What do you think?
Rate this book
Through New Eyes Bible Commentary
The Epistles of John Through New Eyes: From Behind the Veil
Peter Leithart's commentary on 1 - 3 John is the latest entry in The Through New Eyes Bible Commentary Series.
John, in his epistles, is continuing themes that he began to write about in his gospel, but which now have heightened in intensity and urgency as 70 AD approaches.
In this verse-by-verse commentary, Dr. Leithart expounds John's inspired instructions to Christians living at the end of an age, to whom God himself has drawn near and revealed himself in Jesus Christ.
John, in his epistles, is continuing themes that he began to write about in his gospel, but which now have heightened in intensity and urgency as 70 AD approaches.
In this verse-by-verse commentary, Dr. Leithart expounds John's inspired instructions to Christians living at the end of an age, to whom God himself has drawn near and revealed himself in Jesus Christ.
- GenresTheologyBiblical Studies
200 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2009
31 people are currently reading
145 people want to read
About the author
Peter J. Leithart
130 books364 followersPeter Leithart received an A.B. in English and History from Hillsdale College in 1981, and a Master of Arts in Religion and a Master of Theology from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia in 1986 and 1987. In 1998 he received his Ph.D. at the University of Cambridge in England. He has served in two pastorates: He was pastor of Reformed Heritage Presbyterian Church (now Trinity Presbyterian Church), Birmingham, Alabama from 1989 to 1995, and was founding pastor of Trinity Reformed Church, Moscow, Idaho, and served on the pastoral staff at Trinity from 2003-2013. From 1998 to 2013 he taught theology and literature at New St. Andrews College, Moscow, Idaho, where he continues to teach as an adjunct Senior Fellow. He now serves as President of Trinity House in Alabama, where is also resident Church Teacher at the local CREC church. He and his wife, Noel, have ten children and five grandchildren.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
November 7, 2025
This is everything a commentary should be.
In impressive deft, Leithart provides a stimulating and essential introduction to the context of John's epistles, arguing for a preterist approach in light of the charged language throughout ("it is the last hour"). He then moves through the epistles, sticking closely to the structure of the letter he argues for briefly in the second chapter, while not brushing past the fine details. It takes great skill to do cover sufficiently the forest and the trees in such a short space, but Leithart does it well. All of this, of course, is accompanied by his usual brilliant exegetical and typological work. By the end, there was not a single passage that I was left wondering about, a frustrating but common occurence even for most commentaries.
One final note: there are some unexpected bright spots in this commentary, sections that I will return to in the future. One of these, in particular, was a short section (pp. 57–58) where Leithart addresses the discomfort many Christians have with understanding the role of the Godhead in the propitiatory work of Christ. In short, how should we understand the Father's pouring out His wrath for sin on the Son? Leithart doesn't shy away from affirming this important doctrine, but explains the mutual motivation of love in the Persons of both the Father and the Son. He writes,
"To make sense of propitiation in a trinitarian framework, we need to recognize that wrath is not an expression of hatred but of jilted love." (57)
"The Father loves the Son because the Son is the Son of the Father. The Father takes up the Son's cause, defending the beloved Son with a jealous wrath against creatures who rebel against the Word by whom all things were made. Likewise, the Son loves the Father, and when the Father is slandered or attacked, the Son takes up the Father's cause and defends the Father.
In this framework, to say Jesus is the propitiation for our sins means that he has taken this wrath on himself, and the jealous wrath by which the Father defends his Son is poured out on the Son. Having taken on the humanity that has rebelled against the Father, the Son turns the other cheek, and suffers for all the sins that humanity has committed against him. This is the double restitution that satisifies the justice of god: first, that the Son suffers the original offense, and second that the Son endures the jealous wrath against those who committed the offense. The Father displays his love by sending the Son to enact the strange justice of God, the justice of the cross, the just of turning the cheek." (58)
In impressive deft, Leithart provides a stimulating and essential introduction to the context of John's epistles, arguing for a preterist approach in light of the charged language throughout ("it is the last hour"). He then moves through the epistles, sticking closely to the structure of the letter he argues for briefly in the second chapter, while not brushing past the fine details. It takes great skill to do cover sufficiently the forest and the trees in such a short space, but Leithart does it well. All of this, of course, is accompanied by his usual brilliant exegetical and typological work. By the end, there was not a single passage that I was left wondering about, a frustrating but common occurence even for most commentaries.
