The Letters of John (The Pillar New Testament Commentary

Pillar New Testament Commentary

by Colin G. Kruse, D.A. Carson (Preface by)

This Pillar commentary seeks to clearly explain the meaning of John's letters to teachers, pastors, and general readers looking for a reliable resource for personal study. Colin Kruse introduces the important issues involved in interpreting the Johannine letters, gives verse-by-verse comments, and provides extensive discussion of John's major theological themes, including the real humanity of Christ, atonement, the role of the Spirit, Christian assurance, the meaning of koinonia, Christian love, and eternal life.

Designed both for serious students and for general readers of the Bible, the PILLAR NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARY volumes seek to make clear the meaning of the text of Scripture as we have it. The scholars writing these volumes interact with the most important, informed contemporary debate yet avoid undue technical detail. Their ideal is a blend of rigorous exegesis and exposition, scholarship and pastoral sensitivity, with an eye alert both to biblical theology and to the contemporary relevance of the Bible.

Genres: Theology, Reference, Christian, New Testament, Nonfiction, Biblical Studies, Academic

280 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2000

About the author

Colin G. Kruse (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is senior lecturer of New Testament at Melbourne School of Theology. In the twenty years following his ordination into the Anglican ministry, Kruse gained practical experience in parishes in Australia and the U.S. along with five years of missionary service as a theological lecturer in Indonesia. Besides journal articles on the New Testament, Old Testament and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Kruse has authored several books including Paul, the Law and Justification and New Testament Models for Ministry: Jesus and Paul. He has also written the Tyndale New Testament Commentary on 2 Corinthians and the Pillar New Testament Commentary titles The Letters of John and Paul's Letter to the Romans.

Reviews

[Kofi Opoku · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kruse’s commentary is thorough, yet precise. His theological remarks at the end of each section were also helpful.

[Scott Cox · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dr. Colin Kruse is emeritus scholar of New Testament at the Melbourne School of Theology in Australia. Dr. Kruse’s work begins with an excellent introduction to all three of the Apostle John’s letters, followed by the author’s commentary. Kruse’s main thesis is that the Apostle is refuting what he calls “the secessionists” (1 John 2:19). This was an early form of heretical Gnosticism that posited Jesus was an ordinary man born of normal procreation. After Jesus’ baptism (Mathew 3:13-17), “Christ descended upon him [Jesus] in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler . . . But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being.” This gives rise to the Apostle’s emphasis on Christ's bodily sacrifice having shed his blood on the cross (1 John 5:5f) as an atonement for our sin. I found the comparative table on the various antichrist texts (2 Thessalonians; Matthew 24/Mark 13; 1,2 John; Revelation 12-13) to be helpful. I also appreciated the author’s “Theology” summaries at the end of each major section, plus the twenty-four “Excursuses” wherein he explored in more detail topics alluded to in his commentary. I highly recommend this commentary, along with standard works by reformed theologians (John Calvin, Matthew Henry, etc.).

[Doug Eaton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ligonier lists this book as their number one commentary on the letters of John, and I can see why. Even if you don't agree where he lands on every issue, Kruse's clarity and precision are unmatched. This commentary is perfect for anyone who will be teaching through the letters or simply studying alone at home.

[Joe Koehler · Rating 3 out of 5]

Kruse's commentary on the letters of John is heralded by many to be among the best available. There is much to commend in this volume: Its brevity, for one, is commendable. Secondly, in a scholar, I see great value in giving more weight to internal evidence than external evidence when determining interpretive issues such as purpose and occasion for writing, author and date, etc. Kruse exemplifies such scholarship.Third, the volume is well organized, containing a great many excursuses and notes on difficult passages. Kruse's analysis of 1 John being epedeictic rhetoric was helpful - John is not out to prove something with a clear line of argument like Paul often does; he is seeking to encourage and re-affirm the orthodox truths that his readers already knew in the face of heretical threats. This helped correct my unconscious tendency to read all epistles
like I would read Paul's epistles.

[Dave Courtney · Rating 4 out of 5]

The theme of unity (and the desire for a common community) is prominent in the Gospel of John, and so it is not surprising (if we see the author of the epistle(s) as the same one who wrote the Gospel, an assumption Kruse makes and defends) to see this theme represented in the opening chapter of 1 John. It is not difficult for the reader to recognize the similarities in language, structure and focus between the letter and the Gospel, however the epistles come across as a more focused, simplified version of the complex language and theology of the Gospel. It is tempting to suggest that the author (which one can fairly assume is John) has developed a bit of his own teaching and theology in to something a bit more practical and attainable. It is also likely the product of a more direct and intentional audience (it is a bit more difficult to know the exact audience of the Gospel, however the epistle appears to have been written later in his ministry following the initial move out of Jerusalem right before the fall. Evidence suggests that John had moved to the area of Ephesus, and thus the letters act as a personal encouragement to the Church of which he would have been associated (possibly as an elder). The Gospel carries a bit of a mixed purpose, perhaps being evangelistic in nature, perhaps intended inward towards the early development of the Christian community. The epistle is clearly not evangelistic.

