (b. 1930) contends:

Jesus’ words are the culmination of the story (Mark 5:41b). “Talitha koum” is Aramaic, and the readers may have come to think of how miracle workers and exorcists could use mysterious formulas to subjugate evil—or good—powers...The words mean “Raise, girl!” and by translating them Mark suppresses any associations with incantation formulas and intimates that Jesus just gives an authoritative order. This means that the field of associations is the same as when Jesus commanded the storm to be still (Mark 4:39). Mark’s translation is, however, not literal, but he inserts “I say to you,” and in that way he underlines Jesus’ own power. Nevertheless, the borderline is not sharp between his power and the power of God, since it all has to do with the reign of God (cf. Psalm 104:30, Septuagint, “You send forth your spirit, then they are created”). Since the story of Jesus’ baptism (Mark 1:11) the readers know that Jesus is empowered by the Spirit, and this knowledge has been confirmed by Jesus’ defense against the accusation of being on Beelzebul’s side (Mark 3:27-30). (Hartman, Mark for the Nations: A Text- and Reader-Oriented Commentary, 224)

Not all Aramaisms occur in the context of miracles and Jesus performs numerous miracles without the (documented) use of Aramaic. His actual words are stark and simple and further remove any sense of magical incantation.

Max Wilcox (1927-2010) quips:

The view that talitha is a foreign word, part of the magician’s mystique, is ingenious but fails to take account of the Jewish and indeed Aramaic nature of the whole setting of the story. (David Noel Freedman [1922-2008], Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6:310)

While pagan readers might have connected Jesus’ foreign words to incantations, the text likely sparked entirely different associations for early Christian readers. The Greek word for “get up” (CEV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NLT, NRSV) or “arise” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NKJV, RSV) would likely conjure images of resurrection.

C. Clifton Black (b. 1955) informs:

Early Christians could have heard in Mark’s terms for the child’s rising, -emi (Mark 5:42) the language of resurrection (Mark 5:41) and anist egeir-o (see Mark 6:14, 12:23-26, 16:6,9, 14). (Black, Mark (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries))

Robert G. Bratcher (1920-2010) and Eugene A. Nida (1914-2011) contextualize:

Egeire (cf. Mark 1:31) ‘rise’, ‘get up’. Whether this simply means ‘rise from the bed’, or ‘rise from the dead’ will be determined by the meaning given the statement of Jesus concerning the girl in Mark 5:39. (Bratcher and Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Mark, 180)

In this way, the raising of Jairus’ daughter foreshadows Jesus’ own resurrection and that of his followers. James A. Brooks (b. 1933) reads:

Mark interpreted the Aramaic by using a Greek word that elsewhere in the New Testament is used in connection with the resurrection of Jesus and Christians (as is also the word “live” in Mark 5:23). The resurrection of the girl is therefore a preview of the resurrection of believers. (Brooks, Mark (New American Commentary), 95)

Eugene LaVerdiere (1936-2008) connects:

The great moment had arrived. Jesus took hold of the girl’s hand [Mark 5:41], as he had done for Simon’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:31) and said to her in Aramaic, Talitha koum,” which means, “Little girl, I say to you, arise!” (Mark 5:41). The tone of Mark’s Greek translation corresponds to what one would expect of a liturgical formula. The Greek verb, egeiro (to raise), the same that was used in the raising of Simon’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:31) and in the raising of the paralytic (Mark 2:11, 12), is associated with Jesus’ own resurrection in the story of his passion-resurrection (Mark 14:28, 16:6). (LaVerdiere, The Beginning of the Gospel: Introducing the Gospel According to Mark, Volume 1), 140)

The story has striking parallels to a later incident involving Peter in Acts (Acts 9:36-42): George Aichele (b. 1944) bridges:

A remarkably similar saying appears in the book of Acts 9:40, where Peter heals the disciple Tabitha (“which means Dorcas”) with the command, “Tabitha arise,” Tabitha, anasthêthi. The Aramaic phrase, if there were one, would be something life “tabitha cumi,” a formulation which is supported by the Old Latin version of Mark 5:41 and close to the texts of the fifth-century Greek manuscripts D and W. Otherwise different stories bring together the transliteration of the words talitha/tabitha and the Greek verb anistêmi, the apparent death of a girl/woman, and the successful command to rise (“And he gave her his hand and lifted her up,” Acts 9:41, RSV). This correlation between the two passages suggests a correspondence between the stories. The story in Acts strangely echoes Mark’s story. (Aichele, Jesus Framed, 60)