One final note: there are some unexpected bright spots in this commentary, sections that I will return to in the future. One of these, in particular, was a short section (pp. 57–58) where Leithart addresses the discomfort many Christians have with understanding the role of the Godhead in the propitiatory work of Christ. In short, how should we understand the Father's pouring out His wrath for sin on the Son? Leithart doesn't shy away from affirming this important doctrine, but explains the mutual motivation of love in the Persons of both the Father and the Son. He writes,
"To make sense of propitiation in a trinitarian framework, we need to recognize that wrath is not an expression of hatred but of jilted love." (57)
"The Father loves the Son because the Son is the Son of the Father. The Father takes up the Son's cause, defending the beloved Son with a jealous wrath against creatures who rebel against the Word by whom all things were made. Likewise, the Son loves the Father, and when the Father is slandered or attacked, the Son takes up the Father's cause and defends the Father.
In this framework, to say Jesus is the propitiation for our sins means that he has taken this wrath on himself, and the jealous wrath by which the Father defends his Son is poured out on the Son. Having taken on the humanity that has rebelled against the Father, the Son turns the other cheek, and suffers for all the sins that humanity has committed against him. This is the double restitution that satisifies the justice of god: first, that the Son suffers the original offense, and second that the Son endures the jealous wrath against those who committed the offense. The Father displays his love by sending the Son to enact the strange justice of God, the justice of the cross, the just of turning the cheek." (58)
October 21, 2021
A wonderfully insightful commentary. Simple but important. A staple for anyone preaching through John’s epistles.
June 23, 2017
Review of Behind the Veil
This is Peter Leithart’s long-awaited commentary on the epistles of John. It follows the examples of the earlier commentaries (of admittedly unequal value) in the Through New Eyes series. The series’ strength is seeing the rich and complex intertextual connections throughout Scripture (in other words, Leithart and Co., come to the obvious conclusion that each paragraph in the English translations of Scripture is not reducible to “3 points and a poem”). The series’ weakness is its (often) flippant dismissal of those exegetes (almost always holy men and sometimes martyrs) who came before them. (Jordan is particularly notorious on this point).
Leithart identifies the enemies against whom John is writing as a variant of Judaism. He then gives a thorough discussion of the various nuances of post-apostolic Judaism(s) and Gnosticism(s). He explains that scholars are divided on whether the enemies are Gnostics or Judaizers. The problem is that the enemies display characteristics of both groups, but are not reducible to either. John is writing before Gnosticism really became a problem, and the Judaizers seem to display anti-Jewish presuppositions.
Leithart is baffled by the Judaizers’ anti-material worldview. Is this not fundamentally at odds with the rich, creation-oriented worldview of the Old Testament? Leithart cannot really answer this question except to say the Jews were influenced by some Eastern proto-gnostic cults. That’s a half-truth, though. Leithart does not factor in the influence of the Talmud at all. This remains a fatal weakness in the Federal Vision movement. They note certain qualities of the Old Testament and read that into the worldview of “all Jews and all times.” When this happens, as we see here, they cannot account for the anti-Christian character of the Jews in John’s time.
Nevertheless, Leithart is on to something. His discussion points the reader to the interplay of Gnosticism and Judaism. Leithart’s weakness, though, is that he keeps wanting to see Judaism as something good and Old Testament-ish. After the Jews killed Christ, though, and in the book of acts began defining themselves as violently anti-Christian, it became a different creature.