The practical nature of 1 John is demonstrated in its general trajection. After positioning themselves (it moves between we and I) as eyewitnesses to the truth (the ministry of Jesus), it encourages them towards unity. This unity is expressed as an outflow of the unity we find in the spirit (which is connected with the Father and the Son in strongly trinitarian language). Thus, we are unified in "spirit" through "the testimony of Jesus as the one true God". Here we can find ourselves pulled back to the Gospel as the insistence is on the fact that if Jesus is not the truth than God cannot be true (or God is a liar). This confession of the truth of Jesus' ministry and identity comes up again in the subsequent chapters. So the logic would then read that we (as the Church) can only be unified if we are expressing the truth of who Jesus is, and it is in the spirit that we can confess this and have the "light" or "life" that has been promised to be ours. Practically speaking this light is defined as "fellowship with him" and fellowship with him is defined as fellowship with one another. If we are walking in the light (having fellowship or unity) verse 7 clearly explains that the outflow is first unity with one another and secondly the declaration of forgiveness.

One important aspect that chapter 1 sets out for the flow of the rest of the first letter is the aspect of sin and confession of sin. From chapter 1 to chapter 2 we read of the shift between the necessary place (for unity) of common confession as "sinful" creature, to the necessary place of declaring our sinless nature (2:1). It is not long before we are pushed head first in to the language of righteousness which the Gospel displays so readily. Thankfully the epistle reads with more simplicity regarding the immediate tension that represents the tug between forgiveness and judgment, sin and purity, works and grace. It is important to recognize a couple of dynamics in the flow of the language here. First, in order to recognize sin as something less abstract the writer makes sure to define what it is. In the Gospel it is declared in two ways, and the epistle follows suit. First it is unbelief. Second it is a failure to live in to the commandment of Christ. The epistle gives primacy to the commandment and then moves in to the necessary place of confession, and the commandment is defined (over and over again) as to "love one another", which we should already recognize as integral to the logic of unity. It is important not to lose sight of this definition of sin lest we begin to see purity and perfection in the same sense of the law that Jesus ultimately came to fulfill. Secondly, in light of what sin is righteousness stands as the balancing power between works and grace, sin and forgiveness. It is important here to recognize the place of righteousness in the flow of the writers logic. If righteousness is simply purity or works then we are forced to understand Jesus ministry and own works (the death and resurrection) under the terms of the law. This confuses the flow of the letter and complicates the tension. The term righteousness is best understood as "right standing". Jesus is the righteousness, which is defined as the activity of propitiation for the sins of not just us but the whole world. Rather than meaning Jesus was perfect enough to keep every law and do every proper work, the heart of this is found in the confession that Jesus is unified with the Father and spirit through which His work is accomplished. His work is that which places us in right standing regardless of our sin (the end of 2:1). How do we walk in the same way as Jesus (2:6)? Not by being perfect but by admitting that we are imperfect (1:9), and then uplifting one another in the same degree of forgiveness and worth that Jesus placed on us. When we know Jesus we know this kind of love that comes from the Father (3:1-2). It is this logic the forms the following word pictures of light/dark, of the world and not of the world, abiding and not abiding (all strong Johannine language). It says in chapter 3 that whoever practices this kind of righteousness is righteous and whoever practices sinning is of the devil (an image anchored in the comparison to Cain and Abel as definite contrasts between love and hate). Our tendency with this statement is to shift immediately to works of the law as something we can control. And yet one cannot read through these chapters without finding ourselves face to face with exactly what this righteousness means (loving one another for the sake of unity through forgiveness and humility). Indeed, the finishing prose of chapter 3 gains the title "Love one Another" as that which ultimately defines our sense of assurance and confidence against condemnation. In chapter 4 (just in case we still haven't got it) it states that God is LOVE and that it is in HIS love (not that we have loved as versee 4:10) that we can declare the work of Christ in our lives. We love because He first loved us (4:19), and we know that we are loving others because we "love God and obey His commandments", which are declared to be one in the same (5:2-3 loving God is loving His commandments). His commandments are simply this (3:23), that we believe in the name of Jesus and love one another (confessing and loving).

