While the apostle John wrote his first epistle as a major work on Christian doctrine and practice to an unspecified or unlimited group of Christians he calls “my children” (1 John 2:1), the much shorter second and third epistles attributed to John (the two shortest books in the Bible) clearly are much more like actual short letters sent to individuals.  They are named as such, of course, 3 John being addressed to an individual named “Gaius” (3 John 1:1) and 2 John being written to “…the elect lady and her children…” (2 John 1:1 ESV).

We do not know who the “elect lady” was to whom John wrote his second epistle, but the short letter provides a number of clues that can help us make an educated guess. Most biblical commentaries suggest that the elect lady could have been a wealthy or influential early Christian who may have supported John’s evangelistic work. Several such women supported the work of Jesus (Luke 8:1-3), and John’s comment regarding something that the lady knew – “As you have heard from the beginning” (2 John 1:6) – could even indicate that she was one of those same supporting women.

Many commentaries also consider the possibility that the term “elect lady” is used metaphorically of the Christian Church by John – who himself refers to the Church as a woman in the book of Revelation (Revelation 12:1-17).  But this possibility, while it is a commonly accepted one, does not fit well with some of the things John writes in 2 John. For example, in his command: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them” (2 John 1:10), we would expect “houses” if the letter were written to a church. Similarly, the expression “I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face” (2 John 1:12) hardly sounds like something that would be said to a group. And it would seem strange indeed, if the woman’s “children” (2 John 1:1) were really the members of the congregation, for John to say: “It has given me great joy to find some of your children walking in the truth” (2 John1:4, emphasis added).

But there is another possibility that we should consider: that “the elect lady” to whom John wrote was actually Mary, the mother of Jesus.  We know that in his dying hour Jesus gave the care of Mary over to his disciple John (John 19:26-27), and tradition tells us that John did indeed care for Mary after Christ’s death and resurrection. 

The fact that John offers spiritual advice and counsel to the elect lady in his letter by no means suggests that she could not be Mary, when we properly understand John’s role as both a senior apostle and the one entrusted with Mary’s care.  It is perhaps only if we elevate Mary the mother of Jesus more than we should elevate a human individual that John’s counsel might seem in any way presumptuous. In any case, John offers no correction in his letter, simply encouragement not to doubt the divine sonship of Jesus because: “many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world” (2 John 1:7). Such encouragement might be particularly apt for the mother of Jesus.

Many other details of 2 John fit the possibility that the lady could have been Mary.  The Greek term used by John in calling the lady “elect” was eklektos: “picked out” or “chosen.” While this word could be used of any called Christian –  and is used this way in verse 13, and in Matthew 22:14, etc. –  the term obviously applied with special historical significance to Mary as the mother of Jesus (Luke 1:26-48).  The expression “As you have heard from the beginning” (2 John 1:6) would also obviously apply to her, as would John’s desire to visit her and see her “face to face” (2 John 1:12) if he wrote the letter while traveling for an extended time.

Most significantly, John’s statement that the elect lady was someone “whom I love in the truth—and not I only, but also all who know the truth” (2 John 1:1) fits Mary in a way that cannot be said of any other individual Christian woman.  What woman would be known by all Christians more than the mother of Jesus?  And what woman would be loved by all believers more than Mary, the mother of Jesus?

There are other possible clues in 2 John that make Mary a likely candidate as the addressee of this letter. John’s statement that “The children of your sister, who is chosen by God, send their greetings” (1 John 1:13) potentially fits Mary who, as John 19:25 tells us, had a physical sister.  Also, “It has given me great joy to find some of your children walking in the truth” (2 John 1:4) certainly fits the fact that some of the brothers of Jesus (Mark 6:3) were converted (Acts 1:14) and eventually became prominent figures in the early Church (Galatians 1:9).  

So, while it is possible that the apostle John wrote his second epistle to an unnamed and relatively unknown individual Christian woman who supported the work of the Church, there are problems accepting that as being likely.  In the same way, while it is possible that the “elect lady” represented not an individual woman but a local congregation or even the whole Church, there are reasons why this may not be likely, also.  On the other hand, while we have no proof that 2 John was written to Mary, the mother of Jesus, there is nothing within the letter that would discount that possibility – and much that fits it well.

​When we think of parables it is usually the parables of Jesus that come to mind.  His parables were one of the most characteristic features of his ministry. Yet they are not the first parables to be found in the Bible – parables were an essential part of the religious teaching of ancient Israel.  The book of Hosea tells us, for example, that God: “... spoke to the prophets … and told parables through them” (Hosea 12:10).  If we learn to recognize them, we can actually find this form of teaching throughout many books of the Old Testament; and understanding its nature can help us better understand the parables that Jesus gave.  