Joel Marcus (b. 1951) further associates:

James 5:15 promises that “the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up.” There is a remarkable closeness here to the overall story in Mark 5:21-43: one sick person is saved (=cured) by faith, and another is raised up. As Gérard Rochais [1939-2011] suggests (Les Récits De Résurrection Des Morts Dans Le Nouveau Testament, 60), Mark’s juxtaposition of these two tales may hint that, on the way to the final “healing” of humanity at the resurrection, people already see the power of death driven back when Jesus heals them of their illness. (Marcus, Mark 1-8 (Anchor Bible), 363)

That the story has echoes of resurrection is not surprising within Mark’s gospel. William E. Reiser (b. 1943) notices:

Easter pervades the story. There are numerous instances in the Gospel where someone figuratively dead is raised back to life. One first thinks of the leper who is healed in the opening chapter [Mark 1:40-45], and then of the demented individual in chapter 5 who made dwelling among the tombs [Mark 5:2-20]. The leper had died to his family and friends (“He shall live alone; his dwelling shall be outside the camp” [Leviticus 13:46]); the crazed man was dead to human contact as such. Both are brought back to life. The daughter of Jairus is another obvious example: “He took her by the hand and said to her, ‘Talitha cum,’ which means, ‘Little girl, get up!’” (Mark 5:41). (Reiser, Jesus in Solidarity with His People: A Theologian Looks at Mark, 78)

Jesus’ enlivening voice summons the girl (Mark 5:41). In doing so, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11) raises the little lamb in the most intimate of ways. As Christ calls the little girl to “get up” we somehow feel that he is calling to all who are enslaved, constained and hopeless.

Lamar Williamson, Jr. (b. 1926) preaches:

“Fear not [Mark 5:36],” so characteristic of appearances of God in the Old Testament (e.g. the theophanies in Genesis 15:1, 21:17, 26:24, 46:3), represents here as well the divine intervention to save and to give life. Not even after death is it too late to hope...Readers today are to understand the raising of Jairus’ daughter in light of Jesus’ own resurrection. Beside an open casket or at the moment of our own death we are invited to respond to the words Talitha, cumi not with a historical question about a past event but with a thrill of anticipation. (Williamson, Mark (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 111)

William H. Willimon (b. 1946) personalizes:

I think he [Jesus] may be calling to you. “Get up!” His voice is strong, commanding, vital. “Get up!” You have perhaps heard his comforting, soft voice before, stilling the waves of the storm, bringing peace to troubled waters [Mark 4:39]. Now hear his other voice, that strong, shattering, enlivening voice. Evoking “fear and trembling” (Mark 5:33) in all who heard it that day, it may do the same for us. Life is frightening, when it intrudes into the realm of death. Hear his voice now. I think it is a shout. There is so much death. We are asleep with death so it takes a loud voice to wake us...In this story, we don’t have to wait to Easter for life to intrude and death to be defeated. Get up! he says. In the name of Jesus Christ, the victor over pain and death, enslavement and despair, Get up! (Willimon, “Get Up”, unpublished sermon preached June 29, 1997, at the Duke University Chapel)

Is Mark’s use of Aramaic intended to draw comparisons to magical incantations (Mark 5:41)? What other stories foreshadow Jesus’ resurrection? What reminds you of your future resurrection? When have you been instructed to “get up?” What is Jesus calling you to get up and do?

“It is that life-giving power that is at the heart of this shadowy story about Jairus and the daughter he loved [Mark 5:21-43], and that I believe is at the heart of all our stories— the power of new life, new hope, new being, that whether we know it or not, I think, keeps us coming to places like this year after year in search of it. It is the power to get up even when getting up isn’t all that easy for us anymore and to keep getting up and going on and on toward whatever it is, whoever he is, that all our lives long reaches out to take us by the hand.” - Frederick Buechner (b. 1926), “Jairus’s Daughter”, Secrets in the Dark, p. 278