The flow of this logic leads to the ultimate declaration of fear in the end of chapter 4, where it can say freely that there is no fear in love. Fear, the writer suggests, has to do with punishment, and to live fearless is to recognize the love of God for us. The only way to recognize this is by loving one another. John finishes the first epistle by outlining the testimony of his new understanding of the ministry of Jesus in the outpouring of the spirit. What he now recognizes (something which it feels is not fully defined in the Gospel) is that the fullness of Christ is found not just in spirit and water (a theme of the Gospel), but also in blood (the epistle works to combine all three). There is a fair speculation that John is writing to his Church to speak about seccessionists (some who were moving away from the original testimony of Christ and towards/back towards a gospel of works rather than grace and false ideas of righteousness). The much shorter single chapters that form the 2nd and 3rd letters give two practical examples of this division at play. Whoever these seccessionists were John is motivated to protect the original witness of Christ and His ministry. The harsh words regarding hospitality in the second and third letters reflect the Jewish traditions of "aligning" ones self with a teaching or teacher in a culture built on itinerant (traveling) prophets and preachers. It is best not to take these words as personal, but rather general (not to dissociate God's love from the person/people, but to recognize the greater nature of sin and righteousness and the impact of misguided understandings). While the second two letters are simply two intimate examples of the flow of argument we find in 1 John, we do gain insight from the second letter as to how exactly the seccessionists (also referred to as antichrists in the first letter... again, it is important not to see this as demonizing the person(s)) were operating. We find this expressed in the determining action "running ahead". It is interesting to note that this makes it likely that the seccessionists were Christians who were breaking away from the original witness of Jesus and His ministry. If we can associate the issue with this activity of running ahead we can gain insight on the context and perhaps the tendency of early human interaction with the Gospel. To run ahead indicates a sort of over zealous reaction to what is a young forming Church and Christian movement. It can function as a warning to what happens when we run ahead with ideas that have not been tested and properly understood (as John would say, test the spirits). The term antichrist had an intentional and recognizable use and meaning in the Jewish understanding. While their prophecies understood the coming of a single antichrist (however we understand that), they also understood antichrist to reflect any teaching that stood in contrast to the true word of God as spoken by a true prophet. This word of God continues on in the nature of the spirit, that is the active interaction of the true God and His nature with His people. The flow of argument that we find John placing on Christ is the same process the Jewish people had been placing on the nature of prophecy throughout history, and antichrists simply referred to "false teaching".

Kruse deals well in his commentary with the material. It moves you verse by verse and he writes simply and concisely. The commentary is very accessible and he doesn't give time to things or issues that are more or less irrelevant to the focus of the book, even as he adequately defends his assumptions he simply moves forward without apologizing for them. If the writer of the Gospel and the epistle(s) is one in the same, the letters provide us with a good glimpse in to the formulation of John's personal theology, practice and belief. I am personally grateful to have the letters as I struggled through the Gospel which is difficult to understand and comprehend. If we can accept the letters to be a fair representation of the person and ministry of Christ we can allow its focus to inform some of the more troubling sections of John which can come across as somewhat limiting in the scope of its understanding of grace and righteousness. It might be that the letters of John reflect a matured follower of Christ making sense of what are still some very difficult tensions to work through regarding the nature of works and grace, law and Gospel. I am grateful that the message of the Cross can ultimately rest in the declaration of righteousness in which love can be expressed and given rather than earned. And I pray that I am able to likewise express this work freely and without fear in my own life by continuing to operate in forgiveness and love of others, two things that I know stand contrary to my nature.

[Rob · Rating 4 out of 5]

This commentary helped me in my first deep study of Johannine Scripture. It is meant for pastors and Biblical scholars, but still highly accessible for the lay reader like myself. Having an elementary working knowledge of Greek will certainly help with this text.

It is a brief commentary. On occasion I found the text not covering some areas I had hoped it would. But these are rare enough to still make this text useful. The Baker Exegetical Commentary on John’s Epistles by Yarbrough, which has also been recommended to me, likely has more depth given the much higher page count.

The one drawback is the use of the NIV as the primary translation. It is an adequate translation but even the author highlights occasions when the renderings are awkward or misleading, such as 1 John 2:4.

A more egregious translational failing of the NIV is verse 1 John 3:4 wherein the anomia is translated as “breaks the law”. As the commentator clearly states, this Johnanian work never references the Mosaic law. As used in the Septuagint, as well as by Matthew and Paul, this word is better represented as being without law, or lawlessness. Kruse’s effort to point this out in his commentary is to his credit.

Overall this is a very good commentary and good to have on your reference shelf.