The Strengths of the Book
At the beginning of each literary section in 1 John, Leithart gives a chiastic outline. These outlines are usually straightforward. They help the reader see literary patterns in John, and these literary patterns often suggest how the reader should interpret the book.
Leithart defines the “darkness” not so much as “evil,” but as the passing away of the Old Covenant order. Darkness is the time before light, and those Christians who cling to the darkness—to the Old Covenant order that is passing away—are exposed (23). Obviously, this has overtones with both Genesis and the Gospel of John. Darkness isn’t bad, for it is part of God’s creation; however, it is bad to cling to the darkness after the light has come. Thus, the enemies of the Churchin the Johannine epistles are Jews. (Leithart weakens this someone by calling them Judaizers—that’s certainly true but that’s not the whole problem).
Continuing with his darkness/light theme, Leithart offers a somewhat new yet common-sense reading of “judgment:” judgment is when the light exposes the darkness. It is not necessarily bad; it is the shining of light on darkness.
Leithart’s discussion on “propitiation” is worth the price of the book. He explains to the reader that liberals and evangelicals fought over the way to translate the verb “hilasmos” in the New Testament. To make a long story short, neither propitiation nor expiation makes much sense in John. Leithart takes us back to how the word is used in the LXX and the way the Hebrew equivalent was used: instead of placating the wrath of an angry God, Jesus acts as the “cover” over creation (58ff). Originally, it covers the ark, which was a microcosm of the cosmos. Jesus is the “ark-cover” for the whole world and it is through Jesus that God views the world.
Conclusions and Criticisms
There are some weak areas in Leithart’s book. Leithart has this tendency to shy away from the logical force of his arguments (he does this often in other books). For example, he comments on John’s opening words regarding “seeing Christ.” He notes this is where Orthodoxy’s incarnational worldview allows for icons. Leithart rejects this thinking along the following lines: “True, John does use the word “to see,” but he soon stops using that word and starts using the words for “hear;” therefore, we shouldn’t use icons.” Well, maybe we shouldn’t, but that’s not even an argument!
Elsewhere, commenting on John 2:19ff, Leithart brings up the specific problem of apostasy. This was one of Leithart’s key strengths in The Baptized Body. What Leithart didn’t resolve in The Baptized Body was how his discussion of apostasy doesn’t refute the P in TULIP. Leithart brings the issue up in this book but dodges all the real questions. He notes that “perseverance” doesn’t mean “let God and let God,” (which is true), but that we truly endure to the end. Fair enough, but that’s not the question. The question is whether God causally and fully effects that perseverance. If not, then apostasy is real. If he does, then apostasy is not real.
My last criticism is the style of the book. Leithart is a superb writer and I have sung his praises for seven years now. This book, though, is written in a folksy, direct-to-you style. That’s not bad, but one gets the impression he is trying to write to Sunday School teachers who haven’t much familiarity with theology. That is perfectly legitimate, but then he footnotes Greek and Hebrew lexicons! To be fair, that’s not a criticism of the content of the book but merely an observation.
ADDENDUM
The chapters dealing with 2nd and 3rd John were surprisingly good. 3rd John gives a brief meditation on biblical theology and the coming Apocalypse.
This is Peter Leithart’s long-awaited commentary on the epistles of John. It follows the examples of the earlier commentaries (of admittedly unequal value) in the Through New Eyes series. The series’ strength is seeing the rich and complex intertextual connections throughout Scripture (in other words, Leithart and Co., come to the obvious conclusion that each paragraph in the English translations of Scripture is not reducible to “3 points and a poem”). The series’ weakness is its (often) flippant dismissal of those exegetes (almost always holy men and sometimes martyrs) who came before them. (Jordan is particularly notorious on this point).
Leithart identifies the enemies against whom John is writing as a variant of Judaism. He then gives a thorough discussion of the various nuances of post-apostolic Judaism(s) and Gnosticism(s). He explains that scholars are divided on whether the enemies are Gnostics or Judaizers. The problem is that the enemies display characteristics of both groups, but are not reducible to either. John is writing before Gnosticism really became a problem, and the Judaizers seem to display anti-Jewish presuppositions.
