In his commentary on the Johannine epistles, I. Howard Marshall notes A. Wurm’s thesis that John’s opponents were Jews. John’s opponents claim to know the Father, but deny Jesus is the Christ, a position that is certainly compatible with Judaism. Marshall dismisses Wurm’s . . . . Continue Reading »
Brown suggests that the structure of John’s gospel sets the pattern for the first epistle. His outline of the gospel is: A. Prologue, 1:1-18. B. Book of Signs, 1:19-12:50. C. Book of Glory, 13:1-20:29. D. Epilogue, ch. 21. And the first epistle: A. Prologue, 1:1-4. B. Part 1, 1:5-3:10 (God is . . . . Continue Reading »
Raymond Brown notes that a number of scholars have identified the adversaries of 1 John as “Jews who denied that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God.” He finds this implausible since it’s hard to see how Jews could be “looked on as people who placed little emphasis on . . . . Continue Reading »
The NT uses the Greek word aggelia twice, both in 1 John (1:5; 3:11). The noun comes from the same root as euaggelion , good news, and Raymond Brown suggests that aggelia is the Johannine equivalent - meaning “good news” or “gospel. If this is true, 1 John’s two uses are . . . . Continue Reading »
I suggested at the end of the last post that judaizing and gnosticizing heresies may not be so different. This opinion is supported by JB Lightfoot’s analysis of the letters of Ignatius, which condemn both docetic heretics and judaizing ones, and do so in a way that suggests Ignatius saw them . . . . Continue Reading »
1 John has sometimes been interpreted as a polemic against a Cerinthian heresy. This rests partly on patristic stories about John’s near-encounter with Cerinthus at a bathhouse, and it implies that the opponents in 1 John are proto-gnostics who teach a semidocetic christology. But patristic . . . . Continue Reading »
Within two verses, John accuses Diotrephes of refusing to “receive us” and refusing to “receive the brethren” (3 John 9-10). The first refers to an acknowledgement of authority; receiving “us,” the elder and his co-workers, would mean listening and obeying. The . . . . Continue Reading »
John commends Gaius not only for receiving traveling brothers but for sending them on their way “in a manner worthy of God” (3 John 6). What does this mean? Stott is certainly right to say that they are to be treated as servants of God. But John’s language is more richly . . . . Continue Reading »
In his third epistle, John commends Gaius for his hospitality to “brothers,” particularly for his hospitality to brothers who are “strangers.” This simple commendation marks a social revolution in ancient history. The revolution is not John’s commendation of . . . . Continue Reading »
INTRODUCTION John is a true apostolic pastor. His letters address the universal church (1 John), a particular congregation, the “chosen Lady” (2 John), and an individual Christian, Gaius (3 John). 3 John is full of names: Gaius (v. 1), Diotrephes (v. 9), Demetrius (v. 12). John is not . . . . Continue Reading »
Subscribe
Latest Issue
Support First Things