[Kristopher Schaal · Rating 5 out of 5]

I used this as one of my two go-to commentaries when preaching through John in the youth group. Kruse was my favorite commentary I read. I didn't always agree with all of his interpretations (for instance, I don't think I buy his interpretation of "the pride of life" in 1 John 2:16 and he does some funny things in 3:19-20, etc.), but his commentary was still very helpful for a couple of reasons: 1) His explanation of the context of 1 John in terms of the secessionists really helped me. I fully bought into his proposed setting for 1 John. 2) His explanations were usually succinct and yet thorough. (In this, he bears the mark of his editor, D.A. Carson, who is the king of succinct and yet deep commentaries.)

Highly recommended!

[Brian Watson · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm giving this commentary five stars because Kruse has very good interpretations of these letters. I found his readings consistently helpful. Also, the commentary is fairly compact. If you want a more technical commentary, particularly with respect to textual critical issues, you'll have to go elsewhere.

(Finished reading on August 17, 2017.)

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lots of counting and cross referencing, but not always as much commentary on the text itself - extensive use of the Gospel of John as an aid. I've preferred Stott's commentary overall.

[Braley Chambers · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall, this is an excellent commentary. There was a good bit that I disagreed with. Regardless, Kruse is a great conversation partner to have as one walks through the text.

[Kirk Miller · Rating 4 out of 5]

My favorite contemporary technical commentary on 1 John as I preached through the book.

[Klaven Embertson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Such a helpful commentary, I will be using this often as my church goes through 1 John. Highly recommended.

[Mason Bramer]

Technically proficient. Comprehensive while remaining succinct. A great resource! Really helped by the excursus sections.

[William Jr. · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very good and thorough commentary. I like his brief "theology" snippet at the end of most section. 24 "Excursus" articles are also fascinating.

[Justin Blackwood · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was good, Macarthurs commentary was better.

[Mike Knox · Rating 5 out of 5]

A responsible and helpful commentary on John’s letters. Our church has been studying through these letters this past year, and this was the main commentary I turned to. Kruse succeeds in tying everything back to the main occasioning incident: the defection of certain teachers whose “advanced progress” was actually proof that they had never grasped the ABC’s. And the Christians still hanging on to the ABC’s are constantly encouraged and assured.

Two strengths of this commentary are its careful inclusion of background texts, and its treatment of the aspect of Greek verbs. For an example of the latter, see Kruse’s remarks on the traditional way of resolving the tension between 1 John 1.5 – 2.2 and 1 John 3.4-10 on page 129. Many have argued that the present tense verbs in chapter 3 denote habitual sinning, which, unlike occasional sinning, is impossible for the true Christian. Kruse writes: “However, the use of the present tense says nothing about the habitual or nonhabitual character of the sinning, but only shows that the author has chosen to depict the sinning as something in progress, rather than as a complete action” (emphasis added).

Another good feature is the many Notes that interrupt the commentary. One of the best is the note on the role of the Holy Spirit in John’s letters. Here’s the final paragraph:

In conclusion, we may say that this survey of the Spirit texts of 1 John indicates that the author has portrayed the role of the Spirit primarily as testimony to the tradition, not as a source of new revelation. In all probability he did this because the secessionists were claiming the Spirit as the source of their new and heretical doctrines concerning Christ. The author, therefore, felt that it was necessary to hold together the word and the Spirit, or, put in other words, he felt that it was necessary to stress the Spirit’s role as witness to the truth of the gospel concerning Jesus as it was proclaimed from the beginning. (155)

The only thing I was left wishing for from this commentary was more insight on applying John’s letters to the church today.

[Peter Jones · Rating 4 out of 5]

A solid commentary on John's Epistles. The value in this volume are the many asides Kruse takes to discuss things like perfectionism, the Holy Spirit, etc. Of course, there were places I disagreed, but over all it is a good, solid, evangelical commentary that is worth using when someone is studying John.

[Chris · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good, solid commentary on the excellent epistle of 1 John. Not a lot of practical tips or application. This is mainly to understand the main thrust of the text. It is has brief discussions on theological topics addressed in 1 John.

[BJ · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think Colin Kruse is an excellent NT scholar. His faithfulness to the text and passion for Christ is evident. Thank God for scholars like this.

This book was immensely helpful in a Bible Study I led on 1 John for about a year.

[Tom · Rating 3 out of 5]

There are several better commentaries. Use Painter, Lieu, or mine!

[Katrece · Rating 5 out of 5]

Again, another great Commentary from this series. It was very helpful as I led an inductive study of the book of I John.

[Kingsley Layton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very thorough and a must as a reference to these letters.

[Shaun Marksbury · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ultimately, very helpful. Kruse transliterates key Greek terms, so you do not need to be fluent in the languages to use it. Recommended.

[Tim Senter · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent expository commentary.