Leithart is baffled by the Judaizers’ anti-material worldview. Is this not fundamentally at odds with the rich, creation-oriented worldview of the Old Testament? Leithart cannot really answer this question except to say the Jews were influenced by some Eastern proto-gnostic cults. That’s a half-truth, though. Leithart does not factor in the influence of the Talmud at all. This remains a fatal weakness in the Federal Vision movement. They note certain qualities of the Old Testament and read that into the worldview of “all Jews and all times.” When this happens, as we see here, they cannot account for the anti-Christian character of the Jews in John’s time.
Nevertheless, Leithart is on to something. His discussion points the reader to the interplay of Gnosticism and Judaism. Leithart’s weakness, though, is that he keeps wanting to see Judaism as something good and Old Testament-ish. After the Jews killed Christ, though, and in the book of acts began defining themselves as violently anti-Christian, it became a different creature.
The Strengths of the Book
At the beginning of each literary section in 1 John, Leithart gives a chiastic outline. These outlines are usually straightforward. They help the reader see literary patterns in John, and these literary patterns often suggest how the reader should interpret the book.
Leithart defines the “darkness” not so much as “evil,” but as the passing away of the Old Covenant order. Darkness is the time before light, and those Christians who cling to the darkness—to the Old Covenant order that is passing away—are exposed (23). Obviously, this has overtones with both Genesis and the Gospel of John. Darkness isn’t bad, for it is part of God’s creation; however, it is bad to cling to the darkness after the light has come. Thus, the enemies of the Churchin the Johannine epistles are Jews. (Leithart weakens this someone by calling them Judaizers—that’s certainly true but that’s not the whole problem).
Continuing with his darkness/light theme, Leithart offers a somewhat new yet common-sense reading of “judgment:” judgment is when the light exposes the darkness. It is not necessarily bad; it is the shining of light on darkness.
Leithart’s discussion on “propitiation” is worth the price of the book. He explains to the reader that liberals and evangelicals fought over the way to translate the verb “hilasmos” in the New Testament. To make a long story short, neither propitiation nor expiation makes much sense in John. Leithart takes us back to how the word is used in the LXX and the way the Hebrew equivalent was used: instead of placating the wrath of an angry God, Jesus acts as the “cover” over creation (58ff). Originally, it covers the ark, which was a microcosm of the cosmos. Jesus is the “ark-cover” for the whole world and it is through Jesus that God views the world.
Conclusions and Criticisms
There are some weak areas in Leithart’s book. Leithart has this tendency to shy away from the logical force of his arguments (he does this often in other books). For example, he comments on John’s opening words regarding “seeing Christ.” He notes this is where Orthodoxy’s incarnational worldview allows for icons. Leithart rejects this thinking along the following lines: “True, John does use the word “to see,” but he soon stops using that word and starts using the words for “hear;” therefore, we shouldn’t use icons.” Well, maybe we shouldn’t, but that’s not even an argument!
Elsewhere, commenting on John 2:19ff, Leithart brings up the specific problem of apostasy. This was one of Leithart’s key strengths in The Baptized Body. What Leithart didn’t resolve in The Baptized Body was how his discussion of apostasy doesn’t refute the P in TULIP. Leithart brings the issue up in this book but dodges all the real questions. He notes that “perseverance” doesn’t mean “let God and let God,” (which is true), but that we truly endure to the end. Fair enough, but that’s not the question. The question is whether God causally and fully effects that perseverance. If not, then apostasy is real. If he does, then apostasy is not real.
My last criticism is the style of the book. Leithart is a superb writer and I have sung his praises for seven years now. This book, though, is written in a folksy, direct-to-you style. That’s not bad, but one gets the impression he is trying to write to Sunday School teachers who haven’t much familiarity with theology. That is perfectly legitimate, but then he footnotes Greek and Hebrew lexicons! To be fair, that’s not a criticism of the content of the book but merely an observation.