The key to recognizing true biblical parables in the Old Testament (as opposed to figurative or metaphorical statements, short riddles, or stories with an obvious moral) is that a true biblical parable has two parts. In the first part – called the mashal in Hebrew – a simple story is told for the sake of conveying a deeper truth. But that truth is never obvious in the story itself; it has to be revealed in the second part of the parable – called the nimshal – which provides the “key” to unlocking the parable’s meaning. The two parts of content and intent are only brought together at the conclusion of the narrative – which is why, of course, we read in the New Testament that Jesus often taught in parables and later explained them by providing the nimshal or key to his disciples (Luke 8:9, Mark 4:33-34, etc.).

We see this two-part structure in one of the earliest parables of the Old Testament.  The book of Judges records that the young man Jotham told the people of Shechem a detailed story of how the trees of the forest made themselves a king (Judges 9:7-15). When the parable is finished, he explains it by showing how the parts of the story fit their own political circumstances (Judges 9:16-20).

We also see the two-part structure in the famous story that the prophet Nathan tells King David about a sinful rich man who took his poor neighbor’s only lamb when he had plenty of lambs himself. When David indignantly states that the evil man deserves death, Nathan provides the nimshal to the parable by simply saying “you are that man” – because David had taken the only wife of his general, Uriah (2 Samuel 12:1-4). 

In these cases, the connection between the mashal/content of the parables and their nimshal/intent is easy to grasp, but sometimes the Old Testament gives parables that would be very difficult to understand without the explaining “key” or the background we are given.  Such is the case with the story of the two fighting brothers that was told to David by the wise widow from Tekoa (2 Samuel 14:1-7). In this story David’s general Joab carefully constructs a parable with a meaning we would not guess unless it is explained – as it is by the wise widow (2 Samuel 14:13-14).

When we look for such stories that have to be explained in the course of the narrative in which they appear, we find many parables in the Old Testament.  Parables were especially favored by the Hebrew prophets, and the book of Ezekiel, for example, contains at least nine of them. Isaiah also uses parables in his teaching, and some of these parables clearly influenced those given by Jesus.  In Isaiah chapter 5 the prophet tells a parable of a vineyard and its bad fruit (Isaiah 5:1-6) which he then explains as being relevant to the nation of Israel (vs. 7).   Although Jesus altered the details slightly in his parables found in Matthew 21:33–44 and Luke 13:6–9, the stories are recognizably similar, and their message is identical. 

Jesus often framed his own parables on both parable and non-parable stories found in the Old Testament.  His parable of the Good Samaritan is an example of this and appears to be based on a section of 2 Chronicles which tells of the kindness given to Judean captives by men of Samaria who:

“… clothed all who were naked among them. They clothed them, gave them sandals, provided them with food and drink, and anointed them, and carrying all the feeble among them on donkeys, they brought them to their kinsfolk at Jericho, the city of palm trees. Then they returned to Samaria” (2 Chronicles 28:15).

In this simple narrative Jesus found the basis for one of the most profound of his parables, the lessons of which are far-reaching and apply in every age. But the greatest reliance of Christ’s parables on the Old Testament is found not in their use of Old Testament story plots, but in their use of imagery applied to God.  Old Testament parables show God as a king, a father, a husband, and in other key ways.   Of the somewhat more than forty parables of Jesus recorded in the New Testament, at least twenty metaphorically refer to him by means of the same imagery used of God in Old Testament parables and stories.  This self-portrayal with imagery used of God is unique to the parables of Jesus and ties directly to his teaching of his own messianic role. 
​
So the parables of the Old Testament are important not only in their own right in the stories in which they are found, but also in forming the basis for some of Jesus’ own parables, as well as providing images for his parables that Jewish hearers would associate with God when they understood the parables’ nimshal key or intent.  But although there are numerous well-crafted parables in the Old Testament, there is no doubt that Jesus perfected the art of parable-telling and brought to the form a subtlety and spiritual depth that had not been seen before.

“Gratitude is the gift God gives us that enables us to be blessed by all his other gifts, the way our taste buds enable us to enjoy the gift of food.” – John Ortberg

The point of the quote above is an excellent one that bears reflection.  Although Christian writer John Ortberg did not develop the analogy between gratitude and our physical taste-buds in the context of the quote, it’s a comparison that can be profitably explored.

Our taste buds, containing the taste receptor cells that allow us to experience pleasure from what we eat and drink, are minor miracles of design and planning.  The average human tongue has multiple thousands of these little cell clusters, and although most people are not aware of it, they are also found on the soft palate of the mouth, the upper esophagus, the insides of the cheeks, and the epiglottis at the back of the throat.

Some people are also naturally blessed with heightened abilities of taste through having a greater number of taste buds than others. These people – representing about 20 percent of the population –   are known to science as “supertasters.” Most of us (about 60 percent of the population) have an average numbers of taste buds, but another 20 percent of the population are known as “non-tasters” as they can have far fewer taste buds than average.

But whatever our natural level of taste buds may be, it is a fact that anyone – even so-called “non-tasters” – can develop their ability to recognize and enjoy tastes.   That ability to develop our sense of taste is the reason some people become connoisseurs of fine foods and wines.  Those who train themselves in this way develop the ability to distinguish even the slightest differences among thousands of different tastes – and to appreciate and enjoy them to a heightened extent.

Our sense of gratitude and appreciation is certainly no different.  Although some people may seem to be naturally more appreciative than others (perhaps we could call them “super-appreciators”), the truth is that we can all develop our capacity for appreciation in life.  And that is something, of course, that we are commanded to do in dozens of biblical verses.  The apostle Paul’s words in Ephesians are only one example of many: "Giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Ephesians 5:20 ESV).

How do we develop our “appreciation” buds to better honor this instruction to be appreciative for everything in our lives?   We do it exactly as the connoisseur of fine foods or wines develops his or her taste buds to better appreciate tastes – we concentrate on them.

Normally, we may not pay much attention to our physical taste bud sensors; but without them eating even the finest foods would be an experience no different from chewing sawdust or styrofoam chips.  A life without gratitude and appreciation is no different – we derive no real joy from the things we receive, we fail to give thanks for them as we should, and ultimately we fail to give credit to God for the gifts themselves. On the other hand, when we learn to make a habit of focusing on the gifts we receive, we learn to properly appreciate them, to give thanks for them, and to credit them to God as we should. As the book of Psalms tells us: “The one who offers thanksgiving as his sacrifice glorifies me” (Psalms 50:23 ESV).
​
God gives us the capacity for gratitude, but we must develop it.  And that is something anyone (even those with naturally few “appreciation buds”) can do with practice.   We may not choose to become connoisseurs of fine wines or foods, but the God who gives us all things (James 1:17) invites, encourages, and even commands us – for the sake of our own heightened enjoyment and his praise – to become connoisseurs of his gifts.  

Scriptures in Question:

“And the next day the Lord did it: All the livestock of the Egyptians died, but not one animal belonging to the Israelites died” (Exodus 9:6).

“Give an order now to bring your livestock and everything you have in the field to a place of shelter, because the hail will fall on every person and animal that has not been brought in and is still out in the field, and they will die” (Exodus 9:19).

In the narrative of the plagues sent on Egypt described in the book of Exodus, we are told that in the fifth plague “All the livestock of the Egyptians died” (Exodus 9:1-7), while later, in the seventh plague, Moses tells Pharaoh that any livestock not brought under shelter will be killed by a great hailstorm.  If all the animals were killed in the fifth plague, how could there be animals left to shelter from the seventh?  There are at least four possible answers to this seeming contradiction.

First, strange as it may sound, the words “all” and “every” in Hebrew do not mean “all” or “every” in all cases. Just as in modern English we can say “Everyone was at the party” meaning a great many people or all the people of a certain type such as a group of co-workers, so in ancient Hebrew the words all and every sometimes simply mean the majority or a great many.
​
Second, the expression “all the livestock” can mean livestock of every kind – horses, cows, sheep, goats, etc. –  as, in fact, we find in Exodus 9:3: “…your horses, donkeys and camels and … your cattle, sheep and goats.”

Third, the exact wording of Exodus 9:3 is that “the Lord will bring a terrible plague on your livestock in the field …”, so it may be that livestock not in the fields would not be affected. The ancient Egyptians had extensive stables and holding areas for livestock, as many of the “fields” were covered in water during the annual inundation of the Nile.

Fourth, we are specifically told that in the fifth plague none of the livestock of the Hebrews was affected (Exodus 9: 7), so it is very possible that by the time of the seventh plague the Egyptians had forcibly requisitioned many of these animals and now had them in their own fields.

Given all these –  and even other –  possibilities, there is no reason we need see any contradiction between what Exodus tells us occurred in the fifth and seventh plagues. The fact that the supposed contradiction is an obvious one that occurs within a few verses indicates that the ancient Hebrews were fully aware of what was said but saw no problem regarding the situation.  As a result, we need not either.