ADDENDUM
The chapters dealing with 2nd and 3rd John were surprisingly good. 3rd John gives a brief meditation on biblical theology and the coming Apocalypse.
May 18, 2012
An excellent commentary on John's three Epistles. Peter Leithart does a great job bringing out the literary and historical dimensions of the text. What sets this apart from some of his other writings is his wonderful application. Over and over again he pushes the text into the life of reader, forcing us to ask questions like, are we loving the brethern, do we love the world too much, etc. The book was very pastoral in nature. There are some technical portions. But it can be easily read and profited from by any Christian.
December 28, 2009
Concise, profound, typical of Leithart, this is the sort of commentary you love to read right through. Particularly helpful is his discussion of gnosticism at the beginning of the book.
March 7, 2018
Nothing particularly surprising if you're already familiar with Leithart, but he makes the devotional and intellectual aspects of St John's epistles accessible and clear. There are enough insights to make it compelling for the irenic Protestant layman.
November 6, 2009
Really, really good. Leithart's exegesis is, as always, stellar. But most facinating for myself was his argument that 1-3 John is not refuting the gnostic heresy - at least, not as we would think of it. He argues, I think convincingly, that gnosticism began primarily as a Judaic reaction against Christian theology. Thus, he finds that Cerinthus, the gnostic leader bothering the Churches John's epistles are addressed to, is a gnostic Judiazer. Great stuff.
June 30, 2021
This is not an exegetical commentary, which I normally prefer. But it isn't a fluffy "devotional" commentary either—it certainly engages in textual exposition, just not to the technical degree you'd get in the NICNT or similar series. Its focus is more expositional and biblical-theological, so it traces themes from John's epistles throughout the Bible while explaining the individual passages in more summary and "hit the highlights" fashion. It's also quite pastoral, with lots of good application. In fact, this is the kind of commentary that would be ideally suited for small-group study in a church. As it's Leithart, it has lots of quotable gems.
One idiosyncrasy is that he takes John to be writing largely in opposition to Judaizers, just as Paul does in Galatians. So he correlates much of the "darkness and light" and "hating your brother" talk with those same themes in the Gospel of John, which are tied there to the oppositions of the Old and New Covenant and the synagogues' treatment of Jesus' disciples. This is definitely a minority position; most take John to be writing in opposition to some kind of proto-Gnosticism. But it seems plausible, and does illuminate many specifics of John's argument (example: consider what John says about Cain and Abel in 3:11-15 with what Jesus tells the Jewish leaders in John 8:44-47).
One idiosyncrasy is that he takes John to be writing largely in opposition to Judaizers, just as Paul does in Galatians. So he correlates much of the "darkness and light" and "hating your brother" talk with those same themes in the Gospel of John, which are tied there to the oppositions of the Old and New Covenant and the synagogues' treatment of Jesus' disciples. This is definitely a minority position; most take John to be writing in opposition to some kind of proto-Gnosticism. But it seems plausible, and does illuminate many specifics of John's argument (example: consider what John says about Cain and Abel in 3:11-15 with what Jesus tells the Jewish leaders in John 8:44-47).
March 9, 2019
Yet another oddball commentary by Leithart, who again argues against well-established scholarship that the three epistles of John were written 1) by the same author as the gospel of John (they weren't), 2) that they were written by the same author as the book of Revelation (they weren't), 3) that the enemies in the gospel are not Christian gnostics but actually the Jews, and 4) that they were all written before Jerusalem's destruction in A. D. 70.
February 15, 2025
Read Everything by Peter Leithart!
Read as part of my dissertation research. As always, insightful and thought provoking. If you preach and/or teach through the epistles, be sure to have this at hand.
Read as part of my dissertation research. As always, insightful and thought provoking. If you preach and/or teach through the epistles, be sure to have this at hand.
November 3, 2016
Good, light commentary. Several places of strange connections and assertions that he makes (such as the children, young men, and fathers signify prophet, priest, and king). Overall, classic Leithart.
January 14, 2019
This commentary was very accessible and helpful. It was a great resource to go through as I finished up a study of the Epistles of John recently. Definitely recommended.
October 24, 2019
Informative
I enjoyed how the writer gave details about the scriptures that were given and cross reference scriptures. Would Highly Recommend
I enjoyed how the writer gave details about the scriptures that were given and cross reference scriptures. Would Highly Recommend
April 13, 2020
First commentary by Leithart and second in the TNE series. This series and Leithart’s insights have proven once again to be edifying to my soul.
March 18, 2021
This was really good. Very pastoral but still contains plenty of meaty exegesis.
April 6, 2022
I enjoyed Leithart’s commentary on Samuel more than John’s Letters, maybe his style and expertise lends more to narrative than epistles. Still, lots of great observations and commentary.
November 19, 2024
Excellent!
December 8, 2025
A refreshing contrast to Kruse, and with some good food for thought in terms of applying 1 John.
February 28, 2016
I am reading this in the flurry of my thoughts about regeneration.
John is THE new birth Apostle, and I was curious as to how Leithart would handle the text. I still have some questions that have to do with how the Spirit can leave the believer that has faith and about John 10, but Leithart handles 1 John well and explains how the "they went out from us, but they were not of us" can be taken as a description of false Apostles, perhaps more particularly from Jerusalem. He also argues that assurance is not "how we know that we are really saved" but how we have existential knowledge that we really are in the family of God. To me, this makes sense, because none of the things John brings up--obeying the commandments, loving the brethren, or loving God--are "irreversibles" that can assure us in the sense of "let us know that we will never apostatize." Saying that it is an assurance of our, so to speak, personal relationship with Jesus or the quality of our life as saved Christians makes a lot more sense. I still have questions and a syllogism, but textually speaking he passes this bar.
But enough on that, this book is probably the most devotional of Leithart's books and has some very profound lines. For example:
"We know that there is a parousia coming, an appearance of our Emperor from heaven, and that gives us confidence (parresia). Suppose it doesn't. Suppose the villain pulls the trigger of a LOADED gun. Suppose the rats can't get through the ropes fast enough. Suppose the cavalry went in the wrong direction or got slowed down. Supopse we get to the cross or the scaffold and no one comes along to rescue us. What then? Where is the triumph there? This is where the specific faith that John talks about comes into play, because he's talking about faith in Christ, the Son of God, who was not only eternally begotten by the Father but begotten from the dead by the power of the Spirit. Jesus didn't triumph by escaping death, by pulling himself down from the cross. He didn't gain victory by running away when the soldiers came to Gethsemane. His victory gained the victory by triumphing over death. He gained the victory by being the firstborn from the dead. ... This means that [our enemies] can't do ANYTHING to harm us. Nothing. They've not NO power over us. The world can do its worst, and they can't touch us. The world lies about us, but we know that Jesus is going to judge the world in the end and vindicate his people, stop the mouth of the accuser, reveal the truth. They can slaughter and kill, but eventually we'll come back, glorified, and even in history our death is the seed that goes into the ground and bears much fruit. They can stretch us out on the cross, but we have learned the secret of life--that the cross is the gateway to new life, that death will be swallowed up by victory, taht Jesus has turned the tomb into a womb. Whatever might look like defeat, death, failure--ISN'T. In Christ it never is, not forever, not for long. For this is the victory that gains victory over the world--our faith." (165-166).
Wish I could remember that more often.
John is THE new birth Apostle, and I was curious as to how Leithart would handle the text. I still have some questions that have to do with how the Spirit can leave the believer that has faith and about John 10, but Leithart handles 1 John well and explains how the "they went out from us, but they were not of us" can be taken as a description of false Apostles, perhaps more particularly from Jerusalem. He also argues that assurance is not "how we know that we are really saved" but how we have existential knowledge that we really are in the family of God. To me, this makes sense, because none of the things John brings up--obeying the commandments, loving the brethren, or loving God--are "irreversibles" that can assure us in the sense of "let us know that we will never apostatize." Saying that it is an assurance of our, so to speak, personal relationship with Jesus or the quality of our life as saved Christians makes a lot more sense. I still have questions and a syllogism, but textually speaking he passes this bar.
But enough on that, this book is probably the most devotional of Leithart's books and has some very profound lines. For example:
"We know that there is a parousia coming, an appearance of our Emperor from heaven, and that gives us confidence (parresia). Suppose it doesn't. Suppose the villain pulls the trigger of a LOADED gun. Suppose the rats can't get through the ropes fast enough. Suppose the cavalry went in the wrong direction or got slowed down. Supopse we get to the cross or the scaffold and no one comes along to rescue us. What then? Where is the triumph there? This is where the specific faith that John talks about comes into play, because he's talking about faith in Christ, the Son of God, who was not only eternally begotten by the Father but begotten from the dead by the power of the Spirit. Jesus didn't triumph by escaping death, by pulling himself down from the cross. He didn't gain victory by running away when the soldiers came to Gethsemane. His victory gained the victory by triumphing over death. He gained the victory by being the firstborn from the dead. ... This means that [our enemies] can't do ANYTHING to harm us. Nothing. They've not NO power over us. The world can do its worst, and they can't touch us. The world lies about us, but we know that Jesus is going to judge the world in the end and vindicate his people, stop the mouth of the accuser, reveal the truth. They can slaughter and kill, but eventually we'll come back, glorified, and even in history our death is the seed that goes into the ground and bears much fruit. They can stretch us out on the cross, but we have learned the secret of life--that the cross is the gateway to new life, that death will be swallowed up by victory, taht Jesus has turned the tomb into a womb. Whatever might look like defeat, death, failure--ISN'T. In Christ it never is, not forever, not for long. For this is the victory that gains victory over the world--our faith." (165-166).
Wish I could remember that more often.
May 18, 2010
As usual - Leithart brings to light what would otherwise remain in obscurity in the scriptures. With his ability to interpret scripture with scripture, and an uncommon sensitivity to how the ancient texts of the Bible are to be made relevant to today - From Behind the Veil is a tremendous resource.
What I particularly like is the way he first addresses textual, structural and linguistic analysis and then uses those insights in applying the text to our contemporary living.
What I particularly like is the way he first addresses textual, structural and linguistic analysis and then uses those insights in applying the text to our contemporary living.
May 6, 2014
My most thought provoking commentary on the Epistles of John. Rich Biblical Theological themes and connections were made on every chapter. Even when I disagreed with him, Leithart still made me think and think creatively. I love Raymond Brown for detailed Historical Critical analysis, but this book was a great commentary highlighting themes and structure. Must have and essential for preaching the Epistles of John.
May 1, 2010
A good on how to know the you are born again of God. First what you believe about Jesus and the second is your love for your brothers in Christ. To fail in one or the other is as John says is not to love God
March 18, 2014
Thoughtful commentary. Interesting to reflect on. Would be useful in a sermon series. Scholarship is incredibly selective. I love a good chiasm, but some of these are really whack, and not explicated at all. Others are fine. Overall, enjoyable read, but a wide roller-coaster.
February 9, 2021
Wonderful, eye-opening, deep, practical. This short study of John's epistles is essential for further development of biblical theology for the person in the pew, the student in seminary, or the pastor preparing his sermon.
July 30, 2010
Stellar exegesis. Great writing.
April 17, 2010
First rate either as a commentary or as devotional reading.
August 28, 2010
Took my adult Sunday School class through this book over the last six months. Excellent study!
December 17, 2011
This is an excellent introduction to the sometimes confusing epistles of John. It does come from an orthodox preterist perspective but it greatly benefited me when I preached through those books.
October 8, 2015
Very helpful commentary on John's epistles. Especially strong on a biblical understanding of propitiation